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

161–170 of 174 posts

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

#161

Post by PhantomGremlin »

crusso wrote: post #159
tptacek wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of truth in that, but it's not strictly true. The Obama DOJ pursued and enforced consent decrees over a bunch of local police departments; the incoming Republican DOJ announced that they were backing away from them. Certainly, national politics has some influence over local policing. But I'm mostly with you. I'm kind of dumbfounded by how much attention gets paid to national/federal policing policy, whe…

There's a lot of truth in that, but it's not strictly true. And yet, rayiner's comment appeared faded-out from down-voting when I came upon it. And that's the real problem. He had truth and thoughtfulness in his comment (yeah, you can quibble about federal attempts to override local policy), yet even a smart group of people like regular HN users tribalistically downvoted it. Rayiner sinned by making a coherent argume…

I stole this from somewhere, don't remember where. It's a pithy observation about HN:

HN is open minded about intellectual inquiry as long as that inquiry doesn't challenge anything an average Californian already believes

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

#162

Post by CydeWeys »

hiyer wrote: post #141
raverbashing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I concur. Here in India I had once finalized an apartment for rent for around Rs. 35000/month. The landlord bailed at the last moment because an agent found him another tenant willing to pay Rs. 2000 more/month. However: 1. I had approached the landlord directly since his previous tenant had been a friend of mine. So there was no agent fee (one month rent) to be paid. 2. The other tenant moved in almost a month after…

I have a similar story from buying a house almost a decade ago. My final firm offer was $350k, and the flipper/seller went with another offer that was only $5k more. Only problem was, my offer was bulletproof (I had the full amount of the down payment in cash at hand plus a pre-approved loan offer) and the other offer was not. You can see where this is going: The other buyer couldn't actually come up with the money and didn't get approved for a loan, and then I ended up buying the house for the original $350k several months later, after the flipper had lost a lot more than $5k in all the added actual costs and opportunity costs of holding onto that house for several more months and trying to close on it twice.

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

#163

Post by CydeWeys »

jere wrote: post #158
compsciphd wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

invest 1 million in a building, raise its value to 2 million. sell building for 2 million. buy another building for 2 million. 0 taxes paid on growth. and new basis is 2 million.

Don't you pay capital gains on real estate sales? It's something they remind you of everytime you sell a house.

You do. The real tricks around real estate involve depreciation, not selling. You don't sell, you just keep adding properties to your portfolio with your profits to increase your total deduction from depreciation and loan interest, and that way you never end up showing a paper profit even though the total value of your holdings is going up radically over time.

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

#164

Post by CydeWeys »

jfengel wrote: post #160
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. Every time rich people displace poor people, it's a problem. There are a lot of things that rich people can do besides displace poor people. Maybe you can think of some.

Unfortunately we have zoned our cities such that we can no longer build enough housing to accommodate everyone. The pain of that will always fall the most on those who have the least to pay.

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

#165

Post by CydeWeys »

momokoko wrote: post #100
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 sincerely want to know who can afford to live in Tribeca on $140k per year. Let alone $84k. I wouldn’t put too much weight into this data.

A lot of these people living there have been there for decades. You absolutely could not easily afford to move there today making only that much, but that's different. We're talking long-term existing residents with locked in rent controlled rates and/or coop owners who bought decades ago when it was still relatively affordable.

And yes, all of the "data" in the linked article is complete garbage. Don't take any of it as fact.

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

#166

Post by deeeeplearning »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #143
deeeeplearning wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

would have increased the price I paid at amazon by 10% last year. So that's not a significant dent but on the other hand that's obscene.

An average customer at Amazon apparently buys $600 worth of goods from them in a year so if they got 20 packages then yes this would be a 10% increase. However I for example probably get 2 packages from them a month and a $6 monthly increase hardly seems important, if I leave a light on in my house for too long the increase in my electricity bill probably eclipses that. Depends on point of view I guess.

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

#167

Post by wavefunction »

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.

Too bad people can't make cupcakes for themselves.

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

#168

Post by momokoko »

CydeWeys wrote: post #165
momokoko wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely want to know who can afford to live in Tribeca on $140k per year. Let alone $84k. I wouldn’t put too much weight into this data.

A lot of these people living there have been there for decades. You absolutely could not easily afford to move there today making only that much, but that's different. We're talking long-term existing residents with locked in rent controlled rates and/or coop owners who bought decades ago when it was still relatively affordable. And yes, all of the "data" in the linked article is complete garbage. Don't take any of i…

According to this report the income of people just now moving in was $84k which as you mentioned is wildly incorrect.

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

#169

Post by RickJWagner »

I've seen articles that show Detroit in it's heyday, bustling and prosperous. Today it's much different, of course.

Some say New York, San Francisco and others will bounce right back. I'm not so sure, it just does not sound appealing. I took a vacation to New York a few years back, and I've been to California many times. Right now I have no desire to go to either.

I think they'd better be planning a massive PR campaign.

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

#170

Post by RickJWagner »

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…

Sorry, you can't blame Republicans for mis-managed cities run by Democrats.

Detroit? NYC? San Francisco? etc. Democrats bring some good, Republicans do too. But Democrats must own the failures in the cities they dominate.

Post reply on HN