Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there are plenty of reasons to believe that those numbers will be back-filled.
Yeah, how long will that take. Moreover, an incredible jobs have been moved to WFH permanently. The service economy was built on 1.6 million workers entering every single day. NYC is about to experience something similar to flyover country (where every factory was shut down and outsourced). All of their jobs have been outsourced to the suburbs, where many people already lived. My neighbors work in the city. They haven't been there since March and are not even slated to set foot in the office until June next year. Even then, they are told, maybe once a week at best.
This article seeks to refute the claim from a conservative source that 8 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019. By the end of the refuration, the total goes up. To 14. In a country of 300 million people where much crime is fought in urban settings at night where it is hard to determine that a perp is unarmed.
The article further cites a crowd-sourced database called Mapping Police Violence which estimates the total at 25. Again, a minuscule insignificant number in a country of 300 million.
So, the simple truth is that the numbers are overblown. Likely because the agenda is to promote a pro-criminal, anti-police, envy based agenda of removing the blame for crime from the direct cause of crime: criminals. Not society, not the “privileged”, not “systemic racism” or any other such hackneyed nonsense.
The blame for crime goes to the perpetrators of crime, and no one else.
Now, having said that, where clear police misconduct can be proven, those individual officers should be dealt with strongly on an individual basis.
Meanwhile, police funding should be doubled, and the police should be re-empowered to stop criminals by any means necessary.
The emphasis needs to be on good people and their need to operate in a safe and civilized environment without threat from criminals. A criminal should expect, in the course of committing crimes, to be dealt with severely and violently by the police. That is normal, correct, beneficial, and good.
The wants and needs of the criminal should have no harbor or recognition in a civilized society. You get caught burglarizing a private residence or mugging someone walking home or jacking a car or armed robbing a convenience store? You should actually be shoved in a trunk and dumped in a river. But since we’re civilized, I’ll accept a 30 year prison sentence with no parole.
I'm glad you pointed that out. Because according to the article below, that's more than the number of people killed in protests this year. So the number of unarmed black men killed by police is so miniscule and insignificant that we really shouldn't care but you claim people are leaving cities in large part due to rioting, when less people died from rioting.
I'm glad you pointed that out. Because according to the article below, that's more than the number of people killed in protests this year. So the number of unarmed black men killed by police is so miniscule and insignificant that we really shouldn't care but you claim people are leaving cities in large part due to rioting, when less people died from rioting.
Keep in mind that a percentage of the 25 (really more like 14, but we’ll go with the bs inflated number) unarmed people who were killed were indeed criminals and were acting in a criminal fashion by fleeing a crime or resisting arrest. So the number of innocent unarmed citizens killed by police, black or white, is so minuscule as to be completely unimportant.
As for the protests, you chose the wrong metric. The number killed is unimportant. The number of people whose rights were violated is what is important. Every time a “peaceful” protest destroys private property, it is a fail. Every time a person couldn’t access their home, vehicle, stores, or streets, the protesters were acting violently and impinging on the freedom of others. Every time the nasty protesters were screaming into megaphones and playing loud content on speakers is residential areas all night long, they were stripping good citizens of their Constitutional rights. Blocking space and restricting movement is violence. It’s not peaceful.
Yeah, how long will that take. Moreover, an incredible jobs have been moved to WFH permanently. The service economy was built on 1.6 million workers entering every single day. NYC is about to experience something similar to flyover country (where every factory was shut down and outsourced). All of their jobs have been outsourced to the suburbs, where many people already lived. My neighbors work in the city. They haven't been there since March and are not even slated to set foot in the office until June next year. Even then, they are told, maybe once a week at best.
It will be interesting, once this is all over, to see what the boost in WFH amounts to. I believe that most companies resisted this trend prior to Covid, but now having had it forced down their throats, they are going to discover that it works very well and also leads to a happier workforce. If that occurs, you are going to see a paradigm shift of pretty epic proportion. For many occupations, it does seem pretty silly to drive into a city and congregate in a cubic office space to perform a function on a computer and/or phone. Why? Waste of time. Waste of energy. Waste of money on rent and taxes and utilities. Needless office politics. Screw it. WFH is better. Also better for family life as the kids can be more closely surveilled and supervised. The next 5 years are going to be very interesting.
It will be interesting, once this is all over, to see what the boost in WFH amounts to. I believe that most companies resisted this trend prior to Covid, but now having had it forced down their throats, they are going to discover that it works very well and also leads to a happier workforce. If that occurs, you are going to see a paradigm shift of pretty epic proportion. For many occupations, it does seem pretty silly to drive into a city and congregate in a cubic office space to perform a function on a computer and/or phone. Why? Waste of time. Waste of energy. Waste of money on rent and taxes and utilities. Needless office politics. Screw it. WFH is better. Also better for family life as the kids can be more closely surveilled and supervised. The next 5 years are going to be very interesting.
I think so, too. I am retired, but when I was working for a public agency, they resisted WFH as if we were going to slack off once we were out of their sight. Meanwhile, we had to be on call via email, text and phone pretty much 24/7, but God forbid you aren't sitting at that desk at 8 a.m. waiting for the next "need-it-right-away" to come down from on high.
Now it seems from coworkers who are still employed there that WFH is just dandy and they may downsize the commercial office space currently in use even when COVID ends.
Yeah, LA did survive, and now it's on a serious down slope again. But the larger point is, many cities in NJ never recovered from riots over half a century ago. There was outward migration from New York already. The insane prices and cost of living, the unbearable taxes. Now that covid has destroyed the nightlife, shutdowns have decimated the service economy, and jobs have moved to work from home, you have the perfect storm of conditions for continued outward migration. The riots and the ever increasing homeless population are the last of a laundry list of reasons as to why people have had enough.
The numbers that have left the city permanently are absolutely staggering.
I didn't say the riots of old didn't have an impact (it wasn't even implied). What I DID say was that the riots experienced recently are nothing on the level seen back then. Nothing.
Additionally, you've mentioned other things that have nothing to do with rioting that would be reasons in themselves for someone to want to leave: cost of living and taxes. You wouldn't need riots for the aforementioned to affect one's relocation decisions. Because that's an 'always'.
That's why I said originally, and will reiterate, that the recent riots argument is overblown. Of course it will have an effect on residents. However, a far more constant is taxes and COL. Hell, NYC experienced outward migration right after 9/11...only for the city to experience a population boom (which boomed the real estate construction market to levels not seen in a century).
LA surviving the riots in the 90's would not be why any current downswing it may be experiencing. An underlying issue might be worth a deeper look. We may disagree, but riots are symptom as far as I'm concerned.
According to the logic I've seen pushed here, no city ever again should ever experience population growth. That is always a possibility of course. But how likely is it? When in the last 20-30 years was NYC ever cheap/affordable with low taxes and low homelessness? During that same time more people moved in than out. The fluid trending continues until it doesn't.
It will be interesting, once this is all over, to see what the boost in WFH amounts to. I believe that most companies resisted this trend prior to Covid, but now having had it forced down their throats, they are going to discover that it works very well and also leads to a happier workforce. If that occurs, you are going to see a paradigm shift of pretty epic proportion. For many occupations, it does seem pretty silly to drive into a city and congregate in a cubic office space to perform a function on a computer and/or phone. Why? Waste of time. Waste of energy. Waste of money on rent and taxes and utilities. Needless office politics. Screw it. WFH is better. Also better for family life as the kids can be more closely surveilled and supervised. The next 5 years are going to be very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
I think so, too. I am retired, but when I was working for a public agency, they resisted WFH as if we were going to slack off once we were out of their sight. Meanwhile, we had to be on call via email, text and phone pretty much 24/7, but God forbid you aren't sitting at that desk at 8 a.m. waiting for the next "need-it-right-away" to come down from on high.
Now it seems from coworkers who are still employed there that WFH is just dandy and they may downsize the commercial office space currently in use even when COVID ends.
I will say, I'd really welcome this. I even hope the US can adopt the 4 day work week where feasible. Not that I think city life would end of course, it would just evolve as it does (and probably for the better). I'm curious to see how we go forward as well.
Last edited by 66nexus; 12-10-2020 at 02:56 PM..
Reason: grammar
I think every company is looking at what the future of WFH looks like, mine certainly is. I'd wager that when the dust settles, we'll probably be able to have some type of 3 days in, 2 days WFH setup as the proof of concept has been validated. Everyone's personal circumstances are different of course, I'd probably aim to be in the office M-Th and then take Friday from home. But I have 2 small children, a small condo and a bedroom "office" that I share with my wife who also works, meaning we just talk over each other all day.
I am very curious to see the commercial real estate market in Manhattan. Companies will certainly be looking to shed office space, but in order for that to happen you either need a sublessor (good luck) or an expiring lease. I doubt the major RE firms will be looking to make many concessions to tenants who are mid-lease because their balance sheet looks really dicey all of a sudden.
I didn't say the riots of old didn't have an impact (it wasn't even implied). What I DID say was that the riots experienced recently are nothing on the level seen back then. Nothing.
Additionally, you've mentioned other things that have nothing to do with rioting that would be reasons in themselves for someone to want to leave: cost of living and taxes. You wouldn't need riots for the aforementioned to affect one's relocation decisions. Because that's an 'always'.
That's why I said originally, and will reiterate, that the recent riots argument is overblown. Of course it will have an effect on residents. However, a far more constant is taxes and COL. Hell, NYC experienced outward migration right after 9/11...only for the city to experience a population boom (which boomed the real estate construction market to levels not seen in a century).
LA surviving the riots in the 90's would not be why any current downswing it may be experiencing. An underlying issue might be worth a deeper look. We may disagree, but riots are symptom as far as I'm concerned.
According to the logic I've seen pushed here, no city ever again should ever experience population growth. That is always a possibility of course. But how likely is it? When in the last 20-30 years was NYC ever cheap/affordable with low taxes and low homelessness? During that same time more people moved in than out. The fluid trending continues until it doesn't.
Now you are putting words in our mouths saying we imply no city will ever see population growth. The point of the matter is, it's going to be a very dark decade for NYC. As I said before, the numbers of people that left are staggering and unheard of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
