Wow. I hadn't read this post when I responded to the last one. You really, really don't know wtf you are talking about.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/ce...ork-since-2010

1.4 million people have left New York State since 2010!

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/01...ng-out-of-nyc/

Over 330,000 people moved out of New York City during the first year of the pandemic.

First, you were talking about cities. Now you are now switching from cities to New York state.

Second, no one thinks that New York state is a "progressive enclave." Andrew Cuomo is no favorite of progressives (or anyone else at this point).

Third, the population of NYC is higher than it was during what you believe were the glory years under Giuliani. Population has gone down somewhat over the last 18 months, but that's hardly surprising in a pandemic. And they didn't leave because the city was a hellhole. Most left because there was so much tolerance during the pandemic for working remotely.

Fourth, the statement that everyone who can leave NYC is doing so is preposterous.

Fifth, many people who have left have been replaced by newcomers. It's hardly a new phenomenon for people to leave the city.

NYC undoubtedly has a progressive enclave but I think 20% is pushing it if we're talking about Bernie/AOC style progressivism. A lot of the minority communities in NYC are deeeepppppp blue but aren't really "progressive" as AOC/Bernie would understand "progressive."

Eric Adams (front runner, probably a lock by now, for NYC mayor) for example explicitly ran on keeping the police. I have also made the observation, in multiple posts over the last few years, that Bloomberg's stop&frisk was at least in part a response to demands for more police presence, by the African American community, in "neglected" neighborhoods.

PS: Seattle, SF, and Portland are still routinely ranked pretty high on lists of best cities to live in.

I agree with a lot of this, but I'm not sure what the bolded means. I'm not aware of people in those communities advocating for stop and frisk specifically. Asking generically for more police presence isn't the same thing as asking for a disliked police tactic.

Valid criticism. I will stick to cities.

After Koch and Gulliani cleaned up the city to a large extent, the population increased.

I agree that I was engaging in hyperbole there. But 330,000+ person exodus in one year is huge.

I'll see if I can find more up-to-date figures on the net population loss.

They didn't ask for stop&frisk but they weren't against it either, at least not at first.

Don't put in too much effort. I live in NYC. I lived here when Giuliani was mayor. No matter what you heard from Tucker Carlson, NYC hasn't descended into anarchy or become some sort of pit of urban squalor. I don't need to scour the internet to know that, as I've been living here the whole time.

And if look at the cities people are leaving NY for (Phx, Austin, Miami etc) they are about as progressive as NYC. Of course on of the main reasons people leave is high housing costs which means people are leaving because there is so much demand for NYC housing. If people wanted to live in conservative areas, most of the country is rural or sparse suburban Republican run hellholes. But nobody is moving there as they are losing population to liberal cities as well.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/28/polit...urt/index.html

Supreme Court gives victory to transgender student who sued to use bathroom

Only Thomas and Alito wanted to review the case. This means, at a minimum, two of ABC, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh didn't want to review.

I know four families who left during the pandemic. One went to Miami, one went to Portland, one when to the NYC suburbs (following through on a plan that they had pre-pandemic), and one left the country entirely.

I don't know a single family or person that moved to a GOP stronghold.

I'm not surprised. Even if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have been inclined in favor of the state, it doesn't follow that they necessarily would be in favor of hearing the case. Roberts has never thought it was in the Court's interest to take on every politically charged case.

Reminds me some guy would post a pic of the Portland protesters getting tear gassed or whatever and be like "Well too bad Portland is going to hell"

and some guy would post a picture of a sunset and be like "I'm two blocks over having an IPA out on the porch and watching the sunset. "

The protests were generally localized aka not rampaging over the city aka the vast majority of people didn't even notice them

as far as crime goes, crime's gone up everywhere. They're no more a hellhole than where ever you're at, probably less so.

It's really just a question of how gullible you choose to be. Personally, when I see Stephen Miller on TV talking about how Portland has turned into The Purge, I assume that there is a wee bit of spin.

The bolded is probably true. The crime rate is fairly high where I live.

Yeah, same here. The other big thing is plenty of people who live in NYC/SF etc do so only because it has been necessary for their career. If they can keep the same job with the same pay and live in a place where they can get twice as big a place for half the cost they would. Remote working is making that more and more possible. I completely expect the mega cities to lose population as remote working becomes more popular and secondary citizens like Atlanta, Dallas or Austin that have adequate amenities for pennies on the dollar to gain. But it's simply because of technology creating working options that were not available 20 years ago.

The future of remote work will be interesting to observe. It is bound to become more common, but I'm not convinced that the traditional office is going the way of the dodo any time soon. Most professional services firms in NYC are chomping at the bit to get people back in the office. Those firms rely heavily on grinding younger employees under the boot. And that's harder to do when the employees are working remotely.

I'm in the process of interviews and at least half of the firms (consulting and banking) went out of their way to let me know they are already back in the office and/or traveling.

A law firm also asked me to interview at their office.

Yea, and offices don't have to go extinct for it to have a major impact on how the population is organized. Kind of how reliable and cheap cars didn't kill city living, but helped fuel the growth of suburbs. Not that I'm expecting remote working to have THAT big of an impact.

I am.

Understanding that it is anecdotal, I see a significant percent of the businesses I deal with in my sphere, completely revisiting the 'Office' structure.

Big Law Firms, big Accounting firms, smaller ecom firms, and so many other in growth phases prior to covid and planning to expand their office foot prints now plan to shrink their office footprint, use offices more as training centres and meeting places but allow a significant percent of employees the option to work from home. I am hearing up to 70%.

So many companies saw that productivity did not only not drop, but went up with so many people working from home. Go figure, the 1hour to 2 hours many people spend in getting to and from the office can translate into more production.

We're in for pure chaos if the market has to respond to a permanent transition toward large numbers of at-home worker bees. No sector goes untouched if the world suddenly loses 15% of its traditional commuters.

I have effectively had an entire 2000sq ft section of our main office to myself and have enjoyed the hell out of my commute during the lockdown. Instead of driving through the ghetto every day and getting stuck behind endless numbers of buses and dodging sidewalk-drivers, I've been able to take the freeway downtown. Posted speeds or better, as they say. It's fantastic and I hope it doesn't go back to the way it was.

I don't know which Big Law firms you are referring to, but the most profitable firms in NYC are exactly the ones that are trying to get people back in the office.

Currently I am only dealing with 2 law firms, one in Toronto, one in Western Canada. One would be top 3 in Canada and the other top 10.

I always like to ask in small talk, what they see happening as covid life recedes. Both have said they will not be forcing bums back in chairs and if lawyers want to work mostly from home they support that. One specifically said they now see it as a risk mitigation strategy and are targeting at least 30% being work from home. Meaning, no matter the future issue having a good percent working from home acts as a hedge against future office disruption.

Both said they will likely get a smaller office (downsize) at next renewal.

My Accounting firm (top 4 in Canada) has said very similar to me. Very few people would be pressured to work from the office when they don't need to be there.

Law firms and accounting firms in Canada may well have a different attitude in Canada than they do in the US.

Profits per equity parter for the ten most profitable law firms in the U.S. are $4+ million. In Canada, i think it's closer to $750k-$1.3 million. Part of that spread is due to rates, but a lot of it is due to higher leverage in the U.S. and higher expectations in terms of billable hours for associates.

In order to keep profits at that level, law firms have to grind as much work as they can out of younger lawyers. And that's hard to do when everyone is working from home.

The bolded is exactly what most firms believed and has been largely the default, but the pandemic seems to have taught many that is not necessarily true as their production actually went up during the pandemic while people worked from home.

So I don't think Canadians differ in that regard but perhaps we are seeing a difference in self motivation and input in the data from work at home???

It is entirely possible that different populations (and populations within populations) would react differently to this.