Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 174 posts

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#51

Post by gnicholas »

sqrt17 wrote: post #5

How about: US citizens saved $34B by not having to stay in the highest COL areas? Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers?

The article was ambiguous about what the $34B was a measure of (income of the departing residents or the tax income generated by the income of the departing residents).

But the underlying paper makes it clear that it's the former. So it's not accurate to say "US citizens saved $34B...". That was their aggregate income, which is still subject to the same federal taxes no matter where in the US they moved. They would have saved on state and local taxes, depending on the rates of their new home jurisdictions.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#52

Post by yurielt »

vrperson wrote: post #23
jere wrote: post #15

>In Tribeca, a wealthy neighborhood in downtown Manhattan, residents who left this year earned an average income of about $140,000, Walle said. The typical person moving into the neighborhood earned an average $82,000, he said. I was going to ask if we might call this "de-gentrification" and if that's a good thing, right? I'm sitting here in disbelief after a quick search reveals that the actual average income is $87…

de-gentrification is a good thing if you don't like cupcakes and cafes and nice restaurants and nice shops.

ANd if you like payable rent non obnoxious hipsters and their shitty music, POC and people that have politics informed by more than buzzfeed

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#53

Post by criddell »

johnnyb9 wrote: post #21
Firebrand wrote: post #8

3.57 million people left New York City this year to live out their lives in comfort someplace else, and then 3.5 million people hungry for opportunity arrived to take their place. I hope to see similar results in San Francisco.

The top 1% of earners pay 40% of New York City's income tax. The real question is how will NYC cope with the decreased tax base.

Does it cost more per capita to run NYC than it does smaller cities like Austin?

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#55

Post by CydeWeys »

sqrt17 wrote: post #5

How about: US citizens saved $34B by not having to stay in the highest COL areas? Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers?

The average New Yorker has a mere one-third of the carbon emissions as the average American. This is really bad for the climate overall. Dense city living is very efficient; living in the suburbs and driving everywhere is not. NYC is the densest city we have.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#56

Post by foota »

criddell wrote: post #53
johnnyb9 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 1% of earners pay 40% of New York City's income tax. The real question is how will NYC cope with the decreased tax base.

Does it cost more per capita to run NYC than it does smaller cities like Austin?

Maybe not to run, but the capital investment is probably higher. As well as things like subways, which there isn't one of in Austin.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#57

Post by tqi »

ralusek wrote: post #24

There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave. If your system makes life worse for a certain group of people, you either need to prevent that group from leaving altogether, or ensure that there is no place that they can go to. If you iterate this to the logical conclusion…

> There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave.

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Whether people are in favor of or against local politics is mostly based on whether or not they share the same opinions as their local politicians. For example, look at the fight over California Emission standards. People just want to have things their way - everything else is just hot air and posturing.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#58

Post by wdb »

snissn wrote: post #9

i tried to negotiate being month to month at my manhattan apt at the same rate and my land lord wouldn't accommodate me. Now the apt has been unrented for a few months and they're asking for a 10% drop in rent and probably won't get it for a long long time. happily commenting from hawaii

Probably it's better to write it off as a loss than lower the rent

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#59

Post by stefan_ »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #38

Louis Rossman said it in many of his recent videos.... new york has everything, but also costs alot. You have cinemas, broadway, restaurants, everything.... and you pay for that privilige. Now, when all that is closed, you have only the "bad" parts (the homeless, crime, noise, bad smells... all that with a "premium price")... so, why stay? Poor people have no jobs, have to move out.... rich people don't have anything…

But you don't pay for these things. You pay for a class of ancient benefactors of one huge ponzi scheme.

Re: Fleeing New Yorkers resulted in an estimated $34B in lost income – study

#60

Post by jfengel »

jere wrote: post #15

>In Tribeca, a wealthy neighborhood in downtown Manhattan, residents who left this year earned an average income of about $140,000, Walle said. The typical person moving into the neighborhood earned an average $82,000, he said. I was going to ask if we might call this "de-gentrification" and if that's a good thing, right? I'm sitting here in disbelief after a quick search reveals that the actual average income is $87…

What you're calling de-gentrification isn't really the opposite of gentrification. Gentrification is the destruction of long-standing neighborhoods and the displacement of poor people, who may have no good place to go and lose their support structures. Often, those poor people rent their homes/apartments, and so they don't benefit from the increase in prices. Their rent just goes up until they have to leave.

Rich people fleeing doesn't bring them back. Whatever they suffered in displacement is just sunk. In the very long term it may form part of a new cycle of gentrification, but only after the neighborhood has lost a lot of its old value and is usually accompanied by the kinds of desperation that poverty causes.

So it's not a good thing -- though you're right that this study is so dubious that it may not even really be an issue.

Post reply on HN