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

61–70 of 174 posts

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

#61

Post by kepler1 »

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…

Even worse for San Francisco. Basically just "restaurants" and an easy getaway to outdoors. And worse on all the other fronts as well (crime, homeless, cost of living, etc).

How well a city takes care of these issues in the good times and has rational/sensible policies sets it up for how it will do in bad times.

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

#62

Post by mikestew »

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…

I'm sitting here in disbelief after a quick search reveals that the actual average income is $879,000.

I don't live anywhere near NYC, and probably haven't visited more than a half dozen times, and even I know that $140K/year isn't getting you into Tribeca these days (granted, I occasionally glance at the NYT real estate section). I would expect someone covering that beat to be able to do that gut-check and, I dunno, maybe double-check those numbers.

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

#64

Post by jokethrowaway »

Merman_Mike wrote: post #26

I permanently left NYC this year. The combination of high taxes, corruption, and incompetence really wear on you after a while. I'm all for high taxes in service of a strong social safety net and a well-run, modern city. I am happy to pay them. But I can't help but feel that my taxes were being outright stolen and squandered in this city.

That's an interesting point of view Don't you think it's exactly the high taxes that give space for corruption and incompetence?

Once you accumulate a large pool of money (especially if it's someone else money), the larger the pool, the easier it is to waste it.

We see it with governments, big tech companies, VC funded startups, even when pooling money for a road trip with friends.

I think the enemy is human nature and centralisation, not specific malicious individuals

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

#65

Post by alliao »

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

how'd you compare with your cost of living overall?

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

#66

Post by CydeWeys »

ruddct wrote: post #48

> About 3.57 million people left New York City this year between Jan. 1 and Dec. 7, according to Unacast, which analyzed anonymized cell phone location data. Some 3.5 million people earning lower average incomes moved into the city during that same period, the report showed. Uhhh I'd take this with a HEAVY grain of salt, given that it's based off of anonymized cell phone location data. Were this true, 40% of NYC's po…

It's absolute nonsense from my anecdotal experience here in NYC as well. I don't even see how it's remotely possible for a full 40% of NYC's population to have turned over in the span of 9 months. New lease signings are down, not up many hundreds of percentage points! Every single thing that would have to be true for this to be true as well, isn't. It's bad methodology from one company trying to get its name in the news and then a media outlet running an uncritical article using this as fact.

We just had an election. Go look at the voter rolls and who actually voted, and for the absentee ballots, where the absentee ballots were sent. There's no way in hell 40% of the voter rolls have turned over since the last time we held an election. The data is out there to easily disprove this ridiculous notion.

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

#67

Post by oh_sigh »

j2bax wrote: post #10
economusty wrote: post #4

Remember which political party runs the city.

While we are at it, lets remember which political party runs the areas that are most dependent on the government. Source: https://wallethub.com/edu/most-independent-states/36426#main...

That doesn't control for who benefits from the money spent. For example, Alaska is billed for the early warning and radar systems to detect Russian ICBMs, but Alaskans don't really benefit from it because Russia would never bomb Alaska, and most of the jobs go to people shipped in from the lower 48 states, not Alaskans.

Likewise, Nebraskan farmers look like they're on the dole with the corn subsidies, but the other 49 states benefit from lower and stable corn prices, so it isn't clear why Nebraska would get all the costs accounted to them when everyone benefits from it.

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

#68

Post by ed25519FUUU »

wdb wrote: post #58
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

The absence of income is not a "loss", certainly not a taxable one. This is not how landlords make money.

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

#69

Post by thebean11 »

wdb wrote: post #58
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

Why?

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

#70

Post by blackrock »

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…

> residents who left this year earned an average income of about $140,000

Averages tend to mask the true reality.

If a corporate executive makes $10 million dollars a year. And the next 100 people makes $100,000 a year. Then the total is $20 million dollars.

When you divide this by 101, you get an average of $198,000. Which is nearly double what the normal person in this example earns.

The better metric is to use the median salary. Which in this example is $100,000. And the executive’s salary is the outlier.

Then again, most executives are paid in tax deferred stock options. And they cash out for a pot of gold after a few years. So this distorts any estimates of general income and wealth of the population.

Post reply on HN