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

131–140 of 174 posts

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

#131

Post by Grazester »

saiya-jin wrote: post #80
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…

Not that I disagree much, apart from one thing - that places like NY have 'everything'. If you like nature, mountains, adrenaline sports, weekend adventures without crazy commute, then NY has none. Irrelevant to some, but folks like me couldn't be bothered to even consider it even if my take home salary went 10x.

There is the entire Hudson Valley, Appalachian Trail and Adirondacks(as dashundchen pointed out). The Hudson Valley start less than 30 miles outside the city. People in NYC often rent Zipcars run out there for the day.

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

#132

Post by slindz »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #116
pc86 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I recall a comment suggesting financing terms can be impacted once a drop in rental rate is realized.

An apartment with an assumed rental value of $X can sit empty and still be assumed to pull $X.

As soon as they start renting it out for $Y, the financials might have to be re-evaluated, which might prompt extra collateral from the borrower.

I have no idea how reliable this comment may have been, but it's an idea...

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

#133

Post by edbob »

medium_burrito wrote: post #86
jokethrowaway wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Everything gives room for corruption and incompetence. The problem is the US has some of the most incompetent government on a local level in the developed world. Part of it is American individualism, part of it is the Republican party starving the beast, part of it is the government as a giant jobs program. There is no reason we cannot have competent civil servants, long term planning, clean cities, etc. I'm complete…

It's absurd to blame Republicans for the Democrats' failures and corruption. The Democrats have a nearly insurmountable demographic advantage that has been steadily building for decades. If they could pass as even semi-competent, they would absolutely wipe the floor with the Republicans. Their failure is theirs alone.

To expand on what abernard1 said, Democrats have had uninterrupted control of some major cities for 60-80 years. The fact that those cities have turned out so poorly can only be blamed on the Democratic politicians in those cities. They are corrupt in every way. As long as people excuse their failures with "But Republicans!", they will continue to get away with their corruption.

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

#134

Post by pc86 »

slindz wrote: post #132
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I recall a comment suggesting financing terms can be impacted once a drop in rental rate is realized. An apartment with an assumed rental value of $X can sit empty and still be assumed to pull $X. As soon as they start renting it out for $Y, the financials might have to be re-evaluated, which might prompt extra collateral from the borrower. I have no idea how reliable this comment may have been, but it's an idea...

This is what I had in mind but admittedly I'm not an accountant, lawyer, or landlord so I don't know for sure :)

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

#135

Post by vrperson »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #112
jfengel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless you are rich, then poor people are the problem.

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

#136

Post by CydeWeys »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #130
CydeWeys wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

My point is that I do not find it remarkable for that number to be higher than 25% during this period, nor would it be remarkable if more of that churn of people were moving in and out of the city rather than within. (you misrepresent what I said about that). So the article's reporting fits within my expectation - also noting that a net change of 70,000 people is very small. The voter rolls will significantly lag out…

Everything you're saying here is reasonable/plausible. But it's not at all what the linked article says; it says that there was 40% turn-over of people leaving and entering the city, which is absurd. The first sentence is literally "Millions of people have moved out of New York City during the pandemic, but at the same time, millions of others with lower incomes have taken their place". Not moved within the city, moved out of the city, and being replaced by other lower-income people. That is all completely made up and wrong.

I'm not misrepresenting you; rather, you're misrepresenting the article. The article is indefensibly wrong.

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

#137

Post by cbozeman »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #64
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 a…

> Don't you think it's exactly the high taxes that give space for corruption and incompetence?

No. We know what causes corruption - lack of oversight. Its why you see very little of it in the federal government, but that same oversight is also why federal projects are expensive. Everything must be documented and accounted for.

As far as incompetence in government, that's easy... smart people can't stand being constrained by rules designed by people that aren't as smart as they are, especially if those rules reduce productivity and stifle creative solutions.

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

#138

Post by cbozeman »

pen2l wrote: post #81
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…

Not knocking on you here, just really genuinely confused why you’d cite Louis Rossman of all people on earth for his thoughts on places to live. But maybe I’m not in on something here?

Because Louis lives in the city and rents commercial property for his business there?? And has lived there for a long time?

I mean, who better would you consult, that's pumping out YouTube videos about these problems?

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

#139

Post by cbozeman »

blackrock wrote: post #31

How will SpaceX’s Starlink increase the trend to work-from-home or do remote work? If you can develop software, or write your blog, from a remote island, at the edge of a (dormant) volcano (aka: extreme remoters), then why not? Or from any rural farmland area of the country. Just video call into your daily Zoom Standup Meeting. How’s the latency of it?

Its incredible... on a clear day 25-35 ms. Even on less-than-stellar weather days, 100-150 ms.

Data throughput is fantastic. 15-50 mbps upstream, 50-200 mbps downstream already.

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

#140

Post by bluedino »

ABCLAW wrote: post #113
bluedino wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Don’t forget fat cat pensions for government employees
Post reply on HN