The changing face of post-pandemic New York City(osc.ny.gov)
osc.ny.gov
The changing face of post-pandemic New York City
https://www.osc.ny.gov/press/releases/2023/12/changing-face-post-pandemic-new-york-city
385 comments
Cities are amazingly resilient and it feels like every generation has a moment in which the city largest and most local to them is having a revival. Seems most large metros are going through some post-COVID pains: Increase in crime, extreme high cost of living, etc.
New York will, like always, come back.
But! The benefit to our mid size cities is great. We need these mid size cities to grow, and from my understanding, they have! Larger mid size cities mean a better national network for travel, more opportunities for jobs, growth, and movement of people/families. I'm here for all that.
New York will, like always, come back.
But! The benefit to our mid size cities is great. We need these mid size cities to grow, and from my understanding, they have! Larger mid size cities mean a better national network for travel, more opportunities for jobs, growth, and movement of people/families. I'm here for all that.
The "resilience" argument was misused and misapplied during the pandemic. You also saw it used for school closures -- "kids are resilient". It seems to justify inflicting known harms by having faith in "resilience".
covid spread through kids like wildfire, often via asymptomatic infections which then spread to, and killed, elderly who just wanted to see their grandkids.
The amount of pushback these measures got, when we were literally just trying to save lives and prevent disability through long covid absolutely staggers the mind and erodes my faith in humanity.
The amount of pushback these measures got, when we were literally just trying to save lives and prevent disability through long covid absolutely staggers the mind and erodes my faith in humanity.
> The amount of pushback these measures got, when we were literally just trying to save lives and prevent disability through long covid absolutely staggers the mind and erodes my faith in humanity.
Or you could reasonably conclude that the policies enacted during COVID are yet another example of how we prioritize the elderly over children in the United States, arguably because children don't vote and the elderly do.
We sacrificed the educational, emotional, and psychological development of children during the pandemic to help 90 year olds live to 91. Was this the right thing to do? I don't believe there's a clear answer to that - it's a tradeoff and one that many people felt was not worth it. That doesn't make them bad or selfish, they're just on the opposite side of very difficult question with no clear answer.
Or you could reasonably conclude that the policies enacted during COVID are yet another example of how we prioritize the elderly over children in the United States, arguably because children don't vote and the elderly do.
We sacrificed the educational, emotional, and psychological development of children during the pandemic to help 90 year olds live to 91. Was this the right thing to do? I don't believe there's a clear answer to that - it's a tradeoff and one that many people felt was not worth it. That doesn't make them bad or selfish, they're just on the opposite side of very difficult question with no clear answer.
It wasn't just the elderly. Pretty much anyone over 50 was at higher risk.
I'll point out again, covid killed over 1 million people in the US alone. That doesn't even account for the ~ 10% of infected who got stuck with the lingering effects of long covid.
Yeah, we asked kids to attend school remotely from home. Some didn't have parents that kept them on task, and suffered. The pandemic was hard on everyone, but even in places that didn't lock down, loved ones getting sick and dying takes a toil. I felt like I was rolling the dice every time I visited my grandmother.
I'll point out again, covid killed over 1 million people in the US alone. That doesn't even account for the ~ 10% of infected who got stuck with the lingering effects of long covid.
Yeah, we asked kids to attend school remotely from home. Some didn't have parents that kept them on task, and suffered. The pandemic was hard on everyone, but even in places that didn't lock down, loved ones getting sick and dying takes a toil. I felt like I was rolling the dice every time I visited my grandmother.
My child's classmate has a mother who has only one lung, and that one lung is barely functional. If she catches COVID, she will certainly be in the ICU. As a class, we all worried about her mother during the entire pandemic.
So we should paralyze a generation? You work to keep the mother safe. You don't sacrifice the well-being of children and whoever else at the altar of her well-being.
The same goes for the elderly. You don't lock down the world to keep them safe (which in NY was a disaster under Cuomo anyway). You take measures to secure their well-being without paralyzing everyone else. And FWIW, there are plenty in that age group who would rather risk COVID to see their grandchildren than live out their remaining years in isolation.
If anything is irrational, it's the ridiculous priorities that were imposed by the lockdown.
The same goes for the elderly. You don't lock down the world to keep them safe (which in NY was a disaster under Cuomo anyway). You take measures to secure their well-being without paralyzing everyone else. And FWIW, there are plenty in that age group who would rather risk COVID to see their grandchildren than live out their remaining years in isolation.
If anything is irrational, it's the ridiculous priorities that were imposed by the lockdown.
I think you're letting a bit of emotion get in the way of logic, take a step back and just breath for a second.
Given the information we had at the time, and how violent the virus was ripping through communities it was the best, worst choice we had at the time. Sure it meant you didn't get to go to your social functions or parties you craved, but we kept the curve down and allowed medical facilities and practitioners brace for the infection wave.
It wasn't irrational at all, and if you found wearing a mask a "ridiculous priority" you were part of the problem. Sometimes someone higher up than you needs to impose a restriction or law to protect others.
Given the information we had at the time, and how violent the virus was ripping through communities it was the best, worst choice we had at the time. Sure it meant you didn't get to go to your social functions or parties you craved, but we kept the curve down and allowed medical facilities and practitioners brace for the infection wave.
It wasn't irrational at all, and if you found wearing a mask a "ridiculous priority" you were part of the problem. Sometimes someone higher up than you needs to impose a restriction or law to protect others.
> Sure it meant you didn't get to go to your social functions or parties you craved
I have to say this is ridiculously callous. My grandmother cried every day until she passed. I would like to see an investigation into pandemic preparedness. I don’t think we have been getting our money’s worth.
I have to say this is ridiculously callous. My grandmother cried every day until she passed. I would like to see an investigation into pandemic preparedness. I don’t think we have been getting our money’s worth.
>>So we should paralyze a generation?
A generation was paralyzed because it had 1 year remote school instead of in person? Kids are just fine. I think they rather got a much more valuable lesson on how to act in a crisis.
A generation was paralyzed because it had 1 year remote school instead of in person? Kids are just fine. I think they rather got a much more valuable lesson on how to act in a crisis.
I don't believe that COVID "paralyzed" a generation. The acute non-vaccine phase in the US was what - 18 months tops? Hyperbole does not help.
People still got paid. Business got done. My kid learned. People got married. People got divorced. Children were born, people died. No evidence of a "paralyzed generation".
My youngest kid has incredibly strong math and verbal skills compared to my older kid, and I suspect that's because the youngest sat and listened to the online instruction along with his sibling.
Absolving all culpability and foisting it on "the government" or "shutdowns" is just as weak as using hyperbole to make misleading claims about how a generation was "paralyzed". Difficult to get shit done? Sure. Not paralyzed.
People still got paid. Business got done. My kid learned. People got married. People got divorced. Children were born, people died. No evidence of a "paralyzed generation".
My youngest kid has incredibly strong math and verbal skills compared to my older kid, and I suspect that's because the youngest sat and listened to the online instruction along with his sibling.
Absolving all culpability and foisting it on "the government" or "shutdowns" is just as weak as using hyperbole to make misleading claims about how a generation was "paralyzed". Difficult to get shit done? Sure. Not paralyzed.
So maybe students in that situation can do remote education and then everyone else does normal, more effective, in-person education?
I don't generally agree with parent's needless reduction to 'protect 90 years old to get to 91', but can't we agree that whole schooling from home was pretty badly mishandled literally everywhere?
Not sure how we can isolate and measure just school-from-home effect on kids across age groups, various places etc. but I strongly believe there was some harm and it was not tiny. How much, and if not temporary again I can't say (but maybe some huge long term stats on things like grades, counseling frequency, suicides, BMI etc. can, but who knows if they won't show just 2nd order effect of parents suffering too).
Not sure how we can isolate and measure just school-from-home effect on kids across age groups, various places etc. but I strongly believe there was some harm and it was not tiny. How much, and if not temporary again I can't say (but maybe some huge long term stats on things like grades, counseling frequency, suicides, BMI etc. can, but who knows if they won't show just 2nd order effect of parents suffering too).
infamouscow(1)
The 140k children who lost a parent or caregiver to COVID [1] would probably disagree with your statement. Losing your parents is also not great for emotional wellbeing or development.
[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/more-140000-us...
[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/more-140000-us...
>Overall, the study shows that approximately 1 out of 500 children in the United States has experienced COVID-19-associated orphanhood or death of a grandparent caregiver.
What about the other 499 children who missed 2+ years of in-person classes?
What about the other 499 children who missed 2+ years of in-person classes?
they'll make it up. nothing is going to magically bring a dead parent back.
>they'll make it up
That remains to be seen. The 2022 PISA tests suggests that in developed countries, children have missed on the equivalent of 0.5-0.75 of a year's worth of learning.
[1] https://www.economist.com/international/2023/12/05/the-pande...
> nothing is going to magically bring a dead parent back.
nothing is going to magically bring back those years either, for all 500 students.
That remains to be seen. The 2022 PISA tests suggests that in developed countries, children have missed on the equivalent of 0.5-0.75 of a year's worth of learning.
[1] https://www.economist.com/international/2023/12/05/the-pande...
> nothing is going to magically bring a dead parent back.
nothing is going to magically bring back those years either, for all 500 students.
This happened everywhere, including in the places that only shut down in-person schooling for March 2020-May 2020, and opened up again in August 2020.
Maybe the effect of going through a pandemic was a stressful event harmful to school performance, independent of whether your schooling was in-person or remote?
Maybe the effect of going through a pandemic was a stressful event harmful to school performance, independent of whether your schooling was in-person or remote?
From the article linked above:
>Education ministries the world over will envy the handful of rich places that have a cheery story to tell amid the gloom. In Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, test scores not only held steady over the pandemic period, they actually ticked up in at least one of the three subjects in which pupils sat exams. Israel and Switzerland are among other countries that appear, at least as judged from these data, to have done reasonably well.
>Some of these outliers protected learning by keeping school closures short. Across the OECD’s dataset there is a modest association between the length of time schools stayed closed and children’s subsequent performance in tests. Teachers in Switzerland ran fully remote or hybrid timetables for only six weeks (the average among countries in Europe was around 29). Closures in Japan were also comparatively zippy: in 2020 schools in that country shortened their summer breaks in order to claw back some of the class hours that children had lost up to then. Singapore, likewise, decided to alter school holidays to maximise learning time.
>Education ministries the world over will envy the handful of rich places that have a cheery story to tell amid the gloom. In Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, test scores not only held steady over the pandemic period, they actually ticked up in at least one of the three subjects in which pupils sat exams. Israel and Switzerland are among other countries that appear, at least as judged from these data, to have done reasonably well.
>Some of these outliers protected learning by keeping school closures short. Across the OECD’s dataset there is a modest association between the length of time schools stayed closed and children’s subsequent performance in tests. Teachers in Switzerland ran fully remote or hybrid timetables for only six weeks (the average among countries in Europe was around 29). Closures in Japan were also comparatively zippy: in 2020 schools in that country shortened their summer breaks in order to claw back some of the class hours that children had lost up to then. Singapore, likewise, decided to alter school holidays to maximise learning time.
They didn't loose those years. How do you even know it wasn't better for some at home than it was in school? Aren't you learning your whole life? Do you use everything you learned in school?
>They didn't loose those years. How do you even know it wasn't better for some at home than it was in school?
But did lose those years of in-class instruction, as the PISA tests have shown, post pandemic scores were down from historical trends. The article says that there was a correlation between lockdown intensity and/or catch-up school days and test performance, so I think it's fairly reasonable to conclude that lockdowns did cause a loss of learning.
>Aren't you learning your whole life?
You can also make money your whole life, but that doesn't mean it's totally fine to steal a year's worth of salary from you.
>Do you use everything you learned in school?
And did the pandemic related lockdowns conveniently only caused students to miss the knowledge that they didn't need?
But did lose those years of in-class instruction, as the PISA tests have shown, post pandemic scores were down from historical trends. The article says that there was a correlation between lockdown intensity and/or catch-up school days and test performance, so I think it's fairly reasonable to conclude that lockdowns did cause a loss of learning.
>Aren't you learning your whole life?
You can also make money your whole life, but that doesn't mean it's totally fine to steal a year's worth of salary from you.
>Do you use everything you learned in school?
And did the pandemic related lockdowns conveniently only caused students to miss the knowledge that they didn't need?
Nobody stole anything from them, they were still learning. They maybe even learned something they otherwise wouldn't in school. Maybe some kids got a break from their bullies. Some spent more time with other grown ups or some spent it more outside. PISA tests are really not a measure of any kind of success in life.
Why would that even be a problem?
I feel like anyone who feels the way the above poster does hasn't experienced having a kid in school and the way infections spread through those populations. Especially with young kids who still do things like thumb sucking. My child has been home sick from school four separate times since September, the amount of colds children get from being exposed to each other's germs is absolutely staggering.
For all the problems of kids staying home, I'd much rather stay home from school and learn online by being healthy than get COVID and stay home from school without learning anything at all. Especially when you consider the 10% of cases that have long term consequences. We saw a few examples of university age athletes giving up their athletic careers because of potentially permanently reduced lung capacity caused by long COVID so it's not just the older generation that has consequences.
I don't feel it's a fair characterization of these methods to say that the main benefit was getting 90 year olds to live to 91. I think the main benefit was slowing down the spread enough that hospitals weren't badly over capacity so that people who needed emergency care mostly could get it. Letting COVID spread like wildfire through the population would result in more people needing emergency care than we had resources for.
For all the problems of kids staying home, I'd much rather stay home from school and learn online by being healthy than get COVID and stay home from school without learning anything at all. Especially when you consider the 10% of cases that have long term consequences. We saw a few examples of university age athletes giving up their athletic careers because of potentially permanently reduced lung capacity caused by long COVID so it's not just the older generation that has consequences.
I don't feel it's a fair characterization of these methods to say that the main benefit was getting 90 year olds to live to 91. I think the main benefit was slowing down the spread enough that hospitals weren't badly over capacity so that people who needed emergency care mostly could get it. Letting COVID spread like wildfire through the population would result in more people needing emergency care than we had resources for.
> For all the problems of kids staying home, I'd much rather stay home from school and learn online
Supervised by who, though?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you about the risks. But those of us that were working remotely from our office jobs while our kids stayed at home had enormous privilege over the people who still had to go to their jobs in person. Like all the cheering we did for first responders: first responder parents? Oh, well they’re screwed.
IMO we should have prioritized (in the areas where it’s climate appropriate) outdoor schooling. I’m sure there would have been a steep learning curve but it would have been possible, a lot of schools have plenty of outdoor space available.
Supervised by who, though?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you about the risks. But those of us that were working remotely from our office jobs while our kids stayed at home had enormous privilege over the people who still had to go to their jobs in person. Like all the cheering we did for first responders: first responder parents? Oh, well they’re screwed.
IMO we should have prioritized (in the areas where it’s climate appropriate) outdoor schooling. I’m sure there would have been a steep learning curve but it would have been possible, a lot of schools have plenty of outdoor space available.
>My child has been home sick from school four separate times since September, the amount of colds children get from being exposed to each other's germs is absolutely staggering.
That's just a normal part of being a child in in-person school, temporarily made somewhat worse by lack of in-person schooling for 1, sometimes 2 years.
>I'd much rather stay home from school and learn online by being healthy than get COVID and stay home from school without learning anything at all.
All dependent on timescales. I'd rather my child get COVID or any other respiratory virus and stay home from school without learning anything at all for a week max, than keep them home from school for months on end. Even though it wasn't too bad for me as a parent to have my kid home, I'm also part of the laptop class.
>We saw a few examples of university age athletes giving up their athletic careers because of potentially permanently reduced lung capacity caused by long COVID so it's not just the older generation that has consequences.
Yes, we saw a few examples. We didn't see those few examples pre-COVID when it came to bad flu complications because it wasn't click-worthy so no one bothered to write the article. This isn't to say long COVID or COVID complications in under-50s isn't a problem, just trying to put context into the equation.
>I don't feel it's a fair characterization of these methods to say that the main benefit was getting 90 year olds to live to 91.
It's about as simplistic and dismissive as "pfft kids will be fine without in-person school, they're so resilient". Which I've heard far too many times.
That's just a normal part of being a child in in-person school, temporarily made somewhat worse by lack of in-person schooling for 1, sometimes 2 years.
>I'd much rather stay home from school and learn online by being healthy than get COVID and stay home from school without learning anything at all.
All dependent on timescales. I'd rather my child get COVID or any other respiratory virus and stay home from school without learning anything at all for a week max, than keep them home from school for months on end. Even though it wasn't too bad for me as a parent to have my kid home, I'm also part of the laptop class.
>We saw a few examples of university age athletes giving up their athletic careers because of potentially permanently reduced lung capacity caused by long COVID so it's not just the older generation that has consequences.
Yes, we saw a few examples. We didn't see those few examples pre-COVID when it came to bad flu complications because it wasn't click-worthy so no one bothered to write the article. This isn't to say long COVID or COVID complications in under-50s isn't a problem, just trying to put context into the equation.
>I don't feel it's a fair characterization of these methods to say that the main benefit was getting 90 year olds to live to 91.
It's about as simplistic and dismissive as "pfft kids will be fine without in-person school, they're so resilient". Which I've heard far too many times.
> Was this the right thing to do? I don't believe there's a clear answer to that
I'm not sure how you reconcile your claim that you don't believe there's a clear answer to whether it was wright with the emotion-laden and leading statement you made just before.
Everyone suffered during the pandemic. There was no way to spare anyone, it was a traumatic experience for everyone. Having a dead grandmother and grandfather would be much more impactful on their life than the school they missed.
I'm not sure how you reconcile your claim that you don't believe there's a clear answer to whether it was wright with the emotion-laden and leading statement you made just before.
Everyone suffered during the pandemic. There was no way to spare anyone, it was a traumatic experience for everyone. Having a dead grandmother and grandfather would be much more impactful on their life than the school they missed.
> I'm not sure how you reconcile your claim that you don't believe there's a clear answer to whether it was wright with the emotion-laden and leading statement you made just before.
The parent commenter stated that the way we handled COVID made them lose their faith in humanity. I was pointing out that there were a series of choices to make, none of them good, but just because someone wanted to make a different tradeoff does not ipso facto make them a bad or uncaring person.
Was I snarkier than I should have been, sure. That was immature of me.
The parent commenter stated that the way we handled COVID made them lose their faith in humanity. I was pointing out that there were a series of choices to make, none of them good, but just because someone wanted to make a different tradeoff does not ipso facto make them a bad or uncaring person.
Was I snarkier than I should have been, sure. That was immature of me.
I'd add that there were a variety of different approaches in different countries and regions and, unless I've missed something, there's no smoking gun that "WOW This approach vastly slashed deaths vs. that approach." You can make arguments that this similar country did a bit better than that similar country but did anyone (with reliable data) really come out as having clearly found the magic formula?
> Having a dead grandmother and grandfather would be much more impactful on their life than the school they missed.
I'm not really too sure about that.
I'm not really too sure about that.
>another example of how we prioritize the elderly over children in the United States, arguably because children don't vote and the elderly do.
Or arguably because death is final, death came for the elderly more than the children with this disease, and we were trying to save lives.
We can debate the philosophy of saving people near end of life vs. allowing children to continue with close-contact education. But it's revolting that the first place your mind went was "save the vote".
Hell, old people who vote lean Republican, so if you're going to play a shrewd voting population game with a pandemic, wouldn't it have been in the interests of the "pro-isolation" coalition to let it run amok?
---
One final note, moving away from your premise: The reason we needed to lock down besides saving lives from COVID directly was that our hospitals and funeral homes couldn't handle the burden. You can't treat people with heart attacks and broken bones if the ICU is filled with people dying of influenza-class viruses.
Maybe if our healthcare system can keep up with a disease's infection rate, we let society chug on - as we have each year when preventable, transmissible diseases kill tens of thousands of people per year.
Or arguably because death is final, death came for the elderly more than the children with this disease, and we were trying to save lives.
We can debate the philosophy of saving people near end of life vs. allowing children to continue with close-contact education. But it's revolting that the first place your mind went was "save the vote".
Hell, old people who vote lean Republican, so if you're going to play a shrewd voting population game with a pandemic, wouldn't it have been in the interests of the "pro-isolation" coalition to let it run amok?
---
One final note, moving away from your premise: The reason we needed to lock down besides saving lives from COVID directly was that our hospitals and funeral homes couldn't handle the burden. You can't treat people with heart attacks and broken bones if the ICU is filled with people dying of influenza-class viruses.
Maybe if our healthcare system can keep up with a disease's infection rate, we let society chug on - as we have each year when preventable, transmissible diseases kill tens of thousands of people per year.
> Or arguably because death is final, death came for the elderly more than the children with this disease
Death always comes for the elderly though. The metric of "years of high quality life saved" is important to apply here.
I was all for the shutdowns starting in March 2020, and was arguing in favor of it, but it then went on for way too long. NYC schools remained closed until fall 2021, and even then they kept shutting down individually for awhile afterwards as part of the COVID protocol. In hindsight it went on for way too long.
Death always comes for the elderly though. The metric of "years of high quality life saved" is important to apply here.
I was all for the shutdowns starting in March 2020, and was arguing in favor of it, but it then went on for way too long. NYC schools remained closed until fall 2021, and even then they kept shutting down individually for awhile afterwards as part of the COVID protocol. In hindsight it went on for way too long.
"The amount of pushback these measures got, when we were literally just trying to save lives"
Did it actually significsntly save lives or prevent long covid? I'm wondering if any countries didn't shut schools that we could compare to?
I would guess maybe in the initial wave by not overwhelming hospitals it would save a few lives. But when the policies were continually extended thier return on investment dropped as the harms they inflicted increased and the value they provided decreased. Perhaps a better approach would have been to tell the at-risk populations about the risks and mitigations to let them decide what level of protection they wanted for themselves (not talking about others since the whole masking thing turned out to be effectively useless without at least N95s).
My main point is that I know we could save tons of lives by banning cars (not just traffic fatalies but forcing people to walk could prevent many chronic issues), but that doesn't mean the cost/benefit is justified by ignoring the downsides, forcing large opposing population segments into it, and merely stating it was to save lives.
Did it actually significsntly save lives or prevent long covid? I'm wondering if any countries didn't shut schools that we could compare to?
I would guess maybe in the initial wave by not overwhelming hospitals it would save a few lives. But when the policies were continually extended thier return on investment dropped as the harms they inflicted increased and the value they provided decreased. Perhaps a better approach would have been to tell the at-risk populations about the risks and mitigations to let them decide what level of protection they wanted for themselves (not talking about others since the whole masking thing turned out to be effectively useless without at least N95s).
My main point is that I know we could save tons of lives by banning cars (not just traffic fatalies but forcing people to walk could prevent many chronic issues), but that doesn't mean the cost/benefit is justified by ignoring the downsides, forcing large opposing population segments into it, and merely stating it was to save lives.
It's worth bearing in mind that the people making these policy decisions in 2020 were doing so without any objective knowledge of how the pandemic would actually end up playing out.
Car safety is somewhat different. While the harms of a car-dependent society are subjectively hard to come to terms with, especially for those who have grown accustom to it, it's a lot easier to objectively measure and predict.
Car safety is somewhat different. While the harms of a car-dependent society are subjectively hard to come to terms with, especially for those who have grown accustom to it, it's a lot easier to objectively measure and predict.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Even in 2020, they knew that the fatality rate was very low for most of the population and was only an issue for the elderly and those with specific comorbidities. Many of the secondary and n-ary effects of either the pandemic or eliminating cars are unknown until they actually play out. There may be some projections, but those projections tend to change. For example, maybe electric scooter become a huge problem because people refuse to walk after cars are banned (negating the potential exercise related benefits).
A large percentage of the population relies on school for childcare. No childcare = no work = no money. A large percentage of those families didn’t have elderly in the home or visiting. For them, in-person school was critical.
...and hence why we helped those people who were unemployed and had children.
"Helped" as in the $600 stimulus checks people got that was supposed to cover groceries for 6 months while they couldn't pay rent?
more the unemployment benefits and the massive child care tax credits, yes.
> massive child care tax credits
massive? lol. It was like an additional $300 a month.
massive? lol. It was like an additional $300 a month.
There was a rent moratorium in most places. People were not paying rent.
We did?
No, we didn't. Source: had young children during the pandemic and just finished paying back debt I accrued from having to quit my job.
No, we didn't. Source: had young children during the pandemic and just finished paying back debt I accrued from having to quit my job.
There was this "Child Tax Credit" during the pandemic:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit/
It sounds like you might have missed out on it due to not knowing about it, which would be unfortunate.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit/
It sounds like you might have missed out on it due to not knowing about it, which would be unfortunate.
op00to(1)
On the other hand, there's a deep learning deficit that that generation will never recover from. That has costs too, and people trapped in a bad economic situation because of shitty schooling have reduced lifespans as well.
I agree that longterm closure of schools was a bad move and created many problems. However, I do think to be fair we need to look at some of the other issues at play regarding education. The system was barely working to begin with. It seems that countries with better school systems (or educational cultures), or just individual schools/districts here faired much better. The broken system can't play catchup if it was struggling to meet the basic education to begin with.
The kids who have the lowest chances of success in school are those without a supportive home life.
In other words, forcing kids to school at home was the most in-equitable policy in our generation, if not many.
Even things like "has a stable Internet connection" is not a given.
In other words, forcing kids to school at home was the most in-equitable policy in our generation, if not many.
Even things like "has a stable Internet connection" is not a given.
I agree. And many of the well off families switched their kids to private schools that were in-person or hired tutors.
There's always a strong tension between the two points:
1) School closures were good, kids weren't harmed at all and it saved lives!
2) Schools provide the basis for future success and are critical to our social and economic well-being!
My stance is that, as mediocre as many public schools are, they provide a better environment for learning than home life for the majority of children. We should be moving toward making public schools great. (I'd be the first to agree that a broken system makes that a very difficult task.)
1) School closures were good, kids weren't harmed at all and it saved lives!
2) Schools provide the basis for future success and are critical to our social and economic well-being!
My stance is that, as mediocre as many public schools are, they provide a better environment for learning than home life for the majority of children. We should be moving toward making public schools great. (I'd be the first to agree that a broken system makes that a very difficult task.)
There's really no evidence public schools are a better learning environment than homeschooling, in fact there's evidence to the contrary.
Even when you include the extreme fringes of homeschooled children such as religious fundamentalists and unschooling, homeschooled students perform better on average.
This is probably because many-to-one learning is MUCH less effective than one-to-one learning, even with a massive difference in skill. Individualized learning is far better. Schools are the opposite of individualized.
Even when you include the extreme fringes of homeschooled children such as religious fundamentalists and unschooling, homeschooled students perform better on average.
This is probably because many-to-one learning is MUCH less effective than one-to-one learning, even with a massive difference in skill. Individualized learning is far better. Schools are the opposite of individualized.
> covid spread through kids like wildfire, often via asymptomatic infections which then spread to, and killed, elderly who just wanted to see their grandkids.
Was someone forcing the grandparents to visit their infected grandchildren? In my own case, I didn't see my own grandmother for two years during COVID other than via Zoom/FaceTime. She has a history of bad lung infections, so none of us wanted to get her sick. This was despite her having four great-grandchildren and being a widow. When she finally got COVID this year for the first time, she developed some blood clots, but was able to pull through and now is back to great health.
I think the damage to children who were isolated from one another was much worse, and unlike the elderly, they couldn't really understand why we lived so unnaturally. If elderly people wanted to "just see their grandkids," they knew the risks and made a choice. Every death is sad, but I have a hard time thinking we should adopt harsh and even draconian measures just to protect those who ought to know better.
Was someone forcing the grandparents to visit their infected grandchildren? In my own case, I didn't see my own grandmother for two years during COVID other than via Zoom/FaceTime. She has a history of bad lung infections, so none of us wanted to get her sick. This was despite her having four great-grandchildren and being a widow. When she finally got COVID this year for the first time, she developed some blood clots, but was able to pull through and now is back to great health.
I think the damage to children who were isolated from one another was much worse, and unlike the elderly, they couldn't really understand why we lived so unnaturally. If elderly people wanted to "just see their grandkids," they knew the risks and made a choice. Every death is sad, but I have a hard time thinking we should adopt harsh and even draconian measures just to protect those who ought to know better.
> In my own case, I didn't see my own grandmother for two years during COVID other than via Zoom/FaceTime. She has a history of bad lung infections, so none of us wanted to get her sick.
Absolutely! I was already under personal quarantine of sorts before the pandemic even started, because I had immune compromised people under my care. I would bever expect society to turn itself upside down to accommodate my particular situation.
Absolutely! I was already under personal quarantine of sorts before the pandemic even started, because I had immune compromised people under my care. I would bever expect society to turn itself upside down to accommodate my particular situation.
What is the point of society if not to protect its weakest?
How many kids not learning to read is an elderly life worth? Kids not eating? Child abuse going unreported and unchecked?
How many years of learning loss is “just wanting to see grandkids” worth?
And when did the benefits of closing school stop being worthwhile-how many years after the vaccine was widely available? Because the ongoing disruptions to education were measured in years- all while grandma and grandpa were living it up at bars and restaurants.
Are you factoring in the many other ways that children and families could be kept safe (masking, air filtration, UV sanitizing, outdoor classrooms+heaters, etc)?
The pushback on school closures isn’t because people hate grandma, it’s because some people are capable of a cost-benefit analysis and looking at second order effects when we do so. “Hurt millions of kids to spare thousands of grandmas” folks made me lose my faith in humanity.
How many years of learning loss is “just wanting to see grandkids” worth?
And when did the benefits of closing school stop being worthwhile-how many years after the vaccine was widely available? Because the ongoing disruptions to education were measured in years- all while grandma and grandpa were living it up at bars and restaurants.
Are you factoring in the many other ways that children and families could be kept safe (masking, air filtration, UV sanitizing, outdoor classrooms+heaters, etc)?
The pushback on school closures isn’t because people hate grandma, it’s because some people are capable of a cost-benefit analysis and looking at second order effects when we do so. “Hurt millions of kids to spare thousands of grandmas” folks made me lose my faith in humanity.
>>How many kids not learning to read is an elderly life worth? Kids not eating? Child abuse going unreported and unchecked?
>>How many years of learning loss is “just wanting to see grandkids” worth?
Luckily this wasn't the problem, because kids were still learning, maybe at little slower pace, but on the other hand got to learn a lot of things they otherwise wouldn't get to learn in school. Do you use all the knowledge you learned in school? Have you not learned anything new since then?
>>How many years of learning loss is “just wanting to see grandkids” worth?
Luckily this wasn't the problem, because kids were still learning, maybe at little slower pace, but on the other hand got to learn a lot of things they otherwise wouldn't get to learn in school. Do you use all the knowledge you learned in school? Have you not learned anything new since then?
> erodes my faith in humanity
Opposite for me. Maybe people still care about freedom and agency after all.
Opposite for me. Maybe people still care about freedom and agency after all.
Or maybe our inability to collectively act and sacrifice to save over a million people is damning. It absolutely gutted my faith that we'll successfully tackle climate change.
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.
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?
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.
At least RTO and WFH companies can co-exist though, and there are hybrid models as well. With school parents are stuck with what their specific district wants to do, and the number of hours and days spent in school is extremely rigid. For the academic year that started in fall 2020, it's not inherently impractical that the two options could have co-existed for both teachers and parents. But obviously it was unrealistic given the state of the school system already pre-COVID.
I think the broader issue with this sort of choice in a pandemic is it does have downstream effects. People going to school everyday could cause an uptick in community cases that then makes necessary trips like the grocery store more dangerous for those who do want to isolate as much as possible. Especially relevant in a city where many people are living together in apartment complexes.
So I agree there's no clear answer here, and I think pre-vaccine I would've kept my kids home regardless. But more generally I am very dissatisfied with how homogeneous and inflexible the school system is, and that is something we should push for change in. Funnily enough, my district has done a full 180 since COVID and this past year stopped accepting doctor's notes to excuse absences! They are quite literally encouraging people to send their kids in even while sick. A friend's son has mono right now and the HS is threatening to hold him back over absences (grades are fine still because ofc that matters less than attendance record.
I think the broader issue with this sort of choice in a pandemic is it does have downstream effects. People going to school everyday could cause an uptick in community cases that then makes necessary trips like the grocery store more dangerous for those who do want to isolate as much as possible. Especially relevant in a city where many people are living together in apartment complexes.
So I agree there's no clear answer here, and I think pre-vaccine I would've kept my kids home regardless. But more generally I am very dissatisfied with how homogeneous and inflexible the school system is, and that is something we should push for change in. Funnily enough, my district has done a full 180 since COVID and this past year stopped accepting doctor's notes to excuse absences! They are quite literally encouraging people to send their kids in even while sick. A friend's son has mono right now and the HS is threatening to hold him back over absences (grades are fine still because ofc that matters less than attendance record.
"They are quite literally encouraging people to send their kids in even while sick. A friend's son has mono right now and the HS is threatening to hold him back over absences"
Maybe complain to the state departments of education and health. Many states have laws on what constitutes an excused absence and procedures around communicable diseases. Many times the local people in power don't know or would rather do whatever they think is best until the state steps in.
Maybe complain to the state departments of education and health. Many states have laws on what constitutes an excused absence and procedures around communicable diseases. Many times the local people in power don't know or would rather do whatever they think is best until the state steps in.
Unfortunately telling hundreds of millions of people to figure it out for themselves is basically the same as doing nothing.
I don't know. It seems the media coverage (sometimes bordering on fear mongering) had most people wearing masks, using hand sanitizer, etc. Enforcement of policies like masking were not widespread in most places, yet most people obeyed because of what they saw on the news. This is the method the government relies on for all forms of emergency preparedness - they present documents/resources for people to use, then in times of emergency the media diseminates them to the public. This generally works fine for stuff like storms, escaped convicts, etc.
My observation/experience was that we had lots of younger people in lockdown in (expensive) cramped studio apartments in big cities for two years while their boomer parents living in the suburbs more or less went about life as normal all while watching the value of their homes and investments skyrocket as trillions of dollars of additional wealth was transfer to them. At least in my circle of friends this was near universally the case.
Overall the entire situation was completely ridiculous on many levels, but it was the pro-lockdown forever crowd that made me lose my faith in humanity.
Overall the entire situation was completely ridiculous on many levels, but it was the pro-lockdown forever crowd that made me lose my faith in humanity.
I have no problem with sacrificing the elderly for the benefit of the kids. A few months of shutdown was reasonable, but shutting schools down for a couple years is too big of a price to pay.
Also, my kids were in daycare the whole time outside of Mar to May 2020, and they were spreading all sorts of viruses just like they were before COVID. How the government chose to allow the most prolific spreaders to congregate day after day, but prevent less prolific spreaders is very inconsistent logic.
Also, my kids were in daycare the whole time outside of Mar to May 2020, and they were spreading all sorts of viruses just like they were before COVID. How the government chose to allow the most prolific spreaders to congregate day after day, but prevent less prolific spreaders is very inconsistent logic.
What state had schools closed for years? I see this claim a lot, but even in California hybrid was available ~1 year after shutdown, and full return to school was available for the fall after that (so about 1.3 years)
Washington was pretty egregious. There were random closures and testing requirements that made planning impossible, all the way until April or May 2022, I think. And it is cover-your-ass related stuff, because no one below the state level wanted to be on the hook if the state was still going on and on with nebulous reactions.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/seattle-...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/seattle-...
All parents understand. I would end my life in an instant for my kids.
> I have no problem with sacrificing the elderly for the benefit of the kids.
Read what you just wrote and ponder on it for a bit.
Read what you just wrote and ponder on it for a bit.
If you're at increased risk of contracting a deadly disease, you should take steps not to contract said disease, up to and including isolation, quarantine, testing, etc. What you shouldn't do is use political pressure to permanently stunt the education and growth of an entire generation of kids by insisting that elementary school children can just go to class on Zoom. 40% of 8th graders are deficient in math[0]. That didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because schools were shut down. It happened because we expected 7 year olds to sit at a desk and watch a computer screen all day instead of allowing them to go to school.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/test-scores-show-how-...
[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/test-scores-show-how-...
Are you proposing that organ transplants be prioritized to the 80 year old chain smoker over the healthy 12 year old?
Are you proposing that old people should be the first off a sinking ship?
Old people have lived life. They should have stayed home and isolated. Kids had practically zero risk. The difference in risk between a healthy 12 year old and the average 80 year old was orders of magnitude different.
Are you proposing that old people should be the first off a sinking ship?
Old people have lived life. They should have stayed home and isolated. Kids had practically zero risk. The difference in risk between a healthy 12 year old and the average 80 year old was orders of magnitude different.
I have pondered about it for over a decade. Our societies drastically prioritize the elderly over the young. They are the ones with political power, after all.
Here’s an easy example: why does the US pay doctors more via Medicare (for people over 65) than via Medicaid (for poorer people, including kids).
Here’s an easy example: why does the US pay doctors more via Medicare (for people over 65) than via Medicaid (for poorer people, including kids).
That's not a great example. One is a single payer system funded by workers and the other is government welfare. Plus, the elderly can be on both programs simultaneously. If anything, this is an example of money influencing politics since the people who have been paying those taxes for Medicare are more likely to donate to politicians than people who require Medicaid.
> If anything, this is an example of money influencing politics since the people who have been paying those taxes for Medicare are more likely to donate to politicians than people who require Medicaid.
That is what I wrote, the elderly have more political power.
The same legislature that allocates society’s resources towards healthcare for people age 65+ also chooses to allocate less resources to people who happen to be poor (or have poor parents).
The Additional Medicare Tax is another lovely reminder of how society’s resources, because funnily enough, even though it has been widely known Medicaid does not even pay enough to keep the lights on, there is no Additional Medicaid Tax.
That is what I wrote, the elderly have more political power.
The same legislature that allocates society’s resources towards healthcare for people age 65+ also chooses to allocate less resources to people who happen to be poor (or have poor parents).
The Additional Medicare Tax is another lovely reminder of how society’s resources, because funnily enough, even though it has been widely known Medicaid does not even pay enough to keep the lights on, there is no Additional Medicaid Tax.
"That is what I wrote"
Could you point that out? I saw that the elderly had power - not the wealthy. Many elderly are also poor. Much of the political influence on Medicare comes from those who are working as they near retirement. For example, talks about raising the required age do not affect those already receiving it, but future recipients. Those are the people involved. The people receiving it could care less since the already have their's.
The reason the poor recieve less is because it's not single payer and is funded by other taxes. The general population (voters) feels that the vare minimum is all they deserve (for better or worse, that's how it is).
Again, there is a Medicare tax because it is a non-means-tested single payer system. There is no Medicaid specific tax because it is intended for a small minority of indignant individuals. As with other welfare programs, it paid for out of the general taxes and nothing specific.
It's a money and voter base issue. Yeah, that can be correlated with being old, but there's more to it.
Could you point that out? I saw that the elderly had power - not the wealthy. Many elderly are also poor. Much of the political influence on Medicare comes from those who are working as they near retirement. For example, talks about raising the required age do not affect those already receiving it, but future recipients. Those are the people involved. The people receiving it could care less since the already have their's.
The reason the poor recieve less is because it's not single payer and is funded by other taxes. The general population (voters) feels that the vare minimum is all they deserve (for better or worse, that's how it is).
Again, there is a Medicare tax because it is a non-means-tested single payer system. There is no Medicaid specific tax because it is intended for a small minority of indignant individuals. As with other welfare programs, it paid for out of the general taxes and nothing specific.
It's a money and voter base issue. Yeah, that can be correlated with being old, but there's more to it.
> I saw that the elderly had power - not the wealthy.
Multiple groups can have varying amounts of power. In this case, I am using the fact that one group is getting a better benefit than another group as proof that the group getting the better benefit has power. Why else would they have it, and why else would those that do not have go without?
> The reason the poor recieve less is because it's not single payer and is funded by other taxes. The general population (voters) feels that the vare minimum is all they deserve (for better or worse, that's how it is).
This is my point. Voters skew older, and providing healthcare to the poor at least equivalent to Medicare is not a priority.
> Again, there is a Medicare tax because it is a non-means-tested single payer system.
This is incorrect. Medicare premiums get more and more means tested every year.
https://www.ncpssm.org/documents/medicare-policy-papers/medi...
Even Social Security is means tested, look up bend points in the benefit formula.
And at the end of the day, all taxes are fungible. Government received money and pays money for benefits. Who gets how much is a political exercise.
Multiple groups can have varying amounts of power. In this case, I am using the fact that one group is getting a better benefit than another group as proof that the group getting the better benefit has power. Why else would they have it, and why else would those that do not have go without?
> The reason the poor recieve less is because it's not single payer and is funded by other taxes. The general population (voters) feels that the vare minimum is all they deserve (for better or worse, that's how it is).
This is my point. Voters skew older, and providing healthcare to the poor at least equivalent to Medicare is not a priority.
> Again, there is a Medicare tax because it is a non-means-tested single payer system.
This is incorrect. Medicare premiums get more and more means tested every year.
https://www.ncpssm.org/documents/medicare-policy-papers/medi...
Even Social Security is means tested, look up bend points in the benefit formula.
And at the end of the day, all taxes are fungible. Government received money and pays money for benefits. Who gets how much is a political exercise.
"Why else would they have it, and why else would those that do not have go without?"
I already told you - the people working to get it later are included in the group. It's not just old people.
"Voters skew older, and providing healthcare to the poor at least equivalent to Medicare is not a priority."
It's not a priority because the poor are a small voting segment. The voting segment concerned with Medicare include the elderly and those who are working and thinking about their future retirement, which is a huge segment.
"Medicare premiums get more and more means tested every year."
That's not exactly means-tested. You get Medicare if your old enough, then yes you have premiums and deductibles since this is insurance after all. You even have contribution requirements for things like part A. The permium cost can vary based on income, but that doesn't affect the actual coverage or eligibility.
Yeah, money is fungible. The laws are pretty clear on the funding sources and amounts for the entitlement programs, unlike with welfare programs that are more open-ended and less predictable.
Bend points are not means testing. You get your benefits regardless of your situation. The insurance just pays out based on a formula to adjust to cover the more basic expenses. You can see this intent in the way the formula for payouts is designed as a replacing percent of income as well as in the tax cap.
Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are not welfare programs that are means tested. The costs and benefits can vary based on contributions and income but you are entitled to the benefit. These programs are not powerful just because of the old people. The workers expecting these benefits in the future are a huge source of the political power. It's the money and the fact that people have been paying in with an expecting of benefits that's the difference.
I already told you - the people working to get it later are included in the group. It's not just old people.
"Voters skew older, and providing healthcare to the poor at least equivalent to Medicare is not a priority."
It's not a priority because the poor are a small voting segment. The voting segment concerned with Medicare include the elderly and those who are working and thinking about their future retirement, which is a huge segment.
"Medicare premiums get more and more means tested every year."
That's not exactly means-tested. You get Medicare if your old enough, then yes you have premiums and deductibles since this is insurance after all. You even have contribution requirements for things like part A. The permium cost can vary based on income, but that doesn't affect the actual coverage or eligibility.
Yeah, money is fungible. The laws are pretty clear on the funding sources and amounts for the entitlement programs, unlike with welfare programs that are more open-ended and less predictable.
Bend points are not means testing. You get your benefits regardless of your situation. The insurance just pays out based on a formula to adjust to cover the more basic expenses. You can see this intent in the way the formula for payouts is designed as a replacing percent of income as well as in the tax cap.
Stuff like Medicare and Social Security are not welfare programs that are means tested. The costs and benefits can vary based on contributions and income but you are entitled to the benefit. These programs are not powerful just because of the old people. The workers expecting these benefits in the future are a huge source of the political power. It's the money and the fact that people have been paying in with an expecting of benefits that's the difference.
> The permium cost can vary based on income, but that doesn't affect the actual coverage or eligibility.
> The insurance just pays out based on a formula to adjust to cover the more basic expenses.
Both of these are means testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test
> A means test is a determination of whether an individual or family is eligible for government assistance or welfare, based upon whether the individual or family possesses the means to do without that help.
> The workers expecting these benefits in the future are a huge source of the political power. It's the money and the fact that people have been paying in with an expecting of benefits that's the difference.
I see what you are saying, but I don’t think many people buy it anymore. The demographics alone make it quite obvious that workers today should not be expecting those benefits, not to mention the continuous devaluation of them already for many years.
The old/young divisions are thoroughly established. Technically, I guess the division is old and young expecting inheritances versus young not expecting inheritances. There are just so many examples. California’s prop 13, defunding state colleges in favor of indebting students, tiered taxpayer funded DB pensions and retiree healthcare that are only available to older employees.
NJ just cut taxes big time for people 65+:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/nyregion/property-tax-cut...
> The insurance just pays out based on a formula to adjust to cover the more basic expenses.
Both of these are means testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test
> A means test is a determination of whether an individual or family is eligible for government assistance or welfare, based upon whether the individual or family possesses the means to do without that help.
> The workers expecting these benefits in the future are a huge source of the political power. It's the money and the fact that people have been paying in with an expecting of benefits that's the difference.
I see what you are saying, but I don’t think many people buy it anymore. The demographics alone make it quite obvious that workers today should not be expecting those benefits, not to mention the continuous devaluation of them already for many years.
The old/young divisions are thoroughly established. Technically, I guess the division is old and young expecting inheritances versus young not expecting inheritances. There are just so many examples. California’s prop 13, defunding state colleges in favor of indebting students, tiered taxpayer funded DB pensions and retiree healthcare that are only available to older employees.
NJ just cut taxes big time for people 65+:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/nyregion/property-tax-cut...
We need to pick which out-group to sacrifice vs. take care of everyone is the kind of thinking that creates most of America’s problems.
Couldn't elderly think about themselves? If they have poor health - stay at home, make a zoom call instead of in person visit.
Rising a child is incredible difficult nowadays, and government shouldn't close schools and daycare.
Rising a child is incredible difficult nowadays, and government shouldn't close schools and daycare.
My child's school was online-only instruction from March to June, and reopened in September 2020 for in-person instruction. They did not miss one day of instruction. No idea what you're talking about.
A lot of schools remained remote in fall 2020 - depended on the school, and it's not exactly easy to switch between districts. Also, the quality of instruction in spring 2020 was absolutely affected as teachers adapted to remote and everyone dealt with the general chaos. Again could vary by school, but I think saying no instruction was missed is naive. "Days in class" is a horrible metric for learning, and there absolutely were classrooms where quality of learning degraded.
It was a shitty situation all around, and I'm definitely not arguing that schools should have remained open that spring. But it's silly to pretend that education was not affected across the country by the switch to remote.
It was a shitty situation all around, and I'm definitely not arguing that schools should have remained open that spring. But it's silly to pretend that education was not affected across the country by the switch to remote.
OP said "shutting schools down for a couple years". That did not happen in the US.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 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 risk of dying can isolate themselves so everyone else doesn't have to.
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 risk of dying can isolate themselves so everyone else doesn't have to.
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.
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.
Well, it would be great if that worked but in general people with this oppinion seemed to be fine to sacrifice (as in let die) anyone with a higher risk rather than contribute with money to allow this isolation.
Your comment is a blatant strawman.
I had a much longer comment written but I really don't want to relitigate covid for the umpteenth time.
I had a much longer comment written but I really don't want to relitigate covid for the umpteenth time.
[deleted]
That assumption obviously has an availability heuristic bias / selection criteria bias, like speeding down a road is safe because you haven’t died yet.
NYC no doubt has a lot of things going for it, I think being the financial center for the hegemony is the deciding factor. In my view survival of NYC probably has less to do with local crime than the outcome of future wars.
NYC no doubt has a lot of things going for it, I think being the financial center for the hegemony is the deciding factor. In my view survival of NYC probably has less to do with local crime than the outcome of future wars.
Detroit was the center of manufacturing for "the hegemony," which is currently in the process of losing its control of the financial markets, just like they did in manufacturing.
Unlike Detroit, NYC has a very diversified economy. In addition to being the primary finance capital it is a major international player in media, art, fashion, tech, and more. NYC is simply not utterly dependent on finance in the way Detroit was on manufacturing- or SF is on tech, for a modern example.
I think that’s what has made it, and the other global cities like it, so extremely resilient over a long period of time. That and financial services being, thus far, an evergreen industry.
I think that’s what has made it, and the other global cities like it, so extremely resilient over a long period of time. That and financial services being, thus far, an evergreen industry.
Finance is pretty meta itself, which is probably a contributing factor to NYC having such a diversified economy. Like an automotive company might still want a business-focused office in NYC, but a non-automotive company doesn't have much reason to open an office in the auto manufacturing capital.
So was manufacturing. I will say that Detroit was probably over-indexed on auto workers more than other kinds of manufacturing.
Not sure "we" is, but I think the people who have had to uproot their entire lives because of poor leadership, would rather the poor leadership leave.
I agree that the midsized, and even small cities are important. I think there are some real problems associated with the centralization of populations in large cities. We have tons of dying cities in former manufacturing regions that could be utilized instead of having population/density fights in the more popular locations. The main problem is the vicious cycle that causes the loss of job and the loss of amenities, which decreases the attraction. Instead we get into an infinite desire/density loop because that's where the jobs are. Having more options for cities to move to would provide better population distribution and alleviate many density or flux related issues.
> Cities are amazingly resilient...
I concur. Some cities that have outlived their empires -- Rome, Istanbul (Constantinople), London, Baghdad, Alexandria, Cairo, Kabul, Mumbai.
Even NYC, Boston, Philly predate the US constitution.
I concur. Some cities that have outlived their empires -- Rome, Istanbul (Constantinople), London, Baghdad, Alexandria, Cairo, Kabul, Mumbai.
Even NYC, Boston, Philly predate the US constitution.
> The benefit to our mid size cities is great
This is a great point! I like the fact that the US is more decentralized and isn't dominated by a single large city. Germany is similar in this regard. I understand the appeal of NYC, especially to the young, but if other cities reap the rewards of increased inward migration, then I think it's a positive thing for the country overall. People too might realize they can have a better quality of life without the insane competition for resources.
This is a great point! I like the fact that the US is more decentralized and isn't dominated by a single large city. Germany is similar in this regard. I understand the appeal of NYC, especially to the young, but if other cities reap the rewards of increased inward migration, then I think it's a positive thing for the country overall. People too might realize they can have a better quality of life without the insane competition for resources.
> Seems most large metros are going through some post-COVID pains
I don't know about the US, but here in Canada the 2016 census was already showing meaningful decline in communities with >100,000 people, with communities of 1,000-29,999 people picking up most of the slack. COVID may have accelerated things, but signs of a 'counterubranization' movement were already presenting itself long before we ever heard of COVID.
I don't know about the US, but here in Canada the 2016 census was already showing meaningful decline in communities with >100,000 people, with communities of 1,000-29,999 people picking up most of the slack. COVID may have accelerated things, but signs of a 'counterubranization' movement were already presenting itself long before we ever heard of COVID.
Also, that national network for travel needs to include a much higher percentage spent on intercity/regional rail than we currently do.
Detroit?
Another good example of resilience.
Bound to return to its peak population of 1.85 million any day now... Cities always come back, something, something.
Rome hasn’t been the seat of empire for over a thousand years but it’s a rather nice place to live in today.
Detroit won’t return to the way it used to be, but it will regain its footing in its own way over time.
Detroit won’t return to the way it used to be, but it will regain its footing in its own way over time.
Covid maybe in part but it’s mainly because of the demands that enforcing laws must stop by activists and certain political organizations. So crime is up and the city looks shabby and there’s drugged out zombies and homeless everywhere. So people leave.
It’s what happened in the 1960/70’s - lots of political changes made cities hospitable to crime and people left. As cities managed to become nice again, people moved back and tax revenues rose.
NYC needs another Bloomberg that’s willing to cleanup the streets and keep them nice and to stop pandering to the worst aspects of society. To put the fringe idea weirdos back on the fringe where they are better complaining about things than actually getting things done.
It’s what happened in the 1960/70’s - lots of political changes made cities hospitable to crime and people left. As cities managed to become nice again, people moved back and tax revenues rose.
NYC needs another Bloomberg that’s willing to cleanup the streets and keep them nice and to stop pandering to the worst aspects of society. To put the fringe idea weirdos back on the fringe where they are better complaining about things than actually getting things done.
Which specific laws are not being enforced and which specific political organizations caused this?
Sure if you could clarify specifically what you mean.
I generally agree with this sentiment.
However, unlike the situation in the 1980's, there's no desire to address any of their problems because it undermines so many ideological premises the residents cling to. Coupled with the most morally narcissistic people on the face of the Earth, I don't see any turnaround.
The mechanisms necessary to avoid becoming Detroit are not there
However, unlike the situation in the 1980's, there's no desire to address any of their problems because it undermines so many ideological premises the residents cling to. Coupled with the most morally narcissistic people on the face of the Earth, I don't see any turnaround.
The mechanisms necessary to avoid becoming Detroit are not there
I think most of the "post-COVID" pains are actually much worse because they come from culture and macro-economic consequences, aka "chickens come home to roost".
There seems to be general feeling that stealing stuff and robing people are only bad if you get caught and even when you get caught the are little to no consequences. Forgetting the politicization of this for a while, this type of stuff is one of the worse cancers for society, even if "nobody says nothing", they know and think and they will vote with their feet. Detroit type situations are not really that far for some cities. I don't think this applies to NYC but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
There seems to be general feeling that stealing stuff and robing people are only bad if you get caught and even when you get caught the are little to no consequences. Forgetting the politicization of this for a while, this type of stuff is one of the worse cancers for society, even if "nobody says nothing", they know and think and they will vote with their feet. Detroit type situations are not really that far for some cities. I don't think this applies to NYC but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
What these numbers show is that all the stuff people claim about NYC is backwards.
1. These declines are until mid 2022. NYC's population has rebounded since then big time. 2. No, it's not crime deterring people. Crime is heading back close to historic lows. It's cost of living that's deterring people. 3. Rich people are moving in/staying/people in NYC are getting richer. It's the poor who cannot afford to live in NYC that are leaving.
1. These declines are until mid 2022. NYC's population has rebounded since then big time. 2. No, it's not crime deterring people. Crime is heading back close to historic lows. It's cost of living that's deterring people. 3. Rich people are moving in/staying/people in NYC are getting richer. It's the poor who cannot afford to live in NYC that are leaving.
It’s the same thing in Chicago. Gentry use to remain across the river but housing priced/designed for them has pushed past halfway to the Western end of the north side (everything above the Eisenhower expressway) and has been steadily marching south, already into Pilsen, Bridgeport, Bronzeville.
I’m curious how much the Polish will put up a fight since they’ve had the Kennedy expressway separating them from the advance on the Northwest side; they’ve always been one of the largest ethnic groups, but if they’re anything like the state of the Ukrainians where there wasn’t enough young generations holding down the neighborhood I expect they’ll fall over in 10 - 15 years if things stay on course (that's from my boomer Ukranian landlord who grew up there and whose mother, whom didn't speak English and was the actual owner, lived above me in a two-story).
I’m curious how much the Polish will put up a fight since they’ve had the Kennedy expressway separating them from the advance on the Northwest side; they’ve always been one of the largest ethnic groups, but if they’re anything like the state of the Ukrainians where there wasn’t enough young generations holding down the neighborhood I expect they’ll fall over in 10 - 15 years if things stay on course (that's from my boomer Ukranian landlord who grew up there and whose mother, whom didn't speak English and was the actual owner, lived above me in a two-story).
It seems worth looking into what section of the population (either in terms of age or marital status or number of children or education or salary or whatnot) is moving out of NYC. For example, NYC still ranks at the top of where college graduates apply to [0].
[0] https://joinhandshake.com/blog/employers/where-are-college-s...
[0] https://joinhandshake.com/blog/employers/where-are-college-s...
This is mostly a function of population size for a city. NYC is by far the largest city so it makes sense they would also be among the cities getting the most applicants. You'd have to do a trend or growth rate analysis to see what's happening.
The comptroller’s report makes it look more like white flight. Especially figure 6.
I was there from 2012 to 2022 (with a year or two in DC). If my circles are any indication, and they are, it was “cramped in a one bedroom apartment for two years working jobs we could do from anywhere”-flight. I live on 1.33 acres and have a dog now.
Although I would say it's been the case for a long time that people who move to NYC to take a job (typically in the finance industry) after graduation tend to move out in ten years or less. A bunch of people from my graduating class moved to NYC and very few of that cohort I stayed in touch with were still there after a decade.
An interesting possible dynamic is that long-term dynamic stays in place but fewer new people move in.
An interesting possible dynamic is that long-term dynamic stays in place but fewer new people move in.
I really loved living in NYC. If COVID hadn't happened I probably would have died in Astoria.
Not sure how you drew that conclusion, from the original write-up:
"The median wage of those who left the city in 2022 was $49,000, which was 18% less than those who left in 2021.
Among those who left the city in 2022, 64% were non-White, which was higher than the 58% in 2021 and the 62% in 2019 and 2018."
"The median wage of those who left the city in 2022 was $49,000, which was 18% less than those who left in 2021.
Among those who left the city in 2022, 64% were non-White, which was higher than the 58% in 2021 and the 62% in 2019 and 2018."
[deleted]
It's the opposite. Minorities are being pushed out.
> Among those who left the city in 2022, 64% were non-White, which was higher than the 58% in 2021 and the 62% in 2019 and 2018. From April 2020 to June 2022, the population of all major racial and ethnic groups declined after a decade of increases, but did so at varying rates. White and Black populations in the city fell 6.7% and 6.0% respectively — greater than the overall population decline — while the declines in Hispanic (5%) and Asian (2.5%) New Yorkers were smaller.
> Among those who left the city in 2022, 64% were non-White, which was higher than the 58% in 2021 and the 62% in 2019 and 2018. From April 2020 to June 2022, the population of all major racial and ethnic groups declined after a decade of increases, but did so at varying rates. White and Black populations in the city fell 6.7% and 6.0% respectively — greater than the overall population decline — while the declines in Hispanic (5%) and Asian (2.5%) New Yorkers were smaller.
Umm, NYC is 30% white (so, 70% non-white). If among those who left were 64% non-white (or 36% white), if anything, whites are disproportionately being pushed out.
Although I would not say there was any group who is a majority in NYC.
Although I would not say there was any group who is a majority in NYC.
Many people are reading this stat to say that NYC is dying because of post-covid crime or some other stat. I really think this is a misreading of the situation.
I think it is far likely composition effects from: - High-income people who work remote or hybrid started demanding more space for work and living. Given NYC housing is basically fixed (there is almost no building), this trend has decreased the average number of people per housing unit. - As the article notes, "the city’s populace is overall older and wealthier": wealthier people use more housing per person and tend to have fewer children.
I think it is far likely composition effects from: - High-income people who work remote or hybrid started demanding more space for work and living. Given NYC housing is basically fixed (there is almost no building), this trend has decreased the average number of people per housing unit. - As the article notes, "the city’s populace is overall older and wealthier": wealthier people use more housing per person and tend to have fewer children.
I'm not sure what the answer is but I'm also not sure why the downvotes.
There are absolutely tradeoffs involved in living in a big city, maybe especially NYC. You might still choose to do so absent any specific work-related reason but no one can seriously suggest that taking a daily commute off the table couldn't seriously change the decision someone makes about where they live.
There are absolutely tradeoffs involved in living in a big city, maybe especially NYC. You might still choose to do so absent any specific work-related reason but no one can seriously suggest that taking a daily commute off the table couldn't seriously change the decision someone makes about where they live.
moved out in 2018 after 18 years because i worked remotely and my mental health was frazzled. for much less rent, i ended up in a Catskills cabin in the woods by a stream, a short drive from any number of beautiful trails. bonus points for the luck of already being out of the city when the pandemic happened.
Just curious, how did you find the rental? i.e. through Zillow / the regular listings culprits or was it something more localized?
I've been interested in the idea for years, but I haven't seen any on Zillow that match the intersection of price <> accommodations, and I'm wondering if I'm looking in the wrong place.
I've been interested in the idea for years, but I haven't seen any on Zillow that match the intersection of price <> accommodations, and I'm wondering if I'm looking in the wrong place.
i got really lucky on one of the rental sites (don't remember if it was zillow or not). the prices have gone up ridiculously in 5 years, between pandemic relocations, the increase in remote work, and airbnbs taking away rental properties and houses for sale.
Does anybody have the stats for the metro area rather than just the city?
This is a very interesting question, and the linked study does not address it, only "net migration" to "other parts of the country." IANAD[1] but I suspect the census estimate data is not actually capable of addressing your specific question - how could you tell who was coming from where? But as jeffbee suggested there might be a way to tease it out.
The study mentions remote work being part of the reason for the shift; this also confounds "city-to-suburb" versus "city-to-Midwest" migration since it's harder to cross-check against employment statistics - again, without more detailed surveys.
[1] Demographer :)
The study mentions remote work being part of the reason for the shift; this also confounds "city-to-suburb" versus "city-to-Midwest" migration since it's harder to cross-check against employment statistics - again, without more detailed surveys.
[1] Demographer :)
The census does and it's accessible https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2022.DP05?q=population
If you click the drop down where it says "DP05: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates" you can select which year's estimate you want to use (or use the Decennial Census). If you want a specific geographical area, click Geos.
Then you can get data at whatever level you'd like.
If you click the drop down where it says "DP05: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates" you can select which year's estimate you want to use (or use the Decennial Census). If you want a specific geographical area, click Geos.
Then you can get data at whatever level you'd like.
[deleted]
Well, here's some anecdata:
I'd been living in NJ for a few years before the pandemic and,just before the pandemic, had finally saved up enough for a down payment. We started looking summer of 2019, and were picky and not in a rush so were still looking when the pandemic hit. What this meant is I got to do a compare/contrast on my town's housing market. Right after everything shut down, there was no activity for a few weeks, but by spring things were restarting (with masking, or even virtual showings). What I saw is that inventory didn't increase -- maybe even decreased actually, as people weren't eager to move -- but demand became insane as people fled the city. Houses went for $50k or more over asking regularly -- the same houses we'd looked at the summer before and passed on because of shoddy construction or suspiciously strategically placed drywall in the basement.
I actually kept a spreadsheet to help me figure out how much we'd have to bid to have a chance without over bidding. We were finally successful in 2021, so got to take advantage of the super low rates, even though we ended up paying more up front.
Here's the summary stats I ended up with, sale dates 2020-06-25 through 2022-03-18
I'd been living in NJ for a few years before the pandemic and,just before the pandemic, had finally saved up enough for a down payment. We started looking summer of 2019, and were picky and not in a rush so were still looking when the pandemic hit. What this meant is I got to do a compare/contrast on my town's housing market. Right after everything shut down, there was no activity for a few weeks, but by spring things were restarting (with masking, or even virtual showings). What I saw is that inventory didn't increase -- maybe even decreased actually, as people weren't eager to move -- but demand became insane as people fled the city. Houses went for $50k or more over asking regularly -- the same houses we'd looked at the summer before and passed on because of shoddy construction or suspiciously strategically placed drywall in the basement.
I actually kept a spreadsheet to help me figure out how much we'd have to bid to have a chance without over bidding. We were finally successful in 2021, so got to take advantage of the super low rates, even though we ended up paying more up front.
Here's the summary stats I ended up with, sale dates 2020-06-25 through 2022-03-18
Square Feet Listing Price Sale Price List vs Sale List vs sale % diff
Mean 1,993.36 $568,002.74 $615,661.54 $52,770.80 9.67%
Median 1,872.50 $550,000.00 $610,000.00 $51,900.00 9.60%.
Max 3,700.00 $1,399,900.00 $1,400,000.00 $225,000.00 37.28%
Min 1,140.00 $300,000.00 $285,500.00 ($127,000.00) -19.54%
Quartile 25% 1,607.25 $495,000.00 $527,750.00 $14,750.00 2.78%
Quartile 50% 1,872.50 $550,000.00 $610,000.00 $51,900.00 9.60%
Quartile 75% 2,300.00 $625,000.00 $690,499.50 $91,250.00 16.72%The CSA population declined 2.6% from the 2020 decennial census to the 2022 ACS. Note that these are not directly comparable surveys.
If you click into the article, they have it broken down by boroughs.
That's still the city.
The metro area is wider, things like Jersey City and Westchester etc.
The metro area is wider, things like Jersey City and Westchester etc.
Jersey City is in the New York metro area, Staten Island is not.
>Staten Island is not.
As Wolfgang Pauli said after reviewing a paper, "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong".
(And if you are thinking of claiming that Staten Island's lack of a bridge or tunnel connection to the rest of the city is a disqualifier, please don't bother.)
As Wolfgang Pauli said after reviewing a paper, "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong".
(And if you are thinking of claiming that Staten Island's lack of a bridge or tunnel connection to the rest of the city is a disqualifier, please don't bother.)
I hope you get that lobste.rs invite!
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.
It is interesting to see which counties the population change has come from. My prior would have been that Manhattan (i.e. "New York County") has dropped a lot, while Queens and especially Kings County (i.e. Brooklyn) maybe even grew. But the data shows all counties (excl Staten Island / Richmond County) dropping ~5% over 2 years. HOWEVER... in Manhattan all that drop happened in 2021 and population actually grew ~1.5% in 2022... while in counties kept dropping ~2%/year. Certainly feels like that in Manhattan today...
Where did they move? (FL?)
According to latest data from the U.S. Census, Florida ranks #1 in total net migration, which measures the difference between the number of people moving in and the number of people moving out of a state. From July 2021-July 2022, nearly 444,500 people moved to Florida, which compared to the previous year was a gain of 185,000, the largest year-over-year impact of residents moving.
Florida also ranked #1 in domestic migration, #2 in international migration, and #1 with the most people moving in per day at 1,218. Texas followed Florida in both total net migration (349,575) and most people moving in per day (958). Florida’s total population has reached more than 22.2 million and sits third in the nation behind California and Texas, previously surpassing New York.
New York and California, two of the biggest markets to the South and South-Central regions, experienced the largest out migration, followed by Illinois.
https://tampabayedc.com/news/how-many-people-moved-to-florid...
Florida also ranked #1 in domestic migration, #2 in international migration, and #1 with the most people moving in per day at 1,218. Texas followed Florida in both total net migration (349,575) and most people moving in per day (958). Florida’s total population has reached more than 22.2 million and sits third in the nation behind California and Texas, previously surpassing New York.
New York and California, two of the biggest markets to the South and South-Central regions, experienced the largest out migration, followed by Illinois.
https://tampabayedc.com/news/how-many-people-moved-to-florid...
In my anecdotal experience, there is a sizable chunk of people who stayed within a couple of hours drive of the city but moved farther out to save money. Towns up the Hudson Valley, Westchester, "Greater Woodstock", Long Island, Conn/Mass/NJ.
If the only reason you are paying all that rent money for that tiny apartment is so you can take the subway to work, and you can work from Yonkers over Zoom just as well, why not?
If the only reason you are paying all that rent money for that tiny apartment is so you can take the subway to work, and you can work from Yonkers over Zoom just as well, why not?
The general pattern in a lot of places I've read about is that most people don't move out to the boonies or across the country. They move someplace that's accessible to the city for a weekend or even a day trip.
I haven't moved because I already owned a place in an exurb, but if I had to go into Boston daily as I did for a while, that wouldn't be sustainable but I can go in for a show in the evening (or a customer visit). There are probably a lot of people for whom their housing calculus changes if they don't have to regularly go into a downtown office.
I haven't moved because I already owned a place in an exurb, but if I had to go into Boston daily as I did for a while, that wouldn't be sustainable but I can go in for a show in the evening (or a customer visit). There are probably a lot of people for whom their housing calculus changes if they don't have to regularly go into a downtown office.
The food, the people, the theater, the music, the buildings, the parks, the museums, the rivers, the beach. The current that’s always pushing you out, which force you to grow or leave. Collectively, “the energy”.
If it’s only an expensive studio apartment that’s keeping one here, I agree, they should save the cash and make room for the rest of us.
If it’s only an expensive studio apartment that’s keeping one here, I agree, they should save the cash and make room for the rest of us.
But, for many people, a lot of "the energy" comes from a day or two per month.
Mostly. People leaving Florida typically end up in Georgia or the Carolinas.
> For example, most people moving to Florida moved from New York, the fourth largest state in population and a longstanding origin of Florida-bound movers.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/07/04/florida-i...
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/state-to-stat...
> For example, most people moving to Florida moved from New York, the fourth largest state in population and a longstanding origin of Florida-bound movers.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/07/04/florida-i...
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/state-to-stat...
About twice as many people moved from NYC to CT/PA/NJ as moved to Florida -- which makes sense given that the people moving out are generally poorer than average and long-distance moves are expensive.
And they probably don't want to leave the area. It's difficult to leave a network (familial or professional) behind. I'd love to know how many people who made that move made it to start a family.
Ahh! This would be a cool longitudinal study for the census to follow up with. Asking “Did you move to form a family because where you left was too expensive?” but also observing the revealed preference (did they actually have a kid or kids after moving).
There are a random amount of New Yorkers in my tiny city in N. Georgia. lol. Something is amiss. haha. They seem to fit in well though taking up shooting, four wheelers, and other traditional activities.
When you say New Yorkers, do you mean New York City or elsewhere in the state? All of those activities would be pretty common in New York once you get a couple hours away from the City.
IDK, they sound like "Heyyy, I'm wolkin' here" and they have new york tags and italian surnames. I haven't asked them where specifically they're from. They seem to love it here though. We have 3 families in my neighborhood.
Are these "upstate" New Yorkers or from the city?
I posted this on another comment but
"IDK, they sound like "Heyyy, I'm wolkin' here" and they have new york tags and italian surnames. I haven't asked them where specifically they're from. They seem to love it here though. We have 3 families in my neighborhood."
"IDK, they sound like "Heyyy, I'm wolkin' here" and they have new york tags and italian surnames. I haven't asked them where specifically they're from. They seem to love it here though. We have 3 families in my neighborhood."
Everywhere and also depending on the circumstances.
People who could, bought a house in Florida, New Jersey also the Carolinas, some in Texas. Also many people just "went back home", that happens every year since NYC is a popular destination but also grinds people left and right. If you're average middle class and need to have a "normal" job to make a living, NYC is not only unfair but also straight up abusive.
That's why a large group of employed people and business owners also left, not only the unemployed.
People who could, bought a house in Florida, New Jersey also the Carolinas, some in Texas. Also many people just "went back home", that happens every year since NYC is a popular destination but also grinds people left and right. If you're average middle class and need to have a "normal" job to make a living, NYC is not only unfair but also straight up abusive.
That's why a large group of employed people and business owners also left, not only the unemployed.
I moved from Brooklyn to Miami. Mostly because I had a child IMO NYC is not a good place to raise a kid.
Interesting because we moved our family from Miami to the Chicago suburbs for the same reason.
Why didnt you think Miami was a good place to raise children ? And how is Chicago better?
In general people in Miami are less friendly, cliquish and unreliable compared to other parts of the country. Even other parts of Florida. They’ll show up an hour late and act like they’re doing you a favor by showing up.
The drivers are erratic and irresponsible.
Everything is a scam or hustle of some kind.
The cultural institutions like museums and libraries are extremely poor even compared to mid-tier northeast or midwest cities.
And finally, the public schools are mostly awful and even the universities are a tier below cities of similar size.
The drivers are erratic and irresponsible.
Everything is a scam or hustle of some kind.
The cultural institutions like museums and libraries are extremely poor even compared to mid-tier northeast or midwest cities.
And finally, the public schools are mostly awful and even the universities are a tier below cities of similar size.
I agree w/ all of this, but the public schools in Chicago pretty much suck too.
Yeah CPS is bad but the suburbs around Chicago have some of the best school districts in the country.
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.
For most though, it's about housing cost - those move to Jersey or MAYBE LI. That's a larger group, too.
And there isn't a lot of politics in Florida...just leaning in the opposite direction?
yes, these are Republicans leaving
Your forgot one of the biggest reasons:
Florida has no income tax.
Florida has no income tax.
The amount of money you can save moving from NYC to Miami starts to become pretty substantial if you make over 400K, and Miami has basically all of amenities of NYC with less bullshit. Miami is far from perfect obviously, traffic is horrible, the NYC food scene is much better, and there are probably a lot more people with guns.
Weather, taxes, and CoL.
Freedom
Good things the price of accommodation followed that trend.
New York’s population did not decline by 5%. The population estimates between censuses always undercounts New York relative to the actual census. The last population estimate for NYS before the 2020 census had the state’s population being flat relative to 2010 and it ended up being up more than 800k in the real census. Same thing is happening AGAIN here.
https://policybynumbers.com/a-caution-about-the-use-of-censu...
https://policybynumbers.com/a-caution-about-the-use-of-censu...
How much of the "Rebound of International Immigration" is the result of migrants being bussed to New York from the southern border?
The crime question of NYC is incredibly controversial, and a consensus is that crime is barely up, and where it's up, it's pandemic-related and back to "historical norms".
There are two ways to gather crime stats: NYPD reporting them, surveys.
Here's a problem with the former: the stats are easy to game: how people are charged, which crimes are responded to, and which reports are taken are all subject to adjustments. Anyone who's tried to get the police to file a report knows: you need to sometimes persuade.
Then you have the DA. In Manhattan, Alvin Bragg was elected on a platform of de-incarceration. That means that he believes the 'carceral system' disproportionately punishes the poor and POC and further tears them from their communities. In his Day 1 essay, he outlines what he did: look the other way at property crimes such as shoplifting, and low level muggings and the like. He won't charge, and the police aren't going to stick their necks out for a suspect that's not getting punished (charges dropped or declined to prosecute).
I'm happy to pull some stats from articles I saved that prove this. I saved them because it's incredibly unpopular (it's viewed as a 'right wing talking point' historically which renders it false prima facie). I can tell you anecdotally the aggression is something I haven't seen ever, mostly from vagrant types that live in stations and live a life of freedom to punch, smoke, defecate and worse. I know of physical assaults in mid town I hadn't heard about in decades, and I've seen hairy situations during rush hour that haven't existed in my entire time here.
Are people fleeing? That's an easier debate. The city has a cycling in of students, new grads and internationals, and a cycling out of marrieds, and the terminally fed-up with communal living and loud crowded commutes.
But the city won't die.
There are two ways to gather crime stats: NYPD reporting them, surveys.
Here's a problem with the former: the stats are easy to game: how people are charged, which crimes are responded to, and which reports are taken are all subject to adjustments. Anyone who's tried to get the police to file a report knows: you need to sometimes persuade.
Then you have the DA. In Manhattan, Alvin Bragg was elected on a platform of de-incarceration. That means that he believes the 'carceral system' disproportionately punishes the poor and POC and further tears them from their communities. In his Day 1 essay, he outlines what he did: look the other way at property crimes such as shoplifting, and low level muggings and the like. He won't charge, and the police aren't going to stick their necks out for a suspect that's not getting punished (charges dropped or declined to prosecute).
I'm happy to pull some stats from articles I saved that prove this. I saved them because it's incredibly unpopular (it's viewed as a 'right wing talking point' historically which renders it false prima facie). I can tell you anecdotally the aggression is something I haven't seen ever, mostly from vagrant types that live in stations and live a life of freedom to punch, smoke, defecate and worse. I know of physical assaults in mid town I hadn't heard about in decades, and I've seen hairy situations during rush hour that haven't existed in my entire time here.
Are people fleeing? That's an easier debate. The city has a cycling in of students, new grads and internationals, and a cycling out of marrieds, and the terminally fed-up with communal living and loud crowded commutes.
But the city won't die.
Doubtful, rents have been increasing during that entire period
https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny
https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny
I want to see this for San Francisco. And, for every other U.S. city!
The comments here are funny. You have a bunch of people saying folks are fleeing NYC due to crime. Then other people saying folks are fleeing due to housing shortage and rents going up. It's like the old restaurant line, "no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
Keep in mind, crime has risen for each of three years through 2022, and while that trend is worrisome, the actual number of crimes is only back up to 2006 levels. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/crime-statistics/histori... That's not a year known as "the bad old days" or particularly dangerous, though you can certainly write the alarming headline, "highest crime in 16 years." (FWIW indications are the trend reversed this year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/nyc-crime...)
The population decline coincides with the pandemic and remote work, and from my own personal experience here that's a much bigger driver of people leaving. Many people fled to their vacation homes and never came back, other people bought new places upstate and moved.
Like all cities, but probably more than most, NYC is at an inflection point where it's figuring out what its future looks like as work habits change. The offices won't all fill back up but aren't easily converted to housing. And frankly NYC's industries, though dynamic and high end, continue to face tech disruption, and Silicon Valley only has more economic strength every year.
So there could be even more population loss. Rents seem to be softening. There could absolutely be a down period here, economically and otherwise. But if you look back at the history of the city, these have been the most fertile times culturally. Crime in the 70s and 80s went hand in hand with punk rock in LES, art scene in SoHo, independent film wave, birth of hip hop. There were some actual businesses that came out of all that. I don't want NYC to become that bad again, it's not good for the people who live here, but if there is a lull as the city figures out what it is, there will be a silver lining.
Keep in mind, crime has risen for each of three years through 2022, and while that trend is worrisome, the actual number of crimes is only back up to 2006 levels. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/crime-statistics/histori... That's not a year known as "the bad old days" or particularly dangerous, though you can certainly write the alarming headline, "highest crime in 16 years." (FWIW indications are the trend reversed this year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/nyc-crime...)
The population decline coincides with the pandemic and remote work, and from my own personal experience here that's a much bigger driver of people leaving. Many people fled to their vacation homes and never came back, other people bought new places upstate and moved.
Like all cities, but probably more than most, NYC is at an inflection point where it's figuring out what its future looks like as work habits change. The offices won't all fill back up but aren't easily converted to housing. And frankly NYC's industries, though dynamic and high end, continue to face tech disruption, and Silicon Valley only has more economic strength every year.
So there could be even more population loss. Rents seem to be softening. There could absolutely be a down period here, economically and otherwise. But if you look back at the history of the city, these have been the most fertile times culturally. Crime in the 70s and 80s went hand in hand with punk rock in LES, art scene in SoHo, independent film wave, birth of hip hop. There were some actual businesses that came out of all that. I don't want NYC to become that bad again, it's not good for the people who live here, but if there is a lull as the city figures out what it is, there will be a silver lining.
Yeah I mean, covid was a good inflection point where it made people re-evaluate their lives and broke their decision inertia.
NYC is a ton of fun, but it is also, to sum it up in one word - hard.
People who have lived there 10/20/etc years and not lived elsewhere underestimate how much easier life outside the 5 boroughs can be.
Some scoff at NYC people owning a weekend/vacation home, but the funny thing is due to costs... it's not just the 1%.
I have had plenty of friends who rented in city while owning their weekend home. I have friends that did the math and realized a car + vacation home 2x the size of their apartment was cheaper than selling their 2bed & buying a 3bed, etc.
The crux of the problem is that there isn't a ton of housing and you are competing with the global 1%. In my previous building there used to be a guy upstairs who talked about the Ferraris he kept at his home in London. My current building has a number of trust fund kids including an under-25 year old child of petrostate president/PM living in the biggest, best units upstairs.
I basically make good FAANG money, but these people are another dimension, and they are everywhere in NYC. This effect goes down every level of the economic ladder where you are competing for housing with people who you would not normally be competing elsewhere.
NYC is a ton of fun, but it is also, to sum it up in one word - hard.
People who have lived there 10/20/etc years and not lived elsewhere underestimate how much easier life outside the 5 boroughs can be.
Some scoff at NYC people owning a weekend/vacation home, but the funny thing is due to costs... it's not just the 1%.
I have had plenty of friends who rented in city while owning their weekend home. I have friends that did the math and realized a car + vacation home 2x the size of their apartment was cheaper than selling their 2bed & buying a 3bed, etc.
The crux of the problem is that there isn't a ton of housing and you are competing with the global 1%. In my previous building there used to be a guy upstairs who talked about the Ferraris he kept at his home in London. My current building has a number of trust fund kids including an under-25 year old child of petrostate president/PM living in the biggest, best units upstairs.
I basically make good FAANG money, but these people are another dimension, and they are everywhere in NYC. This effect goes down every level of the economic ladder where you are competing for housing with people who you would not normally be competing elsewhere.
COVID made a lot of people re-evaluate things--at least at the margin. I'm pretty sure I know a disproportionate number of people who ended up retiring at least a few years early.
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 unequivocally that in 2021 it seemed more like 1988 than 2006.
If anything, the mid-2000s felt like the safest period of time that I lived in the city -- at the height of where a good party would be held in the same kind of places dead bodies would be dumped a decade or two earlier.
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 unequivocally that in 2021 it seemed more like 1988 than 2006.
If anything, the mid-2000s felt like the safest period of time that I lived in the city -- at the height of where a good party would be held in the same kind of places dead bodies would be dumped a decade or two earlier.
There is an easy way to get around the "reported crimes" issue.
Look at murders. Dead bodies will not be hidden.
And murders are also showing returns close to historic lows.
Also, the cities people are moving to have much higher per capita crime than NYC (nearly every mid to major US city has much higher per capita crime than NYC because NYC is incredibly safe for a US city).
Here are the numbers (from July...this is what a quick DDG returned, but I'm sure more recent numbers will be similar).
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00088/nypd-citywide-crim...
Homicides were down 35% since July 2022. Homicides almost certainly do not have the "reported" crime issue at least in the US.
Look at murders. Dead bodies will not be hidden.
And murders are also showing returns close to historic lows.
Also, the cities people are moving to have much higher per capita crime than NYC (nearly every mid to major US city has much higher per capita crime than NYC because NYC is incredibly safe for a US city).
Here are the numbers (from July...this is what a quick DDG returned, but I'm sure more recent numbers will be similar).
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00088/nypd-citywide-crim...
Homicides were down 35% since July 2022. Homicides almost certainly do not have the "reported" crime issue at least in the US.
No you can not just look at murders and declare that over all crime is down because murder is down.
Looking at cities that do not have the same reporting problem that these large cities with a certain political bent you can see that murder does not track with non-violent crime aka property crime and only has a loose correlation to other violent crimes.
it is entirely possible for Theft, robbery, Rape, etc to be increase while murder is decreasing.
Further according to U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics issued in March 2023, between 34% and 58% of violent crimes were reported to police. For property crimes, the percentage reported to police was between 28% and 44%.[1] It may seem add on only 34% of violent crime would be reported, but we have seen many reports in recent years of police treating victims like criminals in the first place so many people will just move on and never involve the police even with violent crime.
Then there is the reported 90,000+ package thefts [2] that occur that NYPD does not put on their comstat figures they release as these are considered minior offenses, but have a real impact on daily life (aka broken windows)
[1] https://www.westsiderag.com/2023/07/09/column-how-many-uws-c...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/nyregion/package-theft-ea...
Looking at cities that do not have the same reporting problem that these large cities with a certain political bent you can see that murder does not track with non-violent crime aka property crime and only has a loose correlation to other violent crimes.
it is entirely possible for Theft, robbery, Rape, etc to be increase while murder is decreasing.
Further according to U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics issued in March 2023, between 34% and 58% of violent crimes were reported to police. For property crimes, the percentage reported to police was between 28% and 44%.[1] It may seem add on only 34% of violent crime would be reported, but we have seen many reports in recent years of police treating victims like criminals in the first place so many people will just move on and never involve the police even with violent crime.
Then there is the reported 90,000+ package thefts [2] that occur that NYPD does not put on their comstat figures they release as these are considered minior offenses, but have a real impact on daily life (aka broken windows)
[1] https://www.westsiderag.com/2023/07/09/column-how-many-uws-c...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/nyregion/package-theft-ea...
In 2008, I was run over from behind by an MTA bus driver going south on 21st st in Astoria while on my bicycle. Broad daylight, normal conditions, I had totally un-missable neon reflective gear on.
This was a block and a half past a bus stop where the driver had previously been stopped. As I was stuck, run over, with myself and my bike stuck in the front right wheelwell, the driver opened the door and spent all of his time kicking me until I could pull the bike free, rather than help. Then he closed the door and drove away.
I sat on the sidewalk and calmly collected myself and my busted bike and called the non-emergency line for the 114th Precinct. Here's what the cop answering the phone told me:
"Hey jackass, do you actually think we're going to file a report against a city employee? click"
That's why I don't talk to the NYPD.
This was a block and a half past a bus stop where the driver had previously been stopped. As I was stuck, run over, with myself and my bike stuck in the front right wheelwell, the driver opened the door and spent all of his time kicking me until I could pull the bike free, rather than help. Then he closed the door and drove away.
I sat on the sidewalk and calmly collected myself and my busted bike and called the non-emergency line for the 114th Precinct. Here's what the cop answering the phone told me:
"Hey jackass, do you actually think we're going to file a report against a city employee? click"
That's why I don't talk to the NYPD.
> Keep in mind NYPD had its budget cut by billions of dollar
Where do you see that? Looking at their spending, that does not seem to be the case:
https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/RevenueSpending/nypd.html
Anyway, wasn't the election of former police officer Eric Adams supposed to be a turning point for the city? Did the tough-on-crime mayor not have a measurable impact on crime? I noticed in San Francisco they elected a moderate Mayor (London Breed) and tossed out their reformist DA in a recall but it does appear the crime problem seems intractable even for hardline moderates.
Where do you see that? Looking at their spending, that does not seem to be the case:
https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/RevenueSpending/nypd.html
Anyway, wasn't the election of former police officer Eric Adams supposed to be a turning point for the city? Did the tough-on-crime mayor not have a measurable impact on crime? I noticed in San Francisco they elected a moderate Mayor (London Breed) and tossed out their reformist DA in a recall but it does appear the crime problem seems intractable even for hardline moderates.
> Where do you see that?
OP is incorrect. The NYPD has had its budget consistently increased each year.
There is one asterisk, in 2020, where the then-speaker attempted to hide the increases to the police budget by allocating the funding for police embedded in schools to the Department of Education, but this was caught pretty quickly. So the actual total amount budgeted for police up-front did not decrease, and of course the amount actually paid was much higher (because the police have gone over their budget every year consistently for a very long time).
There wasn't much support among elected officials for actually decreasing police funding. The mayor at the time made a pretty mild criticism of police violence and then the police union threatened to assault his daughter, so he reversed course and that didn't leave much room for even lip service to reducing police funding from the top.
OP is incorrect. The NYPD has had its budget consistently increased each year.
There is one asterisk, in 2020, where the then-speaker attempted to hide the increases to the police budget by allocating the funding for police embedded in schools to the Department of Education, but this was caught pretty quickly. So the actual total amount budgeted for police up-front did not decrease, and of course the amount actually paid was much higher (because the police have gone over their budget every year consistently for a very long time).
There wasn't much support among elected officials for actually decreasing police funding. The mayor at the time made a pretty mild criticism of police violence and then the police union threatened to assault his daughter, so he reversed course and that didn't leave much room for even lip service to reducing police funding from the top.
Yea, the way big cities seem to want to resolve the crime problem is to simply stop responding to crime calls, if no one can report a crime the crime never happened right???
SanFran seems to have this policy when it comes to shoplifting, never mind your eyes, or the video, since the police dept has a policy to never respond to retail theft, retail theft crimes are dropping... it is like magic.
SanFran seems to have this policy when it comes to shoplifting, never mind your eyes, or the video, since the police dept has a policy to never respond to retail theft, retail theft crimes are dropping... it is like magic.
Well, in SanFran, the retail businesses just closed up and left.
...which is also starting to happen in NYC.
Can't shoplift from stores if they don't exist.
...which is also starting to happen in NYC.
Can't shoplift from stores if they don't exist.
[deleted]
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 DR every day that there isn't a cop car parked outside).
But in terms of actual 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. In terms of budget, the NYPDs spending dropped in 2021 by $500m, and in 2022 was only down $100m from 2020, so it's bouncing back. There's only ~1500 officers fewer than target, which means there's still 33500 police officers. The NYPD's budget is still over $5b, which is more than the entire military budget of Peru, New Zealand, Romania, and Finland (plus a bunch of other countries).
But in terms of actual 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. In terms of budget, the NYPDs spending dropped in 2021 by $500m, and in 2022 was only down $100m from 2020, so it's bouncing back. There's only ~1500 officers fewer than target, which means there's still 33500 police officers. The NYPD's budget is still over $5b, which is more than the entire military budget of Peru, New Zealand, Romania, and Finland (plus a bunch of other countries).
> 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.
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.
Not exactly, but almost. Five years in and around midtown east, then 7 years in astoria, now 13 years in midtown east. Not the same apartment, obviously, but same enough that I pass by the same places that I was passing by back in 1998.
In my experience, the places that were sketchy back then in Manhattan are still sketchy today, but the radius of sketch is much smaller and the demarcation line much brighter.
To use your examples, I agree that bushwick today is grittier than BH in 2000, but my impression is that it compares similarly to, say, avenue C in 2000, where there were hipster bars and restaurants popping up, but it was still considered less safe than the area around washington square park. I don't live in bushwick, though, so I'm sure its an imperfect comparison.
In my experience, the places that were sketchy back then in Manhattan are still sketchy today, but the radius of sketch is much smaller and the demarcation line much brighter.
To use your examples, I agree that bushwick today is grittier than BH in 2000, but my impression is that it compares similarly to, say, avenue C in 2000, where there were hipster bars and restaurants popping up, but it was still considered less safe than the area around washington square park. I don't live in bushwick, though, so I'm sure its an imperfect comparison.
> The NYPD's budget is still over $5b, which is more than the entire military budget of Peru, New Zealand, Romania, and Finland (plus a bunch of other countries).
Thanks. Now I have an irresistible urge to MacGyver some crazy geopolitical circumstances where the NYPD invades Finland. That will be my life's work.
Thanks. Now I have an irresistible urge to MacGyver some crazy geopolitical circumstances where the NYPD invades Finland. That will be my life's work.
They just cancelled the next five police academies. That's another 2500 less cops over 2 years.
[deleted]
More taxes. Less service.
Everything is outrageously expensive.
Middle class gets crushed.
If you've wealthy, no point in having your main residence in NYC (see, more taxes).
Will get worse before it gets better.
Everything is outrageously expensive.
Middle class gets crushed.
If you've wealthy, no point in having your main residence in NYC (see, more taxes).
Will get worse before it gets better.
> Everything is outrageously expensive
> Middle class gets crushed
I moved out of New York City in 2020. The overriding reason was not this, it was just a fluke that I got a very compelling out of state job offer in 2019, and they requested I move in 2020.
However, I am making about about $150-$160k as an SWE, and it goes a lot further here (although having to spend $700-$800 a month for a car, which I did not have to do in NYC, bites into that a little). I have a new, big, apartment with a front door to a tree-lined street in a nice walkable neighborhood near my workplace for less than $2000 a month. In New York I would have an older, smaller apartment on a higher floor in not as nice of a neighborhood for more a month.
I know people say to move to the Bay area because that's where the action is for tech jobs and where you make connections etc., but I don't see why not take a step on a way for a decent paying job in a cheap city where you can accumulate savings while your skillset is increasing.
The juniors/associates I work with making <$100k a year say they can barely afford their expenses now here. I don't know what they'd be doing in the Bay Area or New York. They have roommates too.
I saved up a ton of money down here, and gained experience as well. If I move back to New York (or to the Bay Area), I do so on surer footing - I have a lot of money saved up for a rainy day now.
It also makes for a situation where those with lower income - even associate/junior SWEs at Fortune 100 companies - can't afford to live in cities like NYC, San Francisco etc.
I moved out of New York City in 2020. The overriding reason was not this, it was just a fluke that I got a very compelling out of state job offer in 2019, and they requested I move in 2020.
However, I am making about about $150-$160k as an SWE, and it goes a lot further here (although having to spend $700-$800 a month for a car, which I did not have to do in NYC, bites into that a little). I have a new, big, apartment with a front door to a tree-lined street in a nice walkable neighborhood near my workplace for less than $2000 a month. In New York I would have an older, smaller apartment on a higher floor in not as nice of a neighborhood for more a month.
I know people say to move to the Bay area because that's where the action is for tech jobs and where you make connections etc., but I don't see why not take a step on a way for a decent paying job in a cheap city where you can accumulate savings while your skillset is increasing.
The juniors/associates I work with making <$100k a year say they can barely afford their expenses now here. I don't know what they'd be doing in the Bay Area or New York. They have roommates too.
I saved up a ton of money down here, and gained experience as well. If I move back to New York (or to the Bay Area), I do so on surer footing - I have a lot of money saved up for a rainy day now.
It also makes for a situation where those with lower income - even associate/junior SWEs at Fortune 100 companies - can't afford to live in cities like NYC, San Francisco etc.
I've worked at hedge funds for over 10 years, I make FAANG money... and yet, I lived in a 1 bedroom rental without washer/dryer into my mid 30s. Unit hadn't been renovated since the 80s.
My boss did similar until he nearly lost his mind WFH with a working spouse and toddler all running around the room.
Meanwhile my current team is remote and my 24 year old coworker in Miami rents a 2 bedroom with his non-working wife. This is, I cannot stress this enough.. completely unheard of in NYC.
My boss did similar until he nearly lost his mind WFH with a working spouse and toddler all running around the room.
Meanwhile my current team is remote and my 24 year old coworker in Miami rents a 2 bedroom with his non-working wife. This is, I cannot stress this enough.. completely unheard of in NYC.
Amen
This is a pretty reasonable approach but I would caution against potentially being too overly-conservative in eventually moving to the bay/NY if career ambition is a goal. What's often missing in these budgeting numbers is the intangible variable of a far lower ceiling of income potential that you have to trade off. How does the calculus change if say there is some probability X of reaching a potential far higher than 150-160k, as tends to be the case in these HCOL areas?
[deleted]
This is it in a nutshell. And I don't see anything that points to those trends reversing in a meaningful way long term.
Tragically, New York State's efforts to increase housing supply by applying laws at the state level seems to have failed: https://www.nytimes.com/article/nyc-housing-hochul-long-isla....
If voters like expensive housing, I guess we'll keep getting expensive housing.
If voters like expensive housing, I guess we'll keep getting expensive housing.
Yes a lot of people you think of as "NYers" are.. not, for tax purposes.
Most famous people you know have enough flexibility that they can be in their West coast / Florida / Mountains / Beach / Westport / Greenwich / Short Hills / etc home 183+ days per year.
Most famous people you know have enough flexibility that they can be in their West coast / Florida / Mountains / Beach / Westport / Greenwich / Short Hills / etc home 183+ days per year.
> not, for tax purposes.
And, really, general quality of life. When you just want to spend quiet time at home, somewhere outside of the big city is going to provide something more quiet and comfortable. And when you want to do the things that the city uniquely has to offer, you go there while you do those things. NYC, nor anywhere else you might want to be, is certainly not walled off to outsiders. There is no advantage to being there all the time.
And, really, general quality of life. When you just want to spend quiet time at home, somewhere outside of the big city is going to provide something more quiet and comfortable. And when you want to do the things that the city uniquely has to offer, you go there while you do those things. NYC, nor anywhere else you might want to be, is certainly not walled off to outsiders. There is no advantage to being there all the time.
Exactly true and happens at all levels.
Sure Mr Tribeca might have had an awesome loft in Tribeca, but he also has like a 100 acre estate on the Hudson. And a place in Montauk. And and and..
Sure Mr Tribeca might have had an awesome loft in Tribeca, but he also has like a 100 acre estate on the Hudson. And a place in Montauk. And and and..
Absolutely. I hale from a village of ~1,000 people and I run into celebrities (Hollywood types, professional athletes, tech CEOs, etc.) quite frequently – because that's where they live.
[deleted]
Instead of regurgitating your priors you could have simply read the article.
What he said is totally in line with the article?
“In the pandemic’s wake, we see an altered population and it raises longstanding concerns about the cost of living, the growing wealth gap, the need to preserve a strong middle class, and the challenges of serving an aging population, while ensuring that families are able to raise their children here. We need the city to remain competitive on the world stage and a place where people want to move, put down roots and thrive.”
“In the pandemic’s wake, we see an altered population and it raises longstanding concerns about the cost of living, the growing wealth gap, the need to preserve a strong middle class, and the challenges of serving an aging population, while ensuring that families are able to raise their children here. We need the city to remain competitive on the world stage and a place where people want to move, put down roots and thrive.”
I live in NYC. The problem is that there’s literally 0 housing. That’s it.
Literally so many people want to move here, but you look on all of streeteasy on a given day and there’s like 500 apartments. In a city of millions.
Sure you can pay more and get something. But it used to be that you traded a lot of quality of life (in unit washer dryer, dishwasher, ac, no walkups, cars, space, etc) for a lower price and the social aspects of living in a city. People don’t believe it, but cities used to be cheap. Now you literally pay more for less in all respects especially during Covid. As the prices have been spiraling up, you also get demographic shifts of only rich people or literally homeless shitting on the streets so you lose the cultural elements of having a diverse income unless you go deep into Brooklyn.
I’m not arguing that NYC is not fun still. It’s still great. But without housing for a semi normal price (I can’t even get a place with a dishwasher for less than 2.5k in most areas), and a lot of it, the trade off for living in nyc is making less and less sense.
Literally so many people want to move here, but you look on all of streeteasy on a given day and there’s like 500 apartments. In a city of millions.
Sure you can pay more and get something. But it used to be that you traded a lot of quality of life (in unit washer dryer, dishwasher, ac, no walkups, cars, space, etc) for a lower price and the social aspects of living in a city. People don’t believe it, but cities used to be cheap. Now you literally pay more for less in all respects especially during Covid. As the prices have been spiraling up, you also get demographic shifts of only rich people or literally homeless shitting on the streets so you lose the cultural elements of having a diverse income unless you go deep into Brooklyn.
I’m not arguing that NYC is not fun still. It’s still great. But without housing for a semi normal price (I can’t even get a place with a dishwasher for less than 2.5k in most areas), and a lot of it, the trade off for living in nyc is making less and less sense.
>I live in NYC. The problem is that there’s literally 0 housing. That’s it.
>Literally so many people want to move here, but you look on all of streeteasy on a given day and there’s like 500 apartments. In a cities of millions.
I'm currently in my mid-30's. Throughout all of my 20's, I thought it would be a blast to live in NYC. Then I had a good stretch where I visited it a whole bunch of times, hanging out with friends and family who lived there, and you know what I noticed? Unless you were an older family member who owned a home/apartment, every younger person was renting and 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, what kind of battles their friends went through to get their places, and then they'd compare the different amenities they had or didn't have. I watched these same conversations - some of which were told like war stories - play out again and again and again and again.
Then, you get into the whole issue of bed bugs, how prevalent they are in NYC and how much of a nightmare it is to deal with them, and you realize that life in NYC is largely spent just trying to figure out how to have a place to live, and it suddenly feels incredibly stupid to bother to try and move there. The nightlife and entertainment and culture, as cool as they are, just aren't worth it if you're constantly hassling with such a basic need.
But that's just me. /shrug
>Literally so many people want to move here, but you look on all of streeteasy on a given day and there’s like 500 apartments. In a cities of millions.
I'm currently in my mid-30's. Throughout all of my 20's, I thought it would be a blast to live in NYC. Then I had a good stretch where I visited it a whole bunch of times, hanging out with friends and family who lived there, and you know what I noticed? Unless you were an older family member who owned a home/apartment, every younger person was renting and 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, what kind of battles their friends went through to get their places, and then they'd compare the different amenities they had or didn't have. I watched these same conversations - some of which were told like war stories - play out again and again and again and again.
Then, you get into the whole issue of bed bugs, how prevalent they are in NYC and how much of a nightmare it is to deal with them, and you realize that life in NYC is largely spent just trying to figure out how to have a place to live, and it suddenly feels incredibly stupid to bother to try and move there. The nightlife and entertainment and culture, as cool as they are, just aren't worth it if you're constantly hassling with such a basic need.
But that's just me. /shrug
I moved here about 10 years ago in my mid 20s. It's certainly more expensive and annoying to find housing here than other places I've lived, but it's more than balanced out by needing to own an automobile. The average cost of car ownership in the US is in the $10k-12k range. I certainly don't spent an extra thousand dollars on rent here vs say, any other place I might reasonably move. So I figure I'm still coming out ahead.
I can't speak to the bedbugs problem, I've been lucky I suppose.
I can't speak to the bedbugs problem, I've been lucky I suppose.
NYC housing quality is, absolutely, dollar for dollar, garbage value. With or without discounting car costs.
My (now) wife & I both got well paying jobs at banks out of college almost 20 years ago. Our entire signing bonuses went to apartment fees & deposits. We were each in a situation where 1 paycheck per month went to the rent. Neither of us had a dishwasher, let alone a washer/dryer, central air, any aircon.. etc. Our buildings had bugs&rats, and walls thin enough to hear neighbors phone calls.
Marrying and moving up to nicer places, we still had no washer/dryer across the next 2 apartments.
Finally when we felt like we had "made it" in our mid-30s, we bought a new condo and finally have a washer/dryer. It cost more than my parents, in-laws, and sister's homes combined.. and then multiplied by two. It has only 2 beds (not 3 like the aforementioned homes). My kitchen has a stove the size of a fisher price play kit, and the oven doesn't fit standard sized baking trays. I have only 1 zone AC which can't manage to keep the different rooms within +/-5F of each other.
I could live like a proverbial king in 95% of the rest of the country on this budget.
My (now) wife & I both got well paying jobs at banks out of college almost 20 years ago. Our entire signing bonuses went to apartment fees & deposits. We were each in a situation where 1 paycheck per month went to the rent. Neither of us had a dishwasher, let alone a washer/dryer, central air, any aircon.. etc. Our buildings had bugs&rats, and walls thin enough to hear neighbors phone calls.
Marrying and moving up to nicer places, we still had no washer/dryer across the next 2 apartments.
Finally when we felt like we had "made it" in our mid-30s, we bought a new condo and finally have a washer/dryer. It cost more than my parents, in-laws, and sister's homes combined.. and then multiplied by two. It has only 2 beds (not 3 like the aforementioned homes). My kitchen has a stove the size of a fisher price play kit, and the oven doesn't fit standard sized baking trays. I have only 1 zone AC which can't manage to keep the different rooms within +/-5F of each other.
I could live like a proverbial king in 95% of the rest of the country on this budget.
so why then do you continue living in NYC if the quality of life is relatively worse? i bounced from a similar situation in sf to a lower cost of living area and am loving it, albeit i have the luxury of working remotely.
[deleted]
I spend ~50% of my time outside NYC now as I am remote.
One can easily buy a car for $30k that will operate for 200k miles/10 years with no problem. That is $0.15 per mile, add $0.45 per mile for insurance/fuel/maintenance/savings to buy new car.
$0.60 per mile is $6k per year at 10k miles per year, which is a decent amount of driving. $9k per year at 15k miles per year.
However, you can usually get more than 200k miles/10 years out of a car, so those costs above are very high end costs. Unless you opt for luxuries, I think annual car spend can easily be brought down to $6k, or $500 per month. Even less if you opt for liability only insurance, and live in a place that does not require you to drive 10k miles per year.
$0.60 per mile is $6k per year at 10k miles per year, which is a decent amount of driving. $9k per year at 15k miles per year.
However, you can usually get more than 200k miles/10 years out of a car, so those costs above are very high end costs. Unless you opt for luxuries, I think annual car spend can easily be brought down to $6k, or $500 per month. Even less if you opt for liability only insurance, and live in a place that does not require you to drive 10k miles per year.
Owning a car is far cheaper than living in NYC!
You definitely spend more than $10-12k/year once you have a family for even a modest amount of space.
And that's the average cost of car ownership, it's easy to find a cheap car.
You definitely spend more than $10-12k/year once you have a family for even a modest amount of space.
And that's the average cost of car ownership, it's easy to find a cheap car.
Further car can be useful in lot of ways, like hauling large amount of things, groceries, going for a out of town trip and so on. I think in case of NYC don't need a car in city vs can't afford a car in city use cases are mixed and need to be separated out.
Yes, $10-12k is like the monthly mortgage on a family sized apartment in NYC.
Many NYers need to construct elaborate fantasies to delude themselves that actually living in NYC is totally economical/convenient/rational, and not just their personal preference. Something about a river in Egypt.
In reality while it's fun, its also often inconvenient, expensive, or both.
Many NYers need to construct elaborate fantasies to delude themselves that actually living in NYC is totally economical/convenient/rational, and not just their personal preference. Something about a river in Egypt.
In reality while it's fun, its also often inconvenient, expensive, or both.
I lived in NYC for 10 years (the majority of my 20s).
Yes, people talk about their rent and their apartments (amongst many other things!), but it's because it's one of the things they all have in common— they rent. And because we loved to collectively complain about things.
And not once in the 10 years did I have bed bugs. I think I knew one other person with them (barring I'm sure a few who never shared).
All that being said, there is absolutely a housing shortage AND things in NYC are tougher than anywhere else. But I liken NYC to the doughnut added to the baseball bat when batters warm up— once you take it off (and live anywhere else) everything feels easier.
Yes, people talk about their rent and their apartments (amongst many other things!), but it's because it's one of the things they all have in common— they rent. And because we loved to collectively complain about things.
And not once in the 10 years did I have bed bugs. I think I knew one other person with them (barring I'm sure a few who never shared).
All that being said, there is absolutely a housing shortage AND things in NYC are tougher than anywhere else. But I liken NYC to the doughnut added to the baseball bat when batters warm up— once you take it off (and live anywhere else) everything feels easier.
Yes! I think the best single world description of NYC is - hard.
It works ok in your 20s because you may not have pets/kids/ailing parents/etc to worry about. And you don't realize that you are treading water while your friends outside the city are moving onto more established phases of their lives..
It works ok in your 20s because you may not have pets/kids/ailing parents/etc to worry about. And you don't realize that you are treading water while your friends outside the city are moving onto more established phases of their lives..
>...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 other here. It's been difficult to "make it" here for as long as New York has been New York. My grandmother once told me towards the end of her life about how she and my grandfather had tried to live in NYC back after WWII and how hard it was, how they didn't last long. I didn't even know they had lived anywhere besides the Boston area until then.
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 other here. It's been difficult to "make it" here for as long as New York has been New York. My grandmother once told me towards the end of her life about how she and my grandfather had tried to live in NYC back after WWII and how hard it was, how they didn't last long. I didn't even know they had lived anywhere besides the Boston area until then.
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"
> life in NYC is largely spent just trying to figure out how to have a place to live
There's a lot going on in NYC, possibly more than anywhere in the world. And in fact, that's why people want to move there.
There's a lot going on in NYC, possibly more than anywhere in the world. And in fact, that's why people want to move there.
[deleted]
Add in the considerations regarding moving every couple of years and doing it all over again.
There's no long term stability to be had, so it's no wonder that people left when given the chance in the form of increased remote opportunities and a lifestyle "reset" in the form of covid.
There's no long term stability to be had, so it's no wonder that people left when given the chance in the form of increased remote opportunities and a lifestyle "reset" in the form of covid.
I think the story of NYC is people try it when they don't need stability. Some make it and get stability there, some don't and move on, and a new generation moves in.
"If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere ..."
.....
"If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere ..."
.....
And yes, we look the same
Both pumping steel
Both sweating
But you know she got nothing to hide
And I got something to hide here
Called desire.
I got something to hide here
Called desire
And I will get out of here
You know that fear potion is just about to come
In my nose is the taste of sugar
And I got nothing to hide here
Save desire
And I'm going to go
I'm going to get out of here
I'm going to get out of here
I'm going to get on that train
And I'm going to go on that train
And go to New York City
I'm going to be somebody
I'm getting
Going to get on that train
Go to New York City
I'm going to be so big
I'm going to be a big star
And I will never return ...plus many other places do the chaotic metropolitan vibe much better, e.g. London.
When people (including myself) talk about New York not being fun any more, it's almost always in relation to the price. Rent is incredibly expensive at this point, and that drives up the price of literally everything else, too. New Yorkers also don't understand that the "tier 2" cities in the US actually have most/all of the food, culture, and activities that they think are exclusive to New York.
On the other hand, lots of New York evangelists in 2023 are lifers who have locked in their rent-stabilized apartment rates 20 years ago, and enjoy all the amenities that (largely) the rest of us are supposed to pay for.
On the other hand, lots of New York evangelists in 2023 are lifers who have locked in their rent-stabilized apartment rates 20 years ago, and enjoy all the amenities that (largely) the rest of us are supposed to pay for.
> "tier 2" cities in the US actually have most/all of the food, culture, and activities that they think are exclusive to New York.
I'm not knocking tier 2 cities or advocating NY, but that's just not true. Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world.
I'm not knocking tier 2 cities or advocating NY, but that's just not true. Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world.
> Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world.
I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? I usually ask because the answer I usually get from New York exceptionalists is a dismissive version of "no," like "why would I live anywhere else?" A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them.
Also, note that I am not talking about Cleveland as a "tier 2" city. New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2."
I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? I usually ask because the answer I usually get from New York exceptionalists is a dismissive version of "no," like "why would I live anywhere else?" A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them.
Also, note that I am not talking about Cleveland as a "tier 2" city. New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2."
I would maybe keep SF and LA as tier 1.5 (ignoring the fact that LA is mostly a collection of suburbs) given their presence at the global scale, but there is a drop-off in tiers for all other cities. Chicago is a great example, it's usually considered a sister city to NYC, but as someone who grew up there and then later spent time in NYC, the differences in cultural attitudes between the two could not be starker.
> I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York?
For me, Chicago and Boston. I spent a ton of time hanging out in SF between 2008-2015 when I worked for a startup out there. I've spent a lot of time in LA for both work and pleasure. [edit] I also spent a lot of time in Miami for work at one point in my life.
And yeah, to me it's true. There's really no comparison with NYC in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't really awesome cities in the country, they're just not New York.
> New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2."
Not that these rankings really mean much, but whenever people try to quantify it, NYC is often at the top [1]. Again, lots of the "tier 2" cities have similar things as NYC, it's just not often on the same scale.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
For me, Chicago and Boston. I spent a ton of time hanging out in SF between 2008-2015 when I worked for a startup out there. I've spent a lot of time in LA for both work and pleasure. [edit] I also spent a lot of time in Miami for work at one point in my life.
And yeah, to me it's true. There's really no comparison with NYC in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't really awesome cities in the country, they're just not New York.
> New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2."
Not that these rankings really mean much, but whenever people try to quantify it, NYC is often at the top [1]. Again, lots of the "tier 2" cities have similar things as NYC, it's just not often on the same scale.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
If the NYC <> Boston bullet train ever happens, Boston will be such an ideal place to live. I already prefer it to NYC personally, but it's true there are "tier 1 global city" things it can't offer. But if it becomes feasible to get door to door in under 2 hours? I suppose that could also change the entire character of the city over time though.
I vaguely remember reading the announcement about Acela when I was a teenager, originally thinking it was going to be high speed rail between Boston and NYC. It's really embarrassing as a country that it takes 4 hours to get between the two cities by train. And on top of that, it often is at least as expensive as a 30 minute flight.
> But if it becomes feasible to get door to door in under 2 hours? I suppose that could also change the entire character of the city over time though.
Philadelphia is about 1.5 hours by train from NY (and probably ~2 hours driving). While it's very underrated - really a special place of its own - it's not NY or part of it.
Philadelphia is about 1.5 hours by train from NY (and probably ~2 hours driving). While it's very underrated - really a special place of its own - it's not NY or part of it.
Can you get to some specifics? Specifically, what is in NYC that you cannot possibly get in Chicago for example?
Not the OP but as someone who grew up in Chicago, but then spent a large time in NYC, here are some examples:
1. Talent Density: Chicago is optimized talent-wise at a regional level (the midwest), while NYC is optimized at a global level. Chicago simply doesn't have the same pull if you don't live in the midwest the way NYC does for folks living anywhere across the world. This creates an obvious talent gap.
2. Culture: Chicago operates as a much more of an all-American city, reflecting cultural attitudes not too dissimilar from the rest of the country. Examples here include a heavy sports culture, emphasis on drinking/going out. You see a similar trend with NYC transplants (like myself in my early 20's) but you're eventually forced to grow out of it in NYC and create a more unique and diversified identity. I haven't seen much of this in my social circle from Chicago who never left.
3. Industry Density: Chicago is considered top at a few select industries including insurance, commodities etc. OTOH, there are very few industries that NYC would not be considered top in. Strong talent begets strong talent and this creates the sort of network effect that's present in the bay (for tech), and in NYC, but not in Chicago minus a few industries. These network efforts, over a long enough timeframe, fundamentally alter the landscape of one's career.
4. Local v.s. global maxima: Chicago allows you to reach a relatively easier maxima (career or culture wise), which likely means Chicagoans are happier on average. That concept doesn't exist in NYC or the bay. It pushes you to reach a global maxima which is inherently more challenging. For example, getting a job at Google likely sets you for life in Chicago. In NYC or the bay, that's simply a starting point. This isn't for the faint of heart but is highly rewarding if you're ambitious and work-oriented.
5. Arts and Fashion: The same concept of local v.s. global maxima exists here too.
6. Food: Far more global and unique in NYC than in Chicago (which in-itself has great food)
1. Talent Density: Chicago is optimized talent-wise at a regional level (the midwest), while NYC is optimized at a global level. Chicago simply doesn't have the same pull if you don't live in the midwest the way NYC does for folks living anywhere across the world. This creates an obvious talent gap.
2. Culture: Chicago operates as a much more of an all-American city, reflecting cultural attitudes not too dissimilar from the rest of the country. Examples here include a heavy sports culture, emphasis on drinking/going out. You see a similar trend with NYC transplants (like myself in my early 20's) but you're eventually forced to grow out of it in NYC and create a more unique and diversified identity. I haven't seen much of this in my social circle from Chicago who never left.
3. Industry Density: Chicago is considered top at a few select industries including insurance, commodities etc. OTOH, there are very few industries that NYC would not be considered top in. Strong talent begets strong talent and this creates the sort of network effect that's present in the bay (for tech), and in NYC, but not in Chicago minus a few industries. These network efforts, over a long enough timeframe, fundamentally alter the landscape of one's career.
4. Local v.s. global maxima: Chicago allows you to reach a relatively easier maxima (career or culture wise), which likely means Chicagoans are happier on average. That concept doesn't exist in NYC or the bay. It pushes you to reach a global maxima which is inherently more challenging. For example, getting a job at Google likely sets you for life in Chicago. In NYC or the bay, that's simply a starting point. This isn't for the faint of heart but is highly rewarding if you're ambitious and work-oriented.
5. Arts and Fashion: The same concept of local v.s. global maxima exists here too.
6. Food: Far more global and unique in NYC than in Chicago (which in-itself has great food)
> Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York?
Yes, and I've spent a lot of time in many cities.
> A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them.
It's just not true. For example, name another city in the US that has arts anything like NY: fine arts, jazz, classical, theater, etc. etc. And if you think that other city has them like NY, you either don't understand the art or don't understand what NY has. (OK, maybe London.) Pull up the theater listings in NY and in the city you are thinking of.
Again, other cities can be wonderful; not everyone cares about those things or does at that level; not everyone has time for them (one reason many people with families move to suburbs); but there's no comparison.
Yes, and I've spent a lot of time in many cities.
> A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them.
It's just not true. For example, name another city in the US that has arts anything like NY: fine arts, jazz, classical, theater, etc. etc. And if you think that other city has them like NY, you either don't understand the art or don't understand what NY has. (OK, maybe London.) Pull up the theater listings in NY and in the city you are thinking of.
Again, other cities can be wonderful; not everyone cares about those things or does at that level; not everyone has time for them (one reason many people with families move to suburbs); but there's no comparison.
This is actually interesting, because your list includes a lot of things that were invented/developed in New York.
The New York arts:
* If you're looking for the Broadway experience, you won't find it anywhere but Broadway (West End sometimes tries). If you want to define theater a little more broadly, though, there are a lot of options. West End is a different beast, but I think it's actually a bigger scene. For other kinds of theater, Tokyo is also fantastic, and I hear that Melbourne, Australia has a huge theater scene. If you define theater more broadly to include film, LA beats out New York by a mile.
* New York is the jazz capital of the world right now, but New Orleans, Memphis, and Chicago have traded that role and all have a huge scene. That said, jazz basically grew up in Harlem, so it's hard to beat New York.
The non-New-York arts:
* Boston and SF probably have the best classical music scenes in the US. Outside of the US, Vienna holds the title hands down. Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth.
* In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US).
Again, I said that New York is good at all of these things, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above the rest of the world unless you specifically want a New York experience. It sounds like yours is Broadway, and that's fine, but it's not a universal desire.
I personally prefer to travel to New York when I want to see something on Broadway or at the Met Opera, and that's (IMO) a lot better than living there 24/7.
The New York arts:
* If you're looking for the Broadway experience, you won't find it anywhere but Broadway (West End sometimes tries). If you want to define theater a little more broadly, though, there are a lot of options. West End is a different beast, but I think it's actually a bigger scene. For other kinds of theater, Tokyo is also fantastic, and I hear that Melbourne, Australia has a huge theater scene. If you define theater more broadly to include film, LA beats out New York by a mile.
* New York is the jazz capital of the world right now, but New Orleans, Memphis, and Chicago have traded that role and all have a huge scene. That said, jazz basically grew up in Harlem, so it's hard to beat New York.
The non-New-York arts:
* Boston and SF probably have the best classical music scenes in the US. Outside of the US, Vienna holds the title hands down. Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth.
* In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US).
Again, I said that New York is good at all of these things, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above the rest of the world unless you specifically want a New York experience. It sounds like yours is Broadway, and that's fine, but it's not a universal desire.
I personally prefer to travel to New York when I want to see something on Broadway or at the Met Opera, and that's (IMO) a lot better than living there 24/7.
> Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth.
Pull up the classical music listings in NY and in any of those other cities, or all of those other cities combined. It's really not true in any sense. Let's not forget all the musicians in NY, the top music school (Julliard), etc etc etc.
> In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US).
I'm pretty sure that if you want to be an artist - making 'new art' - NY is the place to be, probably in the world. But yes, some other global cites in Europe and Asia are good too. Of course Europe has more 'old art' - that's where much of it came from.
Pull up the classical music listings in NY and in any of those other cities, or all of those other cities combined. It's really not true in any sense. Let's not forget all the musicians in NY, the top music school (Julliard), etc etc etc.
> In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US).
I'm pretty sure that if you want to be an artist - making 'new art' - NY is the place to be, probably in the world. But yes, some other global cites in Europe and Asia are good too. Of course Europe has more 'old art' - that's where much of it came from.
The top music school in the world is Curtis in most musicians' opinions. I'm sure you can find some ranking site that puts Juilliard at the top, and it is definitely in the top 10 (many people put it at #2), but Curtis has by far the best reputation and the most competitive audition process. Colburn (on the west coast) is often also considered up there with Curtis depending on the instrument.
Juilliard is probably the top drama school in the world, however. Also, Manhattan School of Music may be the best jazz school.
Finally, what "listings" are you referring to? I have never seen a good listing of classical music performances anywhere I have lived, including New York, that wasn't essentially word-of-mouth.
Juilliard is probably the top drama school in the world, however. Also, Manhattan School of Music may be the best jazz school.
Finally, what "listings" are you referring to? I have never seen a good listing of classical music performances anywhere I have lived, including New York, that wasn't essentially word-of-mouth.
Don't forget the "mom&dad helped me with a small $1M forgivable loan for my downpayment" cohort.
This would make sense if the population growth was increasing but at a slower rate. But, the population is actively declining. Somehow, 5.3% of people went from having housing to leaving, so I don’t think housing is the only story here.
There's absolutely a housing shortage. Fewer people living in one unit is how you get a shrinking population while the housing supply remains static.
And rent control exacerbates it, as you have literally over a million people that are a "locked into" their below-market rate units and can never leave because they'll never find anything that cheap elsewhere, regardless of whether they still need that much space. My great aunt for example is 101 years old and lives in a 3 bedroom apartment in Queens. 50 years ago there were 4 people living in that apartment (including her husband and her kids, all now dead).
Plus there's the issue of renovations/demolitions that remove units and replace them with a smaller number of more expensive units.
And rent control exacerbates it, as you have literally over a million people that are a "locked into" their below-market rate units and can never leave because they'll never find anything that cheap elsewhere, regardless of whether they still need that much space. My great aunt for example is 101 years old and lives in a 3 bedroom apartment in Queens. 50 years ago there were 4 people living in that apartment (including her husband and her kids, all now dead).
Plus there's the issue of renovations/demolitions that remove units and replace them with a smaller number of more expensive units.
> Fewer people living in one unit is how you get a shrinking population while the housing supply remains static.
No, that's not how normal distributions work. Among the 5.3%, some significant portion of those left empty housing units in their wake. They weren't all 3rd roommates that left.
No, that's not how normal distributions work. Among the 5.3%, some significant portion of those left empty housing units in their wake. They weren't all 3rd roommates that left.
The vacancy rate in NYC is really low right now. Those units aren't "left empty", they're quickly re-rented back out. It's just that the new tenants on average have fewer people living per unit than the old tenants.
> This would make sense if the population growth was increasing but at a slower rate. But, the population is actively declining. Somehow, 5.3% of people went from having housing to leaving, so I don’t think housing is the only story here.
Yes, when your rent goes up 10-20% YoY and you simultaneously lose some or all of your income, you tend to leave.
A lot of people left NYC in the last few years because they could not afford it, with housing being both the main expense and also the one that has increased the most in the last few years.
Yes, when your rent goes up 10-20% YoY and you simultaneously lose some or all of your income, you tend to leave.
A lot of people left NYC in the last few years because they could not afford it, with housing being both the main expense and also the one that has increased the most in the last few years.
It might not be the only story, but it's very possible for growth in demand for housing quantity to outstrip growth in population. Say if there was a sudden move to working from home, which encourages home offices, concentrated in the class of workers with flexibility in their budget to spend more on rent (a class that's disproportionately large in NYC)?
It's also possible for supply of housing to reduce simultaneously. Say if there was a change in rental laws that strongly incentivized landlords to pull units from the market?[0]
[0] https://reason.com/2019/06/17/new-yorks-progressive-backed-r...
It's also possible for supply of housing to reduce simultaneously. Say if there was a change in rental laws that strongly incentivized landlords to pull units from the market?[0]
[0] https://reason.com/2019/06/17/new-yorks-progressive-backed-r...
This is true when housing demand is controlled entirely by how many people live in the area. However, large metro hubs like NYC and London have a larger percentage of the housing supply consumed by rich people who buy part-time housing so they have somewhere nice to crash when they visit once in a while, or so they have somewhere nice for tourists to crash where they can make money off Airbnb. In that context, net emigration does not necessarily rule out a tight housing supply.
Remote work has made people pursue more space. I live in NYC in an 8 apartment building. 7 are 2 bedrooms, yet only 2 apartments have more than 1 person living in them.
Somewhat ironically, you have people choosing to stay single and not have kids, which gives them more money to spend on themselves for more room, which eats up housing and drives up prices.
Somewhat ironically, you have people choosing to stay single and not have kids, which gives them more money to spend on themselves for more room, which eats up housing and drives up prices.
A home getting turned into an airbnb or a city pied-à-terre for a a rich playboy reduces the population but does not improve the housing crisis
This is true. It's so depressing to have your salary and responsibility go up, but still have the same living circumstances as you did when you had your first job out of college.
I still don't have a laundry machine or a thermostat, I have holes in my walls from when my landlord half-did things, my rent has gone up, and I'm expected to continue to do more and get more responsibility.
Something's gotta give. I'm not sure what it's gonna be.
I still don't have a laundry machine or a thermostat, I have holes in my walls from when my landlord half-did things, my rent has gone up, and I'm expected to continue to do more and get more responsibility.
Something's gotta give. I'm not sure what it's gonna be.
People don’t believe it, but cities used to be cheap.
I wasn't really aware of this, but was just wondering about it the other day, as it seems like logically they should be cheaper; economies of scale ought to help for both housing and infrastructure, I would think. Interesting to hear that expensive cities aren't necessarily inevitable.
I wasn't really aware of this, but was just wondering about it the other day, as it seems like logically they should be cheaper; economies of scale ought to help for both housing and infrastructure, I would think. Interesting to hear that expensive cities aren't necessarily inevitable.
Basically all the housing in NYC—from the brownstones in Bed-Stuy to the high rises on the Upper East Side—were built during the early 20th century when there was a huge population boom, to provide affordable housing for literally millions of people.
We need to keep doing that. NYC doesn’t need a few thousand more apartments—it needs hundreds of thousands more apartments.
We need to keep doing that. NYC doesn’t need a few thousand more apartments—it needs hundreds of thousands more apartments.
> Sure you can pay more and get something. But it used to be that you traded a lot of quality of life (in unit washer dryer, dishwasher, ac, no walkups, cars, space, etc) for a lower price and the social aspects of living in a city.
On the other hand, if "every" landlord "just" asks for more, what the fuck is anyone going to do about it?
On the other hand, if "every" landlord "just" asks for more, what the fuck is anyone going to do about it?
Move away? I mean maybe not everyone can easily do that, but as prices go up, fewer people will want to live there, and units will start going unrented until prices come back down.
But this is just basic economics. Supply and demand. Are you implying that that doesn't set the prices, and that landlords are leaving money on the table out of the kindness of their hearts? That seems unlikely to me.
But this is just basic economics. Supply and demand. Are you implying that that doesn't set the prices, and that landlords are leaving money on the table out of the kindness of their hearts? That seems unlikely to me.
Don't forget the RealPage collusion by landlords, which pushed up rents considerably (in NYC too?)
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
Given that the population declined, without much evidence of housing being destroyed en-mass, it seems the problem is actually that people weren't coupling up during COVID – presumably because dating is hard during pandemic lockdowns and distancing measures – leaving more single people trying to find their own places. Those singles finding out there there is no longer enough housing for them is just a side effect.
Interesting, is the housing supply decreasing at all, or are those houses sitting empty for long?
If those houses are sitting empty for weeks then maybe there's going to be a bit of a correction (hard to imagine rent ever going down in NY though).
If those houses aren't sitting empty for long, then maybe NY is going through a lot of churn. Will be interesting to see how NY changes over the next few years.
If those houses are sitting empty for weeks then maybe there's going to be a bit of a correction (hard to imagine rent ever going down in NY though).
If those houses aren't sitting empty for long, then maybe NY is going through a lot of churn. Will be interesting to see how NY changes over the next few years.
Agree.
Food wise it's wild too. What used to be the price of an entres is now the price of an appetizer and the service have gotten down too.
Getting a place you actually want to live 2 bedrooms is at least $4K we pay much more because we live in a nice building.
But it's still a great city and I am sure somethings gotta give.
Food wise it's wild too. What used to be the price of an entres is now the price of an appetizer and the service have gotten down too.
Getting a place you actually want to live 2 bedrooms is at least $4K we pay much more because we live in a nice building.
But it's still a great city and I am sure somethings gotta give.
I ate at a place the other weekend in Brooklyn for lunch. Some small plates BS, so we had to get a number of items. Without drinks we are talking $50/head for a couple to have lunch, easily hitting $100/head if you drank.
The table they sat my wife & I at was, I swear to you, 2 square feet. It was a protrusion from the shelving in the wall that they had placed 2 backless tools at. It was like taking a 16" MacBook Pro and unfolding it so it was splayed open... I got the keyboard and wife got the screen. We actually begged to be sat at the bar instead but they declined.
At some point it's just not worth it anymore. I'm too old for this.
Maybe zoomers living in small studio who are meeting randos for a date. I had less eating space than when I eat my sad salad lunch at my desk. Who needs that anxiety on a Sunday afternoon. I have dining seating in my apartment for 6-8 people and I'm hunched over a veritable coach flight tray table and paying for the privilege?
The table they sat my wife & I at was, I swear to you, 2 square feet. It was a protrusion from the shelving in the wall that they had placed 2 backless tools at. It was like taking a 16" MacBook Pro and unfolding it so it was splayed open... I got the keyboard and wife got the screen. We actually begged to be sat at the bar instead but they declined.
At some point it's just not worth it anymore. I'm too old for this.
Maybe zoomers living in small studio who are meeting randos for a date. I had less eating space than when I eat my sad salad lunch at my desk. Who needs that anxiety on a Sunday afternoon. I have dining seating in my apartment for 6-8 people and I'm hunched over a veritable coach flight tray table and paying for the privilege?
> and the service have gotten down too
This is a tangent but mid and post pandemic, restaurant service seems to be significantly worse. Prices going up at least makes sense to me, prices are up everywhere, it is what it is and I can still afford to eat out. However, I find rarely do go out to restaurants now and service is a major part of that. Not to mention tipping percentages seems to have inflated on top of prices and for worse service...
I tend to end up at more casual places where I'm ordering at the counter and my food comes out to me (bistro's I guess? I'm not sure what the term is) where I'm mostly on my own after that, getting my own silverware, drinks, napkins, etc.
This is a tangent but mid and post pandemic, restaurant service seems to be significantly worse. Prices going up at least makes sense to me, prices are up everywhere, it is what it is and I can still afford to eat out. However, I find rarely do go out to restaurants now and service is a major part of that. Not to mention tipping percentages seems to have inflated on top of prices and for worse service...
I tend to end up at more casual places where I'm ordering at the counter and my food comes out to me (bistro's I guess? I'm not sure what the term is) where I'm mostly on my own after that, getting my own silverware, drinks, napkins, etc.
Bad service means the economy is good. Haven't you heard of the hot waitress index?
Yeah I saw a french onion soup for $15 the other day. Lol.
> It’s still great.
I’ve been to NYC many times and have friends in their late 30s that live there. The ones that live there say the same (“it’s great”) but never elaborate.
From the outside, it honestly looks like a dirty, difficult, chaotic city. Many restaurants, but all seem to be copy+paste coffee shop, Italian, etc or very low quality cafe/deli.
Coming from the Midwest, it feels very old, dirty and poor yet somehow expensive and desirable. What am I missing?
I’ve been to NYC many times and have friends in their late 30s that live there. The ones that live there say the same (“it’s great”) but never elaborate.
From the outside, it honestly looks like a dirty, difficult, chaotic city. Many restaurants, but all seem to be copy+paste coffee shop, Italian, etc or very low quality cafe/deli.
Coming from the Midwest, it feels very old, dirty and poor yet somehow expensive and desirable. What am I missing?
I haven't lived in manhattan ever, but I used to spend weeks there in 2014 for work (also in DC), and I've lived in London for a few months and now SF for years.
Cities generally have more variety of types of food (Burmese, Indian, Thai, Chinese, Italian, Jewish, etc.) that can be hard to find in the midwest (I grew up in the rural-ish suburbs outside of Buffalo - maybe not technically midwest, but close enough).
You have a lot of things close to you, you can walk out of your apartment and have a ton of options right here, in NYC you can subway anywhere else easily. The density makes things feel more like a community vs. houses spread apart where everything is by cars and strip malls.
In NYC you can go to the comedy cellar on macdougal street one night and Chris Rock or Louie CK might drop in unannounced to practice material (happened to me twice and I didn't go that many times).
If you live in a major city lots of friends pass through for one reason or another and you can meet up with them (this literally never happened in the suburbs of Buffalo).
There are also often more events and variety of people which can make things more interesting. It's also a lot different visiting vs. having your own place there for an extended time. Visiting is often more stressful because you don't have an easy place to retreat to.
Cities generally have more variety of types of food (Burmese, Indian, Thai, Chinese, Italian, Jewish, etc.) that can be hard to find in the midwest (I grew up in the rural-ish suburbs outside of Buffalo - maybe not technically midwest, but close enough).
You have a lot of things close to you, you can walk out of your apartment and have a ton of options right here, in NYC you can subway anywhere else easily. The density makes things feel more like a community vs. houses spread apart where everything is by cars and strip malls.
In NYC you can go to the comedy cellar on macdougal street one night and Chris Rock or Louie CK might drop in unannounced to practice material (happened to me twice and I didn't go that many times).
If you live in a major city lots of friends pass through for one reason or another and you can meet up with them (this literally never happened in the suburbs of Buffalo).
There are also often more events and variety of people which can make things more interesting. It's also a lot different visiting vs. having your own place there for an extended time. Visiting is often more stressful because you don't have an easy place to retreat to.
The big one for me is the type of people there.
I grew up in a very rural area, and worked in some big towns/small cities before coming to London. Maybe it's the sheer mass of people, but it's _much_ easier to find people on my wavelength in London than anywhere else. And that's something I'd happily give up food options, cultural events, and honestly quite a lot else for.
I grew up in a very rural area, and worked in some big towns/small cities before coming to London. Maybe it's the sheer mass of people, but it's _much_ easier to find people on my wavelength in London than anywhere else. And that's something I'd happily give up food options, cultural events, and honestly quite a lot else for.
Yeah - this is probably the main benefit.
Cities draw lots of people, typically ambitious people, but really all types.
> Ambitious people are rare, so if everyone is mixed together randomly, as they tend to be early in people's lives, then the ambitious ones won't have many ambitious peers. When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water. Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they'd get from ambitious peers, whatever their age. [0]
I generally think the above is true, but even outside of ambition there's just finding people to have interesting conversations with that are also interested in the things you're interested in whatever that might be. That's a lot easier with you live in an area that has more people, especially when it selects for the kind of people willing to move to a new place. It's one of the reasons global hubs have an advantage over mid-size cities and why the bay area has a specific advantage when it comes to tech.
[0]: http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html
Cities draw lots of people, typically ambitious people, but really all types.
> Ambitious people are rare, so if everyone is mixed together randomly, as they tend to be early in people's lives, then the ambitious ones won't have many ambitious peers. When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water. Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they'd get from ambitious peers, whatever their age. [0]
I generally think the above is true, but even outside of ambition there's just finding people to have interesting conversations with that are also interested in the things you're interested in whatever that might be. That's a lot easier with you live in an area that has more people, especially when it selects for the kind of people willing to move to a new place. It's one of the reasons global hubs have an advantage over mid-size cities and why the bay area has a specific advantage when it comes to tech.
[0]: http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html
> Coming from the Midwest, it feels very old, dirty and poor yet somehow expensive and desirable. What am I missing?
A counterpoint.
I don't live in NYC but do live in a similar major "coastal elite" type city.
When I visit the downtown areas of cities in the Midwest I'm always flabbergasted at how bad they are. Car culture reigns supreme, there's sprawl, while there's usually some portion of the inner downtown core that's seen a renaissance for the most part it's just empty buildings, especially at night.
Sure I can hop in a car and drive to some other area of the city limits, but that sucks. I'd rather be able to walk or take a short metro ride to my next thing. And my next thing. And my next thing. Similar, sure there are (usually) good restaurants. But they're also often a car ride away.
I'll grant that NYC is *so* large that it has similar issues. If one is in lower Manhattan and wants to get to Queens, good luck with that. But there's always something to do in a walkable radius.
A counterpoint.
I don't live in NYC but do live in a similar major "coastal elite" type city.
When I visit the downtown areas of cities in the Midwest I'm always flabbergasted at how bad they are. Car culture reigns supreme, there's sprawl, while there's usually some portion of the inner downtown core that's seen a renaissance for the most part it's just empty buildings, especially at night.
Sure I can hop in a car and drive to some other area of the city limits, but that sucks. I'd rather be able to walk or take a short metro ride to my next thing. And my next thing. And my next thing. Similar, sure there are (usually) good restaurants. But they're also often a car ride away.
I'll grant that NYC is *so* large that it has similar issues. If one is in lower Manhattan and wants to get to Queens, good luck with that. But there's always something to do in a walkable radius.
Living a carless life is amazing. It gets hard if you're starting a family though, depending on what lifestyle you want to live.
There's a difference between a carless life and a non-car-centric life. I own a car and use it. But for most day-to-day business it's either unnecessary or worse than other options.
It's entirely possible that you aren't missing anything, that you aren't cut out for this kind of living. But many people are and find it highly desirable, many millions more than can currently afford to live here.
Also, I moved here for a job at a FANG. This is a top tier tech city, with salaries matched only by the Bay Area and Seattle. Compared to those other two I find NYC obviously superior.
Also, I moved here for a job at a FANG. This is a top tier tech city, with salaries matched only by the Bay Area and Seattle. Compared to those other two I find NYC obviously superior.
I think the Bay Area and NYC have their own strengths. The Bay is more of a morning city and has a lot of nice nature and day trips around it. Easy to go to sonoma/napa, yosemite, tahoe, nice places on the peninsula, half moon bay, etc. The bay is much better for cycling too. I think the bay remains better specifically for tech (especially now with AI).
I think SF is also prettier than NYC and a lot smaller while still being a really nice place to be (also much better weather year round).
I love NYC too, it just has different advantages imo.
I think SF is also prettier than NYC and a lot smaller while still being a really nice place to be (also much better weather year round).
I love NYC too, it just has different advantages imo.
If you’re at a FAANG, especially at a $300k+ total compensation, NYC is very livable. In unit washer/dryer might be a stretch, but you can comfortably get a 1BR luxury apartment without much effort in a nice part of Manhattan.
Yeah. Between my girlfriend and I who live together (she's also at a FANG), we just barely clear 7 figures. It's easy for us to afford living here, and my commute is a short ten minute bike ride. I barely even ever take the subway, that's how convenient everything is.
The lack of housing isn't displacing people like us, it's displacing people who make less than us. And frankly our building is not nearly luxurious enough as it should be for how much we're paying for it, which is another symptom of the lack of housing construction over the decades (the average housing stock here is too old).
The lack of housing isn't displacing people like us, it's displacing people who make less than us. And frankly our building is not nearly luxurious enough as it should be for how much we're paying for it, which is another symptom of the lack of housing construction over the decades (the average housing stock here is too old).
You are not missing anything. It would have been great if it was cheap (as in dirt cheap) then young people could use the city as a recreation/career building center before moving to something else. Or at least that's what the city was and some cities today are.
Today, it's mostly a playground for the very rich to park their money in cement because they cannot make up their mind about trusting the government.
Today, it's mostly a playground for the very rich to park their money in cement because they cannot make up their mind about trusting the government.
Dirty and poor compared to what?
If you haven’t, I’d suggest you visit a large or mid size city in a prosperous north Midwest state like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Dakota, etc.
People I know from the East Coast that have visited are typically floored by the quality of life in flyover country. Everything we have is new, life is affordable, top performing schools and communities are growing. The local governments are generally growth oriented with excellent infrastructure and relatively Low taxes.
Oh, but maybe not as many Thai/niche ethnic restaurants, so there is that downside, ha. But beyond your 20s, why anyone would consider calling NYC home is beyond me. Quality of life for my family > proximity to restaurants and bands.
People I know from the East Coast that have visited are typically floored by the quality of life in flyover country. Everything we have is new, life is affordable, top performing schools and communities are growing. The local governments are generally growth oriented with excellent infrastructure and relatively Low taxes.
Oh, but maybe not as many Thai/niche ethnic restaurants, so there is that downside, ha. But beyond your 20s, why anyone would consider calling NYC home is beyond me. Quality of life for my family > proximity to restaurants and bands.
> a large or mid size city in a prosperous north Midwest state
Which city?
Which city?
It seems they gave you enough information: Minneapolis, Madison, Des Moines, Sioux Falls, Cedar Rapids.
Virtually every other city anywhere in the western world, especially outside of the United States.
The cultural, nightlife, and entertainment aspects. All cities are varying degrees of old/disgusting.
Cities are for the very rich and single people as far as I can tell. My guess is they are in those buckets. If not then they are the type of person that craves culture and finds anything outside of NYC culturally wanting. Part of it is also media indoctrination their whole life saying NYC is the center of the universe, and they feel a thrill being even a small part of that.
[deleted](1)
1. Most people rent not buy in NYC. There are plenty of rentals.
2. I’m in the market to buy, and I’ve been able to make bids below asking so I’m not sure demand is as high as you’d suggest.
2. I’m in the market to buy, and I’ve been able to make bids below asking so I’m not sure demand is as high as you’d suggest.
"I've been able to make bids below asking so I'm not sure demand is as high as you'd suggest"
You can have super high demand all making bellow asking bids if the asking price is irrational.
You can have super high demand all making bellow asking bids if the asking price is irrational.
[deleted]
depends on the neighborhood. i suspect low bids are not possible in the west village or Williamsburg
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
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
That only works if you assume that it is possible to build quickly enough to satisfy both demands. But if you can't, then you'll just satisfy one and not the other. NYC made this calculus and prefers people to have homes over short-term stays.
Supply and demand.
At one point there should be enough supply that AirBnB will bring too little profit for people to be bothered.
Things like AirBnB work precisely because the supply is constrained.
At one point there should be enough supply that AirBnB will bring too little profit for people to be bothered.
Things like AirBnB work precisely because the supply is constrained.
I agree we should build more housing.
But in the meantime it's not helping to have a bunch of the housing stock dedicated to tourists. Now maybe banning airbnb will put such a damper on tourism that it becomes a problem, but let's deal with that problem when it happens.
But in the meantime it's not helping to have a bunch of the housing stock dedicated to tourists. Now maybe banning airbnb will put such a damper on tourism that it becomes a problem, but let's deal with that problem when it happens.
> But in the meantime it's not helping to have a bunch of the housing stock dedicated to tourists
Tourists bring in good tax dollars for the city since NYC has insane hotel taxes on top of the ridiculous cost of Hotels.
From a moral perspective, it really shouldn't be anyone's business how a property owner decides to use their property. If they want to rent it on month-to-month leases or 12 month leases, it's up to them. If there's not enough permanent or long-term housing, then you need to deregulate NYC's byzantine zoning regulations and make it a lot easier to build whatever, wherever.
Also you need to get rid of rent control; it is categorically proven to make things worse
Tourists bring in good tax dollars for the city since NYC has insane hotel taxes on top of the ridiculous cost of Hotels.
From a moral perspective, it really shouldn't be anyone's business how a property owner decides to use their property. If they want to rent it on month-to-month leases or 12 month leases, it's up to them. If there's not enough permanent or long-term housing, then you need to deregulate NYC's byzantine zoning regulations and make it a lot easier to build whatever, wherever.
Also you need to get rid of rent control; it is categorically proven to make things worse
Now that's a one way to kill the economy...
Where would the new housing go? They should focus on building fast train links into the city.
NYC is insanely dense already. “Just build more housing” isn’t really viable.
"just build more housing" is definitely viable here in NYC. NYC is not that dense in comparison to many other major metropolis in the world.
Really? Compared to what other metropolises?
NYC doesn't even make the list apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_popul...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_popul...
Did you actually look at that list? Most have under 1,000,000 in population. Many even have less than 100,000. There are only a handful of cities on the list comparable to NYC. It’s also worth noting that Manhattan would be 9 on the list, if listed as an individual city. The current number 9 is Port au Prince. Is that the kind of metropolis you were comparing NYC to?
most of nyc outside Manhattan is 2 story townhouses
tharne(12)
pierat(3)
(Submitted title was "New York City population declined by 5.3% since 2020". )
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...