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

The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

osc.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 391 posts

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#251

Post by ghaff »

giantg2 wrote: post #218
alex_lav wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to see these bickerings still happening. It was a no-win situation. Trying to save lives inflicted measurable harm. Doing nothing would also inflict measurable harm. Either side presenting their position as the "correct" position is just biased. I would also assert that tying your faith in humanity to an unwinnable situation is probably not the correct move, but YMMV.

Perhaps the problem they have is that one was not allowed to choose which measurable harm was acceptable to themselves in the no-win situation.

That doesn't work in a lot of cases though. It's the RTO/WFH struggle. If teachers decide they don't want to be in a classroom, sending your kid in isn't very practical. Or is it only parents who get a choice?

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#252

Post by sickofparadox »

r2_pilot wrote: post #239
Racing0461 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you are going to call bullshit on something, feel free to cite your source. However, regardless of what you think you're talking to, this source suggests that your claim of bullshit is bullshit. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

This "scientific article" isn't worth the bits on the hard drive its written on. It uses simple propaganda techniques to manipulate CDC data to give the desired answer. Firstly it only measures up through 2020, even though well before the time of publishing more data was available, why is that? It is to do the number crunching as close to the bottom of the Covid lockdown curve for car accidents (more WFH/distance learning = less car accidents). Except, that alone doesn't give the desired result, so they have to change what the definition of what a child is to include 18 and 19 year old adults, but that STILL isn't enough, so they need to exclude 0 - 1 year old children. I would be ashamed to have that attached to my name, let alone have it published in a journal of medicine.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#253

Post by Projectiboga »

Racing0461 wrote: post #101
Projectiboga wrote: post #49

I think it's just less 'taxpayers'. I suspect there are numerous 'digital nomads' coming and going. The middle class is fleeing, and retail vacancies are expanding.

You are being downvoted but i also wonder what is the demographics of the people that are moving out.

I'm biased as I live in midtown east of NYC, so I see lots of turnover with rich foreigners and itinerate people floating through. But our losses are mostly the middle and lower middle class with ever more housing being owned by the rarely here cohort. https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of-living-nyc-millionai... Before the pandemic the area between Lexington,& 5th aves 30th to 72, maybe 79, had an daily vacancy rate of 80%. I suspect that has increased This means on average, including full time residents, most flats sit above 4 out of 5 days empty. I live two blocks from this and see it. We are only crowded Sept, Oct and a couple of months in the spring, centered around the UN schedule and things like Fashion Week.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#255

Post by steveBK123 »

mattzito wrote: post #233
busterarm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reported crimes. Keep in mind NYPD had its budget cut by billions of dollars and lost record numbers of officers over the same period. Part of accurate crime statistics is actually finding an officer to report a crime to and then them giving you the time of day. And that's if you haven't given up on the city already and aren't "mindin' yo own business". I lived in NYC from 1984 through 2021 and I can tell you unequiv…

Eh, I've lived here since 98, the biggest thing I've seen is the rise in shoplifting, that's definitely a dynamic that's different than it was in previous years, and that is no doubt driven by the ability to sell these goods easily on facebook and other places (it wasn't worth your time to shoplift hairbrushes because where would you sell them and for how much, but there's a guy who steals hairbrushes from my local D…

> violent crime, its going back down and is nowhere near what it was like even back in 2000 in the same neighborhood I live in now

Curious though if you actually lived in that neighborhood your whole 25? years in NYC?

I think personally my experience is that while city-wide crime might be similar to when I moved here nearly 20 years ago, I do not live in the same area. For example I had 2 mentors that started a decade before me. The "up and coming" areas they lived in their 20s were BK Heights & East Village (not alphabet city). The equivalent "up and coming" 20 something who I mentor is probably in Bushwick.

Bushwick 2023 is certainly grittier than Brooklyn Heights was in 2000.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#256

Post by giantg2 »

ghaff wrote: post #251
giantg2 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the problem they have is that one was not allowed to choose which measurable harm was acceptable to themselves in the no-win situation.

That doesn't work in a lot of cases though. It's the RTO/WFH struggle. If teachers decide they don't want to be in a classroom, sending your kid in isn't very practical. Or is it only parents who get a choice?

Ideally you would reshuffle - people who lost jobs in some areas and were qualified to be teachers could teach in person; teachers could take remote teaching jobs for the kids that wanted/needed a cyber school. Nothing is perfect, but some choice is better than none.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#257

Post by local_crmdgeon »

GordonS wrote: post #212
throwitaway222 wrote: post #7

Where did they move? (FL?)

What's the big draw with Florida?

Politics. Everyone I know who moved from NYC to Florida did so because they were sick of the politics, and wanted to live in a red state with NYC-ish amenities. Miami is absolutely that.

For most though, it's about housing cost - those move to Jersey or MAYBE LI. That's a larger group, too.

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#258

Post by shortrounddev2 »

phailhaus wrote: post #30
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And new york decides the best way to solve this problem is to irrationally ban short term rentals rather than just building more housing

If you don't ban short-term rentals and just build housing, how does that fix the problem? People will buy it up and just put it on AirBnB.

Then you build even more. Banning short term rentals just makes hotels more insanely expensive than they already are (cheap hotels simply do not exist in Manhattan; there are none).

AirBnB satisfies one kind of demand: short term stays. Building more apartments and other housing satisfies another kind of demand. You keep building until you satisfy the demand of both

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#259

Post by mtalantikite »

dfxm12 wrote: post #158
mtalantikite wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...the topic of conversation among locals, both locals who knew each other and locals who just met one another, was about where they're living, how much their rent is, what kind of battle they had to go through to get the place ... New Yorkers have been doing this for decades upon decades. When I moved here in the early 2000s I thought it was weird too, but it's totally normal to ask those sorts of questions of each…

It's been the storyline of many sitcoms at least going back to at least the 90s set in Manhattan. The Andrea Doria episode of Seinfeld immediately comes to mind...

"It was quite a fire"

Re: The changing face of post-pandemic New York City

#260

Post by parineum »

abathur wrote: post #219
parineum wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> covid spread through kids like wildfire, often via asymptomatic infections which then spread to, and killed, elderly who just wanted to see their grandkids. If only there was a way we could stop the elderly from contracting covid from their grandkids that didn't involve isolating children from social interaction and learning at the most crucial periods of their development. I have an idea, maybe the people most at…

There are at least hundreds of thousands of teachers in high-risk age groups. I can't imagine any solutions to this logistical problem that wouldn't also significantly affect learning outcomes.

> I can't imagine any solutions to this logistical problem that wouldn't also significantly affect learning outcomes.

Okay, what's the least harmful? It seems obvious to me the easiest solution (blanket ban of in person schooling) was chosen rather than trying to minimize harm.

Just off the cuff, regarding high risk teachers, why not have _them_ work remote with an in class, lower risk, TA to handle the physical interaction required?

I can't say I have all of the solutions or even a good suggestion but I can say that, after the initial closing of schools when there was very little information, once the risk factors became much more apparent, there was a minimal amount of rethinking of policy because everyone had already taken ideological stances when there was only ideology to make decisions with. That extends well beyonds schools as well but schools and retirement homes are essentially the opposite ends of the spectrum of risk and seemed to, at best, have the same solutions applied to them.

Post reply on HN