3 ms·

Or in context, they estimate NYC lost a net 0.8% of its residents and the average income of the incoming and outgoing cohorts differ by -$8,055/y. It multiplies

by pushcx 6y ago

Or in context, they estimate NYC lost a net 0.8% of its residents and the average income of the incoming and outgoing cohorts differ by -$8,055/y. It multiplies to a big dollar figure because NYC is big and rich. The original content marketing: https://global-uploads.webflow.com/5dc3e2af6a906d9cc232e1bc/5fd7d57d5ddb801d05608297_Unacast%20Covid%20Whitepaper.pdf https://global-uploads.webflow.com/5dc3e2af6a906d9cc232e1bc/... It explains that they're extrapolating from three NYC neighborhoods (Astoria, Tribeca, and Williamsburg). I'm not an NYC expert and I'm not going to research these claims further, but I think those are quite well-off neighborhoods and not likely representative of NYC in terms of income or pandemic mobility. This article feels like Reuters lightly rewrote an ad for Unacast.

CydeWeys 6y ago
Yes. A net 0.8% of residents leaving in a year is believable. An astounding 40% of the city's population leaving, and then another 40% entering the city, which is an order of magnitude higher than any turn-over the city has ever experienced, is clearly not believable. That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and they have not remotely provided it. Indeed I suspect this claim will be very easy to disprove by looking at voter rolls, tax rolls, jury pool rolls, DMV rolls, etc. > It explains that they're extrapolating from three NYC neighborhoods (Astoria, Tribeca, and Williamsburg). Wow. This is garbage-tier methodology that doesn't remotely deserve anyone paying attention to the "results". Talk about sampling bias galore.