There is nothing that would make the average New Yorker happier than the collapse of real estate prices and the evacuation of big business. Most New Yorkers rent their apartments and fondly remember a time before their corner stores were Starbucks, Duane Reade and Chase. You do the math.
New York City has more millionaires than any other city. But the average New Yorker isn't a millionaire. These changes are bad for millionaires and partially caused by their exodus already. The people who stay will have an easier time affording their homes and starting their small businesses. That doesn't sound like the end to me.
Maybe their real estate will be cheaper, but if the city loses the income tax those higher earners and their luxury consumption, that loss of revenue is gonna fall to the middle class to make up, a middle class putting net more children into the school system too. NYC's annual spending per capita is already one of the highest in the nation.
Doubt they will raise taxes more than what is already the highest rates in the country. More likely outcome is that as salaries across the spectrum decrease their spending will too. This has every chance of going well for the city as it does the other way. Hard to predict the second degree effects on things like crime anyway.
Has any major city ever drastically cut spending to address a secular trending down of tax revenue? Honest question, cause as far as I can tell modern cities just keep spending until they literally can’t at which point the city is long ago put a fork in it done.
Color me skeptical that NYC has the electoral will to make wise fiscal decisions going forward.
Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't actually aware of the consistency of this shift over time. I didn't love this graph, however, so I went looking and found far better displays (IMO) of this trend here: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-midd...
> In this report, “middle-income” households are defined as those with an income that is 67% to 200% (two-thirds to double) of the overall median household income, after incomes have been adjusted for household size.
That makes the assumption that the highest-paid residents of the city are currently paying their fair share. I somehow doubt that, so I don't see the loss of revenue from their absence as great as predicted.
I wonder how much the cost of having the millionaires (in terms of the average resident paying for food, rent, parking, etc) is offset by their large contribution
I know not everyone would agree with me - but I think local governments almost always agree that attracting high earners is good for the city. Not only do they make schools and local government better funded but the raising of prices usually means higher wages (and more possible jobs) for the working class. There is a reason once Detroit lost its high wage workers the city sorta collapsed onto itself.
Where are you getting that number? Best sources I can find say $6 billion with another $4 billion in related obligations (pensions etc.). $88 billion is nearly the city’s whole budget.
NYC has a vast underclass that spawns huge numbers of violent young males that have to be kept in line in order to minimize the violent victimization of productive residents.
I'm not saying this is pretty or desirable, but it's undeniably the result of decades of policy decisions. Soft non-urban whites don't generally understand this.
NYC’s entire budget this year is 88B I believe. The NYPD is about 5 of that if I’m recalling correctly.
It was 96Bn last year minus the 8Bn in cuts as a result of the decrease in revenues occurring due to the pandemic.
The NYPD, again off the top of my head, is about 7% of the annual budget?
A far cry from many American cities which can spend between a quarter and a half of their budgets on policing (see Chicago, and LA for examples).
But, there may still be wiggle room. I was pretty disgusted by their actions during the protests personally what with the shoving women to the ground hard enough to cause seizures and concussions, the driving vans into protesters, and whatnot.
Also the discriminatory policing in mask enforcement. There’s gotta be a better way. I’m very curious about the efficacy of their anti terrorism efforts but have no data or really any idea on what they’re doing in that regard.
The city is certainly safer than it used to be although violent crime seems to be ticking up nation wide, which I presume to be because everyone’s home rubbing shoulders in their neighborhoods instead of at work.
If the population numbers in the article are correct (~16,000 people homeless), that works out to $200,000 per person per year. I'm not familiar with how that is used, but from an outsider it sounds like there are a lot of inefficiencies in spending.
I'd be interested in the throughout then, instead of annual snapshot figures. If the average homelessness is say 5 weeks /1.2 months roughly, then you may be servicing 10x as many homeless people or 160 thousand, for 20k each.
With servicing meaning: short term housing for the duration of the homelessness, medical care, counselling, labour force training and placement, employer and landlord subsidies for the first six months of employment/housing contract etc.
They are already there. They are just struggling. Their time isn't optimized for their relative benefit. They are spending too much of their time waiting tables and driving taxis instead of making art.
I was thinking about this topic from the perspective of a college graduate making the transition to working full time at a white-collar office job.
College is the most social environment imaginable:
- In class with lots of people
- Encountering people you know between classes
- Clubs and social groups
- Communal studying
- Living in close quarters with friends and others
- Eating meals with others, etc.
Just an endless list of opportunities to socialize and interact.
The idea that college graduates will want to make such a transition from the most social environment possible to working from home, alone, for 8 to 10 hours per day, seems very strange to me. I think anyone who has onboarded a new college grad hire (like myself) during this time would attest to this.
Half of the reason to go into the office is knowing how to interact with your co-workers and gauge at what level of formality you need to interact with each other, as well as just getting to know each other.
Human interaction is as much non-verbal communication as verbal communication, and video conferences and slack leave a lot missing there.
Depends on the person. I've found offices and their in person politics tiresome. Remote grants workers a bit more control and autonomy for many roles with few downsides.
Me too but I don't see right now an alternative to getting things done in a big company. Solving this problem should earn a Nobel prize in economics (and a fortune in consulting)
> The idea that college graduates will want to make such a transition from the most social environment possible to working from home, alone, for 8 to 10 hours per day, seems very strange to me
The NYC ruin prediction porn articles are really hitting their stride, aren't they? Comparing NYC to Detroit, what a joke. As someone who lived near NYC for decades and now lives near Detroit, the 2 cities are so far apart in virtually every way that there's really no use in comparing them.
Yea, as a NYC denizen myself I generally say to people “the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated” when I see these. The source of this story is of course a right leaning tabloid I believe, and current trends seem to indicate they’re trying to push the narrative that “Democrat” run cities are lawless hellholes.
Large portions of both Reagan’s and Clinton’s platforms are no longer in alignment with both their respective right and left parities today. As an American leftist, that article read pretty right to me, but that’s just my personal inclination.
In these conversations people focus exclusively on productivity. Yet as a worker I want to also optimize my relationships. So there is at least some incentive to have a place to come together professionally. Of course not in same the daily commute sense, but I would give a lot to deepen relationships with colleagues right now and meetup at some central location.
Was NYC "adapting" to its own growing needs before pandemic? I assumed not because it seemed clear that real estate price growth in most global cities were unstustainable.
I get that _some_ people who had plans to enjoy the growth pattern of NYC for many decades to come are now faced with this "black swan" and don't know what to do to keep their forecast earnings. But overall, the societal pressure to urbanize will continue. If anything pandemic just is making the true costs of dignifying urbanization more clear.
Just because there is pressure to Urbanize doesn't mean that it will happen in NYC. NY already was looking a great deal of loss tax revenue, this has just been worsening the trend.
So nyc was already facing pressure to adapt to changing reality. We are in agreement. What says NYC will fail to do so? Does adapting only mean keeping up with increasing amount of tax revenue? Cities aren't (should be) corporations, less revenue (due to less residents to cater for) shouldn't be bad in itself. What prevents NYC from adapting to a new reality and be successful at it for it's residents?
It seems to me that the SV tech scene was produced by established players getting rich and funding new players. The NY scene was founded by people who wanted to live in NY. A lot of people had no interest in going to live in a suburban area like that, especially in the first 10 years of their career.
Article is written by Bradley Tusk, founder and CEO of Tusk Holdings.
This is mostly from Wikipedia:
He previously served as the campaign manager for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2009 re-election bid, as Deputy Governor of Illinois, as Communications Director for US Senator Chuck Schumer, and as Uber's first political advisor.
In 2015, Tusk ran a high-profile campaign featuring TV, radio and digital ads, direct mail, grassroots outreach, earned media, social media and mobilizing community leaders to oppose New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's proposed plan to cap the number of vehicles Uber could operate.
The campaign argued that "the company was good for the city, providing jobs and transportation for less affluent residents in the outer boroughs." The bill was dropped before it could go to a vote. Tusk Ventures was launched two weeks after the Uber victory.
Tusk Ventures has worked with over three dozen startups including Bird, FanDuel, Lemonade, Handy, Eaze, Nexar, GlamSquad, Ripple, Nurx, Ro, Kodiak Robotics, pymetrics, Grove and Care/Of, solving a variety of political, regulatory and media challenges solely in return for equity in each company and for investment rights in each company's next round of financing.
I just realized that there is a definite cyclical element to historical urban/suburban growth patterns.
Companies in relatively new industries that only need to hire a few experts do not need urban rents: They can attract people from afar and hold that talent hostage in a small town, because the options for employment in the field are limited. This describes both classical "company towns" with dorms and factories and companies that emerged in the consumer software boom of the 80's, for example Sierra Online was HQ'd in Oakhurst, CA, a town of a few thousand people in a region with about 10,000.
The maturation of a competitive industry gradually pools the talent into an urban center, as hiring demands increase, more managerial and financial elements are needed and more of the workers hop between companies. Sierra moved to Bellevue, and then to LA during the 90's amidst a flurry of mergers.
Companies that occupy monopoly positions don't experience the same pressure to move or change. Epic Systems, a contemporary to Sierra, still has its HQ in Wisconsin, and its company culture has resisted work from home.
And work from home is a kind of last step in enlarging the worker pool, since the online world effectively represents the "world's biggest city" - a vast, unknowable thing that we have barely begun to tap into. It does not have the exact form of a physical megacity takes, but in terms of building strong networks that generate productive relationships, it can supplant physical presence in many instances. Plus, the rent is very low, so everyone can move there.
The core premises of the megacity still hold validity. Not everyone is an office worker or a multimillionaire, and we continue to have many occupations that benefit from local connectivity and physical presence. But the megacity as a speculative playground, where the real estate market is used to stash wealth, might be done. The playground relies on growth keeping up with debt, but as debt piles up you get zombie companies. Japan went through this in the 90's, and everyone else may be catching up now.
I have heard so. (I have never lived there, so I can't say authoritatively.)
But they actually have a case. Honest question: Which city do you think is greater than New York? Is it clearly greater, or is it fuzzy and subjective? And if it's clear, what makes it clear?
I have absolutely no desire to ever live in New York. But I can see how they can make a case.
There is certainly no city in America that compares to New York City.
There are “megacities” in other countries that occupy a similar position, such as London or Tokyo (although they obviously all feel different in their own unique ways).
In the United States, however, the closest thing to NYC is Los Angeles and even that is spread out over so much additional area (much of which requires a car) that I don’t consider it necessarily comparable.
I think trying to rank any place as “greatest in the world” is kind of a fraught exercise, so I tried to scope the idea a bit more tightly.
If you want something that tries to be a bit more objective (although I’d stress that trying to rank something like “greatest city” objectively is probably not possible), check out the Wikipedia entry for global city rankings[0].
New York City trades places with London, and once with Tokyo, but otherwise is not terribly contested.
Obviously I’m biased because I live here (and stayed here through the worst of COVID), so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt.
High COL regions continue to lean on marquee companies and the supposed geographic affinities. The trend of companies fleeing to cheaper locales isn't theoretical, its decades-old already and merely being highlighted and accelerated. The myopia of Bay Area techies is even worse, they don't understand how far along this trend already is.
Both California and NY suffer from fiscal mismanagement and large looming retirement crises and other costs. Why stick around to fund the inevitable tax increases if you don't have to? Both states will attempt and fail to establish something like an exit tax. Cities and counties can go bankrupt. The Federal government has a printing press. States have neither option.
California may be in even worse shape than NY - it is going to get progressively more expensive to recover from fires. Why pay the bill? Just move away. If you stay, you run the risk of having your financial independence taxed away and then you can't move.
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
In other words: fuck you and your privacy regulation.
New York City has more millionaires than any other city. But the average New Yorker isn't a millionaire. These changes are bad for millionaires and partially caused by their exodus already. The people who stay will have an easier time affording their homes and starting their small businesses. That doesn't sound like the end to me.
Color me skeptical that NYC has the electoral will to make wise fiscal decisions going forward.
[1] http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/files/2012/01/middle_cl...
In particular, the following is more informative and doesn't rely on a zoomed-in axis to emphasize the change over time: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2...
It's also adjusted for household size:
> In this report, “middle-income” households are defined as those with an income that is 67% to 200% (two-thirds to double) of the overall median household income, after incomes have been adjusted for household size.
"1 percent of New York City residents generated 43 percent of city income taxes"
While I am not saying the current rate is fair or perfect, to say that the city wouldn't be hurt by losing tax revenue ignores the fact.
Not saying the cuts need to come from that segment, but let the sheer size of some of these budgetary items sink in.
Are you sure? You didn't mention any other segment.
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/Docum...
I'm not saying this is pretty or desirable, but it's undeniably the result of decades of policy decisions. Soft non-urban whites don't generally understand this.
It was 96Bn last year minus the 8Bn in cuts as a result of the decrease in revenues occurring due to the pandemic.
The NYPD, again off the top of my head, is about 7% of the annual budget?
A far cry from many American cities which can spend between a quarter and a half of their budgets on policing (see Chicago, and LA for examples).
But, there may still be wiggle room. I was pretty disgusted by their actions during the protests personally what with the shoving women to the ground hard enough to cause seizures and concussions, the driving vans into protesters, and whatnot.
Also the discriminatory policing in mask enforcement. There’s gotta be a better way. I’m very curious about the efficacy of their anti terrorism efforts but have no data or really any idea on what they’re doing in that regard.
The city is certainly safer than it used to be although violent crime seems to be ticking up nation wide, which I presume to be because everyone’s home rubbing shoulders in their neighborhoods instead of at work.
Lots of variables in play.
With servicing meaning: short term housing for the duration of the homelessness, medical care, counselling, labour force training and placement, employer and landlord subsidies for the first six months of employment/housing contract etc.
College is the most social environment imaginable:
- In class with lots of people
- Encountering people you know between classes
- Clubs and social groups
- Communal studying
- Living in close quarters with friends and others
- Eating meals with others, etc.
Just an endless list of opportunities to socialize and interact.
The idea that college graduates will want to make such a transition from the most social environment possible to working from home, alone, for 8 to 10 hours per day, seems very strange to me. I think anyone who has onboarded a new college grad hire (like myself) during this time would attest to this.
Human interaction is as much non-verbal communication as verbal communication, and video conferences and slack leave a lot missing there.
It's the worst.
I'd hardly say this is far to the right of, say, the Biden campaign.
I get that _some_ people who had plans to enjoy the growth pattern of NYC for many decades to come are now faced with this "black swan" and don't know what to do to keep their forecast earnings. But overall, the societal pressure to urbanize will continue. If anything pandemic just is making the true costs of dignifying urbanization more clear.
This is mostly from Wikipedia:
He previously served as the campaign manager for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2009 re-election bid, as Deputy Governor of Illinois, as Communications Director for US Senator Chuck Schumer, and as Uber's first political advisor.
In 2015, Tusk ran a high-profile campaign featuring TV, radio and digital ads, direct mail, grassroots outreach, earned media, social media and mobilizing community leaders to oppose New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's proposed plan to cap the number of vehicles Uber could operate.
The campaign argued that "the company was good for the city, providing jobs and transportation for less affluent residents in the outer boroughs." The bill was dropped before it could go to a vote. Tusk Ventures was launched two weeks after the Uber victory.
Tusk Ventures has worked with over three dozen startups including Bird, FanDuel, Lemonade, Handy, Eaze, Nexar, GlamSquad, Ripple, Nurx, Ro, Kodiak Robotics, pymetrics, Grove and Care/Of, solving a variety of political, regulatory and media challenges solely in return for equity in each company and for investment rights in each company's next round of financing.
Companies in relatively new industries that only need to hire a few experts do not need urban rents: They can attract people from afar and hold that talent hostage in a small town, because the options for employment in the field are limited. This describes both classical "company towns" with dorms and factories and companies that emerged in the consumer software boom of the 80's, for example Sierra Online was HQ'd in Oakhurst, CA, a town of a few thousand people in a region with about 10,000.
The maturation of a competitive industry gradually pools the talent into an urban center, as hiring demands increase, more managerial and financial elements are needed and more of the workers hop between companies. Sierra moved to Bellevue, and then to LA during the 90's amidst a flurry of mergers.
Companies that occupy monopoly positions don't experience the same pressure to move or change. Epic Systems, a contemporary to Sierra, still has its HQ in Wisconsin, and its company culture has resisted work from home.
And work from home is a kind of last step in enlarging the worker pool, since the online world effectively represents the "world's biggest city" - a vast, unknowable thing that we have barely begun to tap into. It does not have the exact form of a physical megacity takes, but in terms of building strong networks that generate productive relationships, it can supplant physical presence in many instances. Plus, the rent is very low, so everyone can move there.
The core premises of the megacity still hold validity. Not everyone is an office worker or a multimillionaire, and we continue to have many occupations that benefit from local connectivity and physical presence. But the megacity as a speculative playground, where the real estate market is used to stash wealth, might be done. The playground relies on growth keeping up with debt, but as debt piles up you get zombie companies. Japan went through this in the 90's, and everyone else may be catching up now.
Uh, is that really what New Yorkers tell each other?
But they actually have a case. Honest question: Which city do you think is greater than New York? Is it clearly greater, or is it fuzzy and subjective? And if it's clear, what makes it clear?
I have absolutely no desire to ever live in New York. But I can see how they can make a case.
There are “megacities” in other countries that occupy a similar position, such as London or Tokyo (although they obviously all feel different in their own unique ways).
In the United States, however, the closest thing to NYC is Los Angeles and even that is spread out over so much additional area (much of which requires a car) that I don’t consider it necessarily comparable.
If you want something that tries to be a bit more objective (although I’d stress that trying to rank something like “greatest city” objectively is probably not possible), check out the Wikipedia entry for global city rankings[0].
New York City trades places with London, and once with Tokyo, but otherwise is not terribly contested.
Obviously I’m biased because I live here (and stayed here through the worst of COVID), so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_city&mobil...
Both California and NY suffer from fiscal mismanagement and large looming retirement crises and other costs. Why stick around to fund the inevitable tax increases if you don't have to? Both states will attempt and fail to establish something like an exit tax. Cities and counties can go bankrupt. The Federal government has a printing press. States have neither option.
California may be in even worse shape than NY - it is going to get progressively more expensive to recover from fires. Why pay the bill? Just move away. If you stay, you run the risk of having your financial independence taxed away and then you can't move.
In other words: fuck you and your privacy regulation.
Honestly do you people live in these cities?
I just feel like "rampant crime" seems utterly divorced from most of the problems I actually feel like I face in life and government needs to address.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statist...