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

111–120 of 174 posts

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

#111

Post by TuringNYC »

deeeeplearning wrote: post #97
TuringNYC wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC is costly, but not as costly as people think. The lifestyle is also different. 1. Most of my life in NY (pre children), we had no car, no car insurance, no parking, and rare taxis (and before our current mayor, subways worked very, very well, I rarely considered taxis.) 2. Property taxes are comparatively low to other states 3. Access to culture is widespread and cheaper than people think -- there are subsidized…

>NYC is costly, but not as costly as people think Oh come on, it's among the most expensive places to live in the world by almost any metric. Rent? Probably top 5 most expensive in the world. Groceries? Among the most expensive in the world. Restaurants? Among the most expensive in the world. This is bare necessities. It's not as if people in Raleigh are spending massive portions of their budget on "Culture" that som…

It is totally expensive, especially Rent. I'm just saying it isnt as expensive as you think in the big picture. Just across the border, all adults need cars. In NYC, you dont usually need a car (at least before the current subway crisis.)

Just across the border, you dont pay city income tax, but you pay absurd property tax.

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

#112

Post by ed25519FUUU »

jfengel wrote: post #60
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 peo…

So in summary no matter what rich people do, they're the problem.

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

#113

Post by ABCLAW »

bluedino wrote: post #41
ABCLAW wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers? I don't really think this is about sympathizing with rent-seekers. Cities invest in infrastructure to cover anticipated service delivery well before it's due, and the financing for doing so is a multi-decade affair. Before you complain, this includes things like providing running water, roads that are paved, etc. Really core essential pieces of making a city…

>> While the US is very young and doesn't have many large examples of this, Flint and Detroit come to mind. You mean “most of the rust belt”

Kinda. The decay of communities is one thing, but the death spiral associated with municipal infrastructure projects and tax bases is another. A small town might invest in a bioreactor to reclaim solids for resale from their wastewater service at a cost of 5 million dollars, but that'll pale in comparison with the construction of multiple new subway extensions at a price in the billions.

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

#114

Post by throwaway201103 »

raverbashing wrote: post #42
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

Real estate, being a straightforward investment attracts those who couldn't be making more money at pretty much any other type of investment. Hence you get the most clueless people managing the properties.

Putting your money in an index fund will probably make more money than the average real estate investment.

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

#115

Post by ajsnigrutin »

deeeeplearning wrote: post #104
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+ proposed $3 tax for every package ordered :) ..because you can't buy anything "non essential" locally, because everything is closed... https://abc7ny.com/package-surcharge-nyc-extra-fee-for-deliv...

Not that this helps costs in NY but really how many packages would you need to order in a year for this to make a significant dent in your budget?

That adds 30% of the costs to a pack of cheap socks from amazon. That's a lot.

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

#116

Post by ed25519FUUU »

pc86 wrote: post #85
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The landlord's paying for the building no matter what, so it's possible that depending on how it's leveraged and their income overall, they'd rather lose money and get a reduction in taxable income than break even with lowered rent.

I don't see any kind of mathematical gymnastics that has landlords making more money on vacancies.

Any tax they'd save would be a fraction what would otherwise be revenue. Besides, real-estate investors attempt to keep their costs (interest, depreciation, etc) all very close to their revenue, not the other way around. Less revenue is simply less of a chance to deduct expenses (not to mention less money for them).

The only way I think it makes sense is if they're sure they're going to be able to rent it for more if they hold out in a way that would make up for the short term loss.

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

#117

Post by CydeWeys »

pc86 wrote: post #89
CydeWeys wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I might be misunderstanding you, but doesn't lease signings being down support the argument that a large subset of NYC residents have left?

New lease signings, not renewals. Most NYC residents live in their apartment for a lot longer than one year. If 40% of leases had truly turned over then we would be at record highs in new lease signings. But we're not; they're down. That indicates reduced turn-over if anything, plus also some net emigration (but nothing close to these double digit figures).

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

#118

Post by roganartu »

pc86 wrote: post #89
CydeWeys wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I might be misunderstanding you, but doesn't lease signings being down support the argument that a large subset of NYC residents have left?

I admittedly have not looked at the data, but I would have a _very_ hard time believing that the total population of NYC is down 40% based on what I see outside my window and while moving around the city (eg to the go the gym etc). The city feels a little quieter than it normally is, but certainly not the ghost town that a 40% population reduction would be.

It follows from that observation that, if 40% of the population did indeed leave, that they would have to have been replaced by people moving into the city. New lease signings being down suggests this is not the case.

As an anecdote, about 10% of the apartments in my building that I can see out my window are empty (normally ~1-2% are at any given time). The buildings across the street (which are mostly owner-occupied) are all still occupied.

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

#119

Post by CydeWeys »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #83
CydeWeys wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Go look at the voter rolls I used to do this, and can report the area of London that I lived in turned over 25% of its (voting) residents in a typical 12 month period: that is, before coronavirus time ! They may have relocated within London, of course. I assume that New York City is comparable in this respect. Further assumptions: People not vote-registered are likely to turn over even quicker than that. People who…

You need to look further into the voter rolls and actually correlate voters by identity. 25% moving within the city every year doesn't count; the linked article is talking about "Fleeing New Yorkers", not "New Yorkers moving between neighborhoods" (which is commonplace, unremarkable, and doesn't affect NYC's tax revenue in any way).

What we care about here is people that actually moved out of the city entirely, or that moved into the city entirely from elsewhere, not typical movement within the city. If the article is including normal movement within the city in its 40% figure then it's being extremely misleading.

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

#120

Post by CydeWeys »

pc86 wrote: post #75
CydeWeys wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure there are enough NYers for this to noticeably impact the carbon emissions of the eastern seaboard, let alone the world as a whole.

And yet you add up lots of small numbers and they end up turning into a big number that destroys the planet, so the small numbers do matter too. It's the total annual carbon emission that determines the fate of our planet, and this kind of pattern of people switching to higher-carbon lifestyles is bad, especially since the pattern isn't exclusively happening to NYC but broadly to lots of cities. Add up all the cities it's happening to and it absolutely does impact the carbon emissions of the planet.
Post reply on HN