NYC Sucks

Is it that different than most decades? People come here when they are young, because it is a large city, a cultural, financial and educational center. Many leave when they have their degree, mastered English or the corporate ladder. And so on, the transient capital evolves at lightning speed. Do you think this phenomenon started when you came of age?

Aboutready's husband came here, earned his degree, and now Aboutready owns half of it.

It is the hubris and naivete of each generation to think they are unique and living in unprecedented times.

According to the report, the population of New York County stayed exactly the same during the period studied (2000-2008).

Ahhh, but Miette, you retard (sarah palin says I can use that word!) the title says "NYC". NYC- all five boroughs, is down 13.9% over that time.

"As shown in Table 2, the five counties of New York City lost more than 1.1 million people—nearly 14 percent of the city’s 2000 population—to other states and neighboring communities"

As much as you might want it to be, Manhattan does not = NYC.

The CORRECT counter argument is that with FOREIGN immigration, NYC's population is up over the same period - which is the way its been for 200 years. There kids and grandkids will move somewhere else in the USA.

Kyle-- you can usually be counted on for good background context on something like this. Do I take it from your brief comment that you don't think there is anything to the interpretation that there is ,in a sense, a notable new trend of certain classes leaving?...I don't know enough personally to evaluate that.

"If NY is so great then from 2000-2008 why did 1.5 million more people move out than move here?"

Because it is so expensive.

I'm not sure what to make of what is in the OP. People have always come to NY, "made it," and left. That's where the suburbs come from. NYC's population took a beating during the dark ages of the 1970s-80s when the economy bit, crime soared, crack took over, homicides topped 2200/yr. And then we see the recovery putting NYC back on track for trends established early in the 20th century. The demographic shifts alluded to as the coming of an Armageddon just don't strike me as "implosion" on the horizon. Of course, there will always be some people crying the sky falling.

Curious what others think.

It made me wonder what the agenda was. No-one twists numbers that hard for nothing. It's like any whodunit: who profits?
It's not really news that the loss of manufacturing has led to a shrinking rust belt population in favor of the sun belt. My guess, they are lobbying on behalf of business owners who would like lower state taxes.
As to the OP, he clearly misunderstood the term "domestic" and "New York"; it seems a casual reading made him believe the population of New York City had shrunk by 1.5 million between 2000 and 2008.

Maly from my origianl post - " If it weren't for the fact that 800k more people were born here than died here during those years and there was an 877K net increase in foreign immigrants we'd have lost significant population." certainly I don't think the population has sunk.
My "agenda" is only to see NY thrive. So many claim that NYC is the best and they act like we're indestructible.
It use to be that we attracted the best and the brightest. Now that has changed. As a landlord in Harlem I'm on the ground floor - Craigslist no longer produces renters for me. The only prospective tenants I get are uneducated immigrants.
i worry that the immigrants who come here now come for the social handouts (in large measure). And they stay here because of the free health care, free housing, free food etc. The report I linked in the OP doesn't say anything of the education level of the 887K immigrants who have moved here in the 2000's but I fear they are much less capable/educated than the immigrants from previous decades.
I know we've got a huge budget issue - I know we spend twice per capita on Medicaid and Medicare as the next worse state. I know the people who move out of state make more than the people who are moving in (although I'm not sure that's any different than it's always been). But I do know that over the last 18 months the kind of people I see moving in are not college educated and will never be college educated. They come for handouts and we give them to them. It's an unsustainable trend.

Jazzman, so you think NYC sucks because of immigrants?

Sorry it wasn't clearer that I was talking about the organization that produced the report, not you.
I think you are looking for facts to buttress your conclusion, and you shall find them. What you are seeing is the effect of declining rents: as rents get lower, renters get to move "up"; Harlem might be gentrifying, but most of prime Manhattan has become more affordable. It doesn't mean immigrants today are vastly different from 10 or 100 years ago.
You know what you should do? Go to the Tenement Museum on the LES. You'd be amazed how things change and don't change. Some immigrants will never speak English or get a college degree, but their kids will.

"Craigslist no longer produces renters for me. The only prospective tenants I get are uneducated immigrants."

Well, yeah, Craigslist is a board for scammers, not renters, and has been for some time. Maybe you should change marketing tactics.

NYC Sucks my ass. It didn't suck in the 70s and 80s when as Kyle pointed out the crime rate was geometrically higher than now, the city was covered with graffiti and you couldn't walk two blocks without being panhandled, propositioned, having to step over someone or otherwise having your "quality of life compromised". No it didn't suck then and it certainly doesn't suck now.

People leaving. Sure but how many just moved a few miles out to give their kids some lawn space, return to the city every day for work and are probably planning to move back as empty nesters? people prove themselves here and then leave for a quieter pace elsewhere, some plain "can't make it here". Immigrants are coming here in droves and many of the most ambitious stay here they always they did (declining immigrant education? Have you ever been around a CUNY campus? How many languages do you here in 10 minutes?) but yes, there is a greater dispersal of immigrants throughout the country than ever. (The internet and satellite TV make it possible).
Oh yes..and then there are some of us who just won't leave because NYC is their DNA. We didn't choose here, this our lot and while aspects of it certainly can suck.... NYC RULES!!!!!!!!!!

"It use to be that we attracted the best and the brightest... immigrants [today] t I fear they are much less capable/educated than the immigrants from previous decades. "

I'm not sure what your sources here are. Did you ever hear "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." This was the spirit that made NYC great. When my ancestors came here at the beginning of the 20th century, they were utterly uneducated, without means, and spoke no English. That pretty much describes most of the hundreds of thousands of people who came through Ellis Island to NYC for the early decades of the 20th century. NYC was never known as attracted the "best and brightest," but rather was a place where they were cultivated. Where people were inspired to be better, to reach. I see that spirit still. I'm sorry for anyone who sees only a NY described by the OP. I think it is a very narrow view of the city today.

And, FWIW, from those impoverished, uneducated, non-English-speaking relatives of mine who came here 2 and 3 generations ago, have come doctors, lawyers, devoted public servants, teachers, and business leaders--all of whom still live and work in NYC and who have come to thrive on the fever pitch pitch of life in the most exciting city on earth.

The Tenement Museum is a good suggestion. Also a visit to Ellis Island might be educational. Maybe spend a few hours watching Gangs of New York or The Godfather. Finally, actually read "The Best and the Brightest" by Halberstram to understand that the term was not meant to be complimentary.

Thank you Kyle for saying what I meant to say in more literate articulate fashion. I was a little upset last night reading some of the other threads and then having someone throw "NYC sucks" in my face was too much.

I don't know what the current statistics are on class mobility for non-English speaking immigrants and how they compare to historical stats. The U.S. is not alone in the issue (real or not) of less-easily assimilated new immigrants. In France/UK there is the problem of Muslims rightfully showcasing the hypocrisy of the state allowing and funding Christian schools while not doing the same for Muslims - my personal take is not to fund any religious schools. Ditto the issue of allowing Jewish religious law in some areas, while not allowing Islamic law. The U.S. and Canada have been somewhat successful at integrating non-English speaking immigrants from Western, Southern, and Eastern Europe. Ditto E. Asia and some S. Asian populations. Now it remains to be seen if the same will be true of integrating the new waves of immigration of the last 20+years. In Canada, people complain about the Somalians, Pakistanis and various other Muslim communities. It will be seen in another generation if the complainers are correct.

"If NY is so great then from 2000-2008 why did 1.5 million more people move out than move here?"

gentrification....

Again, my worry is not immigrants - as a guy who believes we should offer amnesty to current illegals - to say I'm anti-immigrant is absolutely backwards - what I fear and see anecdotally is brain drain - my educated tenants are leaving NY and my new applicants are uneducated leeches who are not here to work but to mooch -plus my uneducated tenants never leave as we give them too much free stuff. That is -we scare of the talented and retain the dregs - It's bad business and unsustainable.
I use to see plenty of young 20 somethings from around the country as prospective tenants - I don't see them anymore - certainly much (if not all) of this is due to the economic cycle and will change - but the trend had been going on for years - My new applicants are stray cats who we continue to give free milk. I fear that in an effort to be humane to these immigrants that we are spending money we don't have. Rather than increase our entitlement programs to attract and retain the lazy why aren't we reducing corporate taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes etc and attracting the educated immigrants? Personally I'd love to cut the entitlement programs -keep taxes the same or slightly reduce them - and triple the number of legal immigrants we give visas.

Ah, that's the perpetual state to state shopping you're talking about JM. Nothing more irritating to me than another nypost article about how people move here from lower-benefit states. If we go universal HC, should reduce some of that.

I have to admit that I have given some thought to bailing NYC in recent months. I guess I would technically classify as one of those edumacated "working" professionals with good income who is paying more than their fair share of taxes. Since I am now working outside of NY, I really have to wonder why I bother struggling to live a substandard lifestyle in NY where everything is a hassle: parking, taxes, grocery shopping, traffic, prices, noise, etc. I live in a building that is partially rent stabilized (I am one of the market raters), and it sickens me that I am paying three times as much as someone else for a much smaller unit. And the rent stabbers are the ones who I see mulling around the building all day (which I observed on one of my days off) with nothing to do, and they also happen to be the ones clutching Citarella shopping bags while I am carrying my Trader Joe's bags. Sure, I can afford to buy a place. But prices are still insanely irrational in my opinion, and they are still way out of line compared to rents. Although prices have been correcting SLOWLY for a couple of years now, and I know they will continue to correct for the foreseeable future, I am honestly sick of waiting. Between the hassle, the pathetic inequity in the city housing market and my growing impatience, this "brain" is seriously about to "drain." Enough is enough.

hejiranyc - you're exactly the guy we need to stay - yours is the story I am seeing over and over - my market rate tenants move and my stabilized tenants stay - my market rate tenants pay taxes and high rents - my stabilized tenants don't pay taxes and have low rents.
It's crazy that we've got a system that encourages the wrong kind of people to stay here. If you chose to move all I can say is, I don't blame you.
My hope is that companies begin to hire here in the city and that jobs are nowhere to be found in other cities. Thus college grads will be forced to move here. Then, my hope is that we make life easier on these 20 somethings who would be moving here (with their huge college debt balances). We need them to stay longer than 2 years - we need to make the difference they pay in rent vs a stabilized rent less egregious.

I salute kyle west and the other eloquent defenses of NYC. As for the haters:

hejira nyc - perhaps the reason that everything is so darn expensive and crowded is because a lot of people want to live here? Just maybe? As for me, after many years of enjoying the city life, I recently moved up to Rockland County for more space (renting). I still work in midtown, I am waiting for home prices to fully correct, and have no plans to leave the NYC area anytime soon.

Jazzman - perhaps the reason you are getting lower-quality tenants these days (as compare to when - 2006?) is due to the economy and the fact that Harlem is a particularly vulnerable neighborhood in terms of experiencing the effects of a bad economy?

I really don't think rent stabilized tenants are growing in proportion to the population here. If anything, the minimum income required to live in NYC has zoomed up and has gotten rid of a lot of artists, musicians, the students who aren't subsidized by parents, etc as well as the people who used to live on the fringes (who weren't necessarily artistic in any way). I would guess this has led to a higher median education level than 10 and especially 20 years ago, not a lower one. There's very few affordable areas, so the margin for error you have in coming here is much lower. You can't just drift in and crash in the Village or LES and try to make it on bartending gigs or busking or playing in a small time band.

JM: I don't understand your astonishment at RS/RC tenants staying. Free-market tenants are at a disadvantage when renting in RS/RC buildings. Those buildings tend not to be as well-maintained, and on top of that, you're paying market.

Is there an angle for aboutready to get some money damages?

can rufus get into columbia b-school with an essay describing a solution to the problem? no?

clemencedane - I disagree - I would say that the majority of the net 1.5M who moved out are more educated than the 880k of immigrants who moved in - I think we are less educated than we were 15 years ago.

Actually, Jazzman...

In 2000 27.4% of NYC residents aged 25 or older held a bachelors degree
In 2008 32.5% of NYC residents aged 25 or older held a bachelors degree

In 2000 about 103,000 NYC residents earned >$200,000
In 2008 about 250,000 NYC residents earned >$200,000

I come back to streeteasy, and this again. Rent stabilization whining. Get over it. NYC is great and Rent Stabilization is part of the equation and has been for decades and decades so the NYC WE LOVE is just fine in part because of it. I'm not Rent Stabilized but who cares, how about we blame owners who bought 30 years ago too while we are at it.

justinb - great info - what's the source - I'd love to track this year over year - I wonder where we stand today.

Lintintin - NYC is not great for lots of people - making it easier on 20 somethings to move and stay here is vital to the continued prosperity of the City.

Jazzman,
Don't forget the 20 somethings you describe tend to rent in the area that is considered both affordable and hip. That has been in the past: east village,chelsea, hells kitchen and harlem. Now I believe its williamsburg.

lintintin - I don't get it. You think market rate renters, who are being treated unfairly, are supposed to bend over and take it without making a sound? As long as the system in inequitable expect bitching.

Wait until the next up-cycle and the difference between market and stabilized rents widens (of course that distance is shrinking now) - but the wider it gets the louder the bitching and if the market ever decides that the gap is too wide it will be the end of rent stabilization - so stabers better make sure their rent increases are high enough to ensure that a market-rate mutiny doesn't occur.

Rent stabilization does not "treat market rate renters unfairly." Market rate renters pay market rates, determined by the cost and speed of new construction and whatever distortions the bubble had on the price of land.

If market rate renters are paying too much, it is because they are being gouged by landlords taking advantage of partial monopoly conditions to charge more than they could if the market were more efficient and construction was faster. Since new construction comes in at market rates, rent stabilization cannot reduce the amount of new construction.

We'd all be better off if rent stabilization were extended to expensive apartments, since it helps mitigate the main problem in the rental market (the ability of landlords to take advantage of tenants who are not mobile or who invest in improving their apartments) and shifts the risk of unexpected market anomalies, like bubbles, to diversified investors that are better able to bear it.

But even the current limited form of rent stabilization benefits ALL inhabitants of the city. It is provides a stable housing source for the creative classes that make the city interesting and provide the bulk of its productive economic base (excluding Wall Street, which seems to have shifted from productively directing investment to speculation, subsidies and skimming). It is, therefore, a key reason why NYC renters are far more stable than elsewhere, and why the bubble, bad as it was, has not been as devastating here as in places where there is no viable rental alternative for the middle class.

The only people (corporations) that suffer from rental stabilization are landlords of existing properties that hoped to extract monopoly profits (resulting from the inefficiency of the new construction market) from their tenants. In English: landlords who paid for rent stabilized buildings, but hoped to be able to expropriate their tenants, increase rents to levels unwarranted by their costs, and pocket the difference.

Too bad that rent stabilized landlords have lost the chance at an undeserved windfall, but monopoly price gouging is not a divinely granted right even in capitalist economies.

justinb - great info - what's the source - I'd love to track this year over year - I wonder where we stand today

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

Not to mention, New York has the highest percentage of high net worth households according to the IRS.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/245/usmetrowealthindex0907.gif

% of Adults who are High Net Worth Individuals (Includes the burbs)
New York City 3.6% (561,800)
San Francisco 3.4% (120,800)
Boston 2.9% (89,400)
Washington 2.9%
Chicago 2.2%
Detroit 2.2%
Los Angeles 2.0%
Philadelphia 1.8%
Houston 1.5%

Oh and if you notice, NYC is shedding it's high net worth residents at the SLOWEST pace of all major cities.

#1 millionaire loser being "low-tax, pro-business" Houston TX, ironically.

You seem to be confused. High wealth, no reason to move... you already have the wealth.

Its high INCOME thats the problem. They are who get hit by the taxes...

You seem to be confused. High wealth, no reason to move... you already have the wealth.

Its high INCOME thats the problem. They are who get hit by the taxes...

"Rent stabilization does not "treat market rate renters unfairly." Market rate renters pay market rates, determined by the cost and speed of new construction and whatever distortions the bubble had on the price of land. "

Nonsense. If rates are moved up artificially by laws specifically constricting supply - which we have - that is NOT a true market rate. If you remove 1/3 of apartments from the free market, then you've artificially raised free market rents.

"If market rate renters are paying too much, it is because they are being gouged by landlords taking advantage of partial monopoly conditions to charge more than they could if the market were more efficient and construction was faster."

Both of which would be the case if there was no rent stabilization!

You're proving the point!

> Since new construction comes in at market rates

Nope. More laws with artificial pressure on market rates. Ever heard of 80/20?
"
We'd all be better off if rent stabilization were extended to expensive apartments, since it helps mitigate the main problem in the rental market (the ability of landlords to take advantage of tenants who are not mobile or who invest in improving their apartments) and shifts the risk of unexpected market anomalies, like bubbles, to diversified investors that are better able to bear it. "

This might be the dumbest suggestions I've heard in a while.

Rent stablization CAUSES the problem you are claiming it fixes. Its artificially low rents that keep apartments from being renovated.
This has been studied over and over.... if you depress rates, housing stock suffers in quality.

"But even the current limited form of rent stabilization benefits ALL inhabitants of the city. It is provides a stable housing source for the creative classes that make the city interesting"

No, it provides stable housing for the small percentage lucky to get those apartments, and this "lucky" group cretainly includes the non-creative.

If housing were cheaper overall, it would benefit all classes.

If you want to do artist-specific subsidies, sure. But pretending its art that benefits here... thats just nonsense.

Its like saying I'm lowering taxes on folks who make more than $100k so Bill Gates has more to give away.

> Nice story, but lousy, lousy logic. why the bubble, bad as it was, has not been as devastating here as in places where there is no viable
> rental alternative for the middle class.

Hmmm... 25% decline... worse than most of the country, and we're still falling. If thats "success"...

How can you trust anyone with the name "financeguy" who thinks price controls are a good idea?

As somewherelse notes, Financeguy there are myriad flaws in your logic. But just on basic gut level, price stabilization of any product is basically inherently absurd in terms of efficiency, and produces all kinds of anomalous outcomes that could hardly be considered fair or logical. Most fundamentally, your quasi-monopoly shtick makes little sense -- what about the right to negotiate a contract, what about the market incentive of landlords to attract new tenants after this one leaves, etc.. Like any price control argument, your justification has to be based on cherry-picking certain cases you consider unfair, and ignoring all the resulting distortions from the price controls.