2 ms·
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 peopl
by 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 agoEverything 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 agoI didn't say that those people I identified had moved within the city, only that they may have. I didn't have that information.