4 ms·

> Go look at the voter rolls I used to do this, and can report the area of London that I lived in turned over 25% of its (voting) residents in a typical 12 mon

> Go look at the voter rolls I used to do this, and can report the area of London that I lived in turned over 25% of its (voting) residents in a typical 12 month period: that is, before coronavirus time! They may have relocated within London, of course. I assume that New York City is comparable in this respect. Further assumptions: People not vote-registered are likely to turn over even quicker than that. People who you know personally are more likely to be settled and therefore less likely to move out, just by statistical virtue of having any such personal connection - your anecdotal data will be extremely biased by this.

CydeWeys 6y ago
You need to look further into the voter rolls and actually correlate voters by identity. 25% moving within the city every year doesn't count; the linked article is talking about "Fleeing New Yorkers", not "New Yorkers moving between neighborhoods" (which is commonplace, unremarkable, and doesn't affect NYC's tax revenue in any way). What we care about here is people that actually moved out of the city entirely, or that moved into the city entirely from elsewhere, not typical movement within the city. If the article is including normal movement within the city in its 40% figure then it's being extremely misleading.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  My point is that I do not find it remarkable for that number to be higher than 25% during this period, nor would it be remarkable if more of that churn of people were moving in and out of the city rather than within. (you misrepresent what I said about that). So the article's reporting fits within my expectation - also noting that a net change of 70,000 people is very small. The voter rolls will significantly lag outside of election day and - again - is much less likely to include transient residents who won't bother to register, so it's no more likely to be a complete reflection of what has happened than the cellphone data source used here. Something like 40% of the NYC population is not registered to vote.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Everything you're saying here is reasonable/plausible. But it's not at all what the linked article says; it says that there was 40% turn-over of people leaving and entering the city, which is absurd. The first sentence is literally "Millions of people have moved out of New York City during the pandemic, but at the same time, millions of others with lower incomes have taken their place". Not moved within the city, moved out of the city, and being replaced by other lower-income people. That is all completely made up and wrong. I'm not misrepresenting you; rather, you're misrepresenting the article. The article is indefensibly wrong.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      I didn't say that those people I identified had moved within the city, only that they may have. I didn't have that information.

CydeWeys 6y ago

You need to look further into the voter rolls and actually correlate voters by identity. 25% moving within the city every year doesn't count; the linked article is talking about "Fleeing New Yorkers", not "New Yorkers moving between neighborhoods" (which is commonplace, unremarkable, and doesn't affect NYC's tax revenue in any way). What we care about here is people that actually moved out of the city entirely, or that moved into the city entirely from elsewhere, not typical movement within the city. If the article is including normal movement within the city in its 40% figure then it's being extremely misleading.

throwaway2245 6y ago
My point is that I do not find it remarkable for that number to be higher than 25% during this period, nor would it be remarkable if more of that churn of people were moving in and out of the city rather than within. (you misrepresent what I said about that). So the article's reporting fits within my expectation - also noting that a net change of 70,000 people is very small. The voter rolls will significantly lag outside of election day and - again - is much less likely to include transient residents who won't bother to register, so it's no more likely to be a complete reflection of what has happened than the cellphone data source used here. Something like 40% of the NYC population is not registered to vote.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Everything you're saying here is reasonable/plausible. But it's not at all what the linked article says; it says that there was 40% turn-over of people leaving and entering the city, which is absurd. The first sentence is literally "Millions of people have moved out of New York City during the pandemic, but at the same time, millions of others with lower incomes have taken their place". Not moved within the city, moved out of the city, and being replaced by other lower-income people. That is all completely made up and wrong. I'm not misrepresenting you; rather, you're misrepresenting the article. The article is indefensibly wrong.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    I didn't say that those people I identified had moved within the city, only that they may have. I didn't have that information.