Okay, if the job opportunities in Manhattan are so awful, why aren't they finding equivalent job opportunities in the outer boroughs and continuing to live there?

Fewer job opportunities obviously affects affordability. There are two sides to the equation. The cost of living and the income to live there.

People like you are incapable of understanding that multiple factors can be in play. I didn't say that its solely driven by WFH. I'm saying that's probably a contributing factor.

A lot of jobs in the city relied on lower income and middle income people commuting in from the outer boroughs. People with clerical jobs, working in retail, white-collar jobs that still require you to be physically in person. When these jobs go, it becomes harder to afford living in the increasingly expensive boroughs.

My point still stands. The idea on reddit was that the boroughs are thriving and Manhattan has suffered. Based on the population counts, it looks like its been the opposite. Losing population is not my idea of thriving.

It's not spin. The point is that NYC is always losing population to domestic out-migration. Usually that population is replenished by immigrants.

But it has not been.

The data is not skewed. It's literally from the census.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-estimates-counties.html

People on this sub insisted that the boroughs were thriving because locals got to stay home in the new work from home era. Truth is, the outer boroughs also relied on people from the suburbs to support their economy (as well as jobs in the city). It's going to be a rough transition, even though obviously WFH is something most people justifiably want if they have the opportunity. Population loss in each of the boroughs is not indicativeof "thriving" if you ask me.

The article is about what happened in 2022. The last census took place in 2020.

Bangladesh and Ghana are pretty poor, but not particularly violent either.

Poverty went Down during COVID yet crime skyrocketed. Poverty went up significantly in 2008 but crime did not spike at nearly the same levels (and went down within a year or two).

> Have you never spoken to one?

You guys are all the same, thinking that sociology professors have all the answers to society's problems. Crimnologists have also found that hiring more police on the streets leads to less crime. Are you in favor of that?

>10x more people in prison per Capita than Germany and yet way higher crime rates?

We have far more guns on the streets than Europe.

>You call that a success? Man, your parents must've put the bar for your achievements insanely low

Like I said, violent crime in NYC fell by 80%. I'm happy for that. Maybe you're mad because more criminals went to jail.

I would like to do both, mainly because they are both important goals independent of each other.

I'm not particularly convinced about the povert -> crime argument in this case, given that poverty rates went down during COVID thanks to massive government cash infusions.

I only call it "tough on crime" because that's the terminology you guys use and you guys continue to insist that it was some sort of failure. I think better policing over the last 30-40 years has been pretty effective.

>Crime rates also saw an uptick during the 2008 financial crisis.

The uptick in crime was nowhere near as bad as it was in the last few years. And it quickly waned, leading to continued lower crime rates.

>banning of lead gasoline and improvements in economic prosperity.

Was there a bunch of lead that entered the system in 2020?

Due to CARES ACT, PPP and stimulus checks, poverty rates and household debt decreased. Incomes actually rose (an unemployed person was earning a minimum of $600 / weekly).

>Bad economic times = more crime. Other countries are experiencing a similar uptick in crime without any "bail reform". Surely the recent uptick in crime in Finland isn't caused by NY bail reform, is it?

Did other countries see 20-30% increases in homicides like the US did? Maybe Finland did . . its hard to extrapolate based of one country with a population about the size of Brooklyn and Queens. TO my knowledge, no large countries experienced the surge in crime to the levels the US did.

We can start putting them back in jail right?

How about this, can we address the proximate issues of crime, getting multiple time offenders off the streets, stopping shoplifters etc while we take on the huge task of reordering society to reduce poverty?

> And yet Paris did it for like 1/3 the price... despite having very powerful unions.

Believe it or not France actually has one of the smallest unionized workforces in the EU. New York's unionization rate is twice that of France (20% vs 10%). I know France's unions are capable of putting on a show, but I wonder how "powerful" they really are. In social democracies they tend (though not always) to be incentivized o work in partnership with the government.

Okay, well COVID is over for most sane people now and has been for about a year. How do we address the issue of elevated levels of crime in this city?

> We've tried the "tough on crime" and "War on Drugs" angle for 40+ years.

Not a fan of the war on drugs, but "tough on crime" over the last 40 years or so has been pretty effective. Homicide rate basically cut in half since the early 90s. Violent crime in cities like NYC and LA down like 80% off their peaks. It's so weird to see people act like the last few decades have been abject failures in policing. Crime rates are a many-decade lows. Incarceration rate is at its lowest point since the mid 90s.

> Seventy-two percent of Empire State residents support giving judges more discretion to set bail for those accused of serious crimes — with a breakdown of 76% of Democrats, 71% of independents and 69% of Republicans, according to the Siena College poll.

Correct me if I' wrong, but didn't the evidence show that giving judges "discretion" actually leads to more violent criminals getting out on bail. Just make the rules tougher and have judges enforce them.

Pandemic is over so we can start putting them back in jail.

Despite ever increasing taxes on the wealthy in California (now up to 12% on the top tax brackets), California has seen an influx of millionaires moving in . . despite population loss in general.

Millionaire tax probably won't be a good policy, but ultimately what matters most in NY and NYC is cost of living (housing prices, utility prices, and transportation prices). That determines everything and is far more important than the tax structure.

> I mean, crime is incredibly related to poverty. Sure things like access to quality education or stable housing also help,

Hot beds of crime, places like Ghana, India and Vietnam.

>make them do drugs in the streets.

> If you want people to die, make them do drugs in the streets. If you dont want them to die, provide harm reduction.

You think these people stop doing drugs once they leave th epremises of these sites?

I agree with you. It's not exactly a surprise that population demographic are shifting. And its not always evil rich white people's fault.

I don't have any comment on what group should have what percent on all that. Live and let live.

> But we all know how a lot of redditors get hard at wanting to paint minorities as “the real racists.”

I'm not painting minorities as the real racists. Most minorities are chill just like most everyone else. I'm saying you're the real racist.

Anyways, you think anybody moving into the neighborhood, white or non-white, would want to interact with busybodies like you, measuring whether they looked at you the right way or if they acknowledged you appropriately enough. Fuck that.