▲ 87 points
back
164 comments
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
Wow, good for you, that is awesome.
how'd you compare with your cost of living overall?
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.
Probably it's better to write it off as a loss than lower the rent
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
> 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 population has turned over in the past year, which feels like absolute nonsense from anecdotal experience.
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.
>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 $879,000. So now I'm thinking those numbers above don't mean much of anything.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tribeca-new-york-city-riches...
> 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.
Mean is not the same as median. Billionaires drag the mean average up but not the median average. Most people in that area are not earning almost 1 million even though it is pricey.
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.
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 people fleeing doesn't bring them back. Whatever they suffered in displacement is just sunk. In the very long term it may form part of a new cycle of gentrification, but only after the neighborhood has lost a lot of its old value and is usually accompanied by the kinds of desperation that poverty causes.
So it's not a good thing -- though you're right that this study is so dubious that it may not even really be an issue.
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.
de-gentrification is a good thing if you don't like cupcakes and cafes and nice restaurants and nice shops.
Or in context, they estimate NYC lost a net 0.8% of its residents and the average income of the incoming and outgoing cohorts differ by -$8,055/y. It multiplies to a big dollar figure because NYC is big and rich.
The original content marketing: https://global-uploads.webflow.com/5dc3e2af6a906d9cc232e1bc/...
It explains that they're extrapolating from three NYC neighborhoods (Astoria, Tribeca, and Williamsburg). I'm not an NYC expert and I'm not going to research these claims further, but I think those are quite well-off neighborhoods and not likely representative of NYC in terms of income or pandemic mobility.
This article feels like Reuters lightly rewrote an ad for Unacast.
Yes. A net 0.8% of residents leaving in a year is believable. An astounding 40% of the city's population leaving, and then another 40% entering the city, which is an order of magnitude higher than any turn-over the city has ever experienced, is clearly not believable. That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and they have not remotely provided it. Indeed I suspect this claim will be very easy to disprove by looking at voter rolls, tax rolls, jury pool rolls, DMV rolls, etc.
> It explains that they're extrapolating from three NYC neighborhoods (Astoria, Tribeca, and Williamsburg).
Wow. This is garbage-tier methodology that doesn't remotely deserve anyone paying attention to the "results". Talk about sampling bias galore.
I've been seeing more of these types of stories with a line like this:
> 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.
Sorry, but I don't really trust the "anonymized" very much. Why should some company I've never heard of have access to my cell phone location data in the first place.
Your cell phone company sells it to whoever wants it.
It is anonymized in the sense that they can't write your name into a search feature and find your location history.
However, they could likely ask to buy the all data for "57 years old males born in february with a history of calling to Alaska every 5 days" and single you out.
> Sorry, but I don't really trust the "anonymized" very much. Why should some company I've never heard of have access to my cell phone location data in the first place.
Not sure how the second follows from the first. There is a company you've never heard of which access to your cell phone location data. In fact, hundreds, and they buy and sell them in commodity marketplaces just like corn or pork bellies. They sell the data with your name attached for one price, and as anonymized aggregates for a much lower price.
Unacast is just saying that they bought the cheaper anonymized version for the purpose of this analysis. Whether the data are real or not is another matter altogether.
> Sorry, but I don't really trust the "anonymized" very much. Why should some company I've never heard of have access to my cell phone location data in the first place.
If you don't have location services turned off on your phone, chances are they have access to it because you gave it to them (via an app), or gave it to someone who gave it to them.
The fact that you don't like it, does not mean that there are not people with access to IMEI numbers. Actually, it would be weird if there wasn't since it could be useful for research like this.
So why do you not trust it? You're only explaining how you disagree.
I think, this highlights a bigger problem. You can very roughly split people's mindsets into 2 groups:
* Long-termers. They don't mind delayed gratification. They like planning and saving for the future. Most have complex multi-year degrees or have business experience. They are generally happy with life and want to teach their ways to their kids. What they want from the political environment is a clear set of rules (e.g. taxes, laws backed by a truly independent court system) with minimum interference in their lives.
* Short-termers. They prefer instant gratification. They gather credit card debts on impulsive purchases. They live here and now don't want the headache of long-term planning. They are usually less happy with life and expect politicians to appeal to their emotions. Recognize them through identity gestures, say great words, show attention.
Long-termers tend to earn more, except something in our society changed, and they are quickly becoming a dying breed. So many new social policies, especially in high-density areas, are targeting short-termers and blaming long-termers for inequity. Quite predictably, they are leaving these areas, driving the median income lower.
But, what's even more alarming, the same trend is happening all over the West - the middle class of happy independent thinkers satisfied with life, is vanishing, replaced by unhappy low-earners driven by divisive tribal instincts.
I think you have it backwards: Circumstances drive mindset, to large degree.
If I have a comfortable middle class job, and the assurance of keeping it for a long time, knowing I won't be laid off to pad 3rd quarter results, or forced to train my offshored replacement, yeah, I'll be much happier and satisfied with life.
The mindset change you describe is the direct result of a shrinking class and a generation of entrants to workforce with no expectations of permanence from the employer, and big expectations of being automated out of a job. It's hard to think long term when this is your life.
3.57 million people left New York City this year to live out their lives in comfort someplace else, and then 3.5 million people hungry for opportunity arrived to take their place. I hope to see similar results in San Francisco.
There's no way this is correct. I live in NYC and this would represent a turn-over of nearly half of our population. It's simply not true. The study is wrong:
> 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.
Questionable methodology that clearly yielded incorrect results.
The top 1% of earners pay 40% of New York City's income tax. The real question is how will NYC cope with the decreased tax base.
Theres not an infinite amount of rich and successful people 1% of NYC population pays 50% of taxes. These people aren't replaceable.
Speaking as someone who lives in a small city, if I weren't tied to my current location and could move to NYC or SF at a non-astronomical rent, I'd jump at the chance.
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 to do there, and move out because they can.
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 tickets for students, etc. Museums are plentiful and often free. Libraries are literally everywhere.
4. Access to jobs is great and you dont crush your soul with hour-long drives. And when you lose/change your job, your next job is also often in the city center, so you dont have to move homes.
I live in DC suburbs now and we have one car. It is hard getting places w/o a car and the train system is good but does not cover as much of the metro as one wishes, and there are last mile issues. Property taxes are way, way higher both both homes and other property (e.g., $800/yr on my Kia minivan), but there isnt a city income tax.
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.
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.
The "lost income" is more than 485000 USD per person?
About 3.57 million people left New York City this year between Jan. 1 and Dec. 7 ... Some 3.5 million people earning lower average incomes moved into the city during that same period, the report showed.
[...]
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.
Another case of lower income groups responding strongly to financial incentives and higher income groups responding to quality of life incentives. Lower income renters see a discount to be had, higher income renters see an opportunity to get higher quality housing with more space.
There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave.
If your system makes life worse for a certain group of people, you either need to prevent that group from leaving altogether, or ensure that there is no place that they can go to. If you iterate this to the logical conclusion, you end up with something like "globalism."
In this particular case, this is mostly to do with not wanting to live in places with strict lockdown policies, high rates of homelessness and criminality, while simultaneously paying much more in taxes and living expenses, and seeing few of the benefits of being in an urban hub while doing it.
But my point stands: don't forget how quickly people will be willing to upend their lives at the very moment their existence is sufficiently worse than it would be elsewhere. And when you target the wealthy, you target the people most capable of moving anywhere else.
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?
Hey, in almost all states (there are exceptions), car insurance is mandatory in terms of LIABILITY (civil liability), that is, if a stranger is injured by us. The amount of coverage required varies from state to state. For example, in California, this amounts to up to $ 15,000 bodily injury for one victim and up to $ 30,000 for more than one. In addition, liability for damage to someone else's property is provided - $ 5,000. All this is calculated per exident. Fractional notation is commonly used to express coverage dimensions. More here https://www.americaninsurance.com/if-my-car-registration-exp...
I haven't been to my office in the city center since March and it feels so much better to be spending my money on local businesses in my area than it does in a lot of the faceless corporate businesses in the city.
I've lived in this area for almost 3 years and feel far more connected to my area because of COVID.
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.
The most eye-raising part of this data to me is that 3.5 million people apparently decided 2020 was the perfect year to move to New York. Even if I thought NYC was the place I wanted to live more than anywhere else, I would still heavily consider delaying that move in light of the current health and economic situation. The information on who those people are would be interesting to me.
How about: US citizens saved $34B by not having to stay in the highest COL areas?
Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers?
That's a pretty slow start, Hopefully it will ramp up quickly.