3 ms·

This: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/osdc/retail-sector-new-york-city-recent-trends-and-impact-covid-19/ https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/osdc/retail-se

This: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/osdc/retail-sector-new-york-city-recent-trends-and-impact-covid-19/ https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/osdc/retail-sector-new-y... suggests that there are more than 36,000 retail stores in NYC. 450/36000 == 1.3% of retail businesses were "vandalized and in some cases looted", phrasing which suggests rather less than that were actually looted. The suggestion that "Huge percentage of stores were vandalized and had their goods stolen" seems absurdly hyperbolic given these numbers. edit: corrected accidental use of state wide number

adam_arthur 5y ago
You're not very knowledgeable about the geography of New York, are you? Do you know what the landmass of lower Manhattan relative to overall New York City is? Do you understand what a non uniform distribution is? Clearly nobody responding is familiar with basic math. I'll spell it out for you guys. Landmass of lower Manhattan = very small vs overall New York. Using total retail stores in New York is highly misleading for that reason alone. I could also say 450 is only .000001% of stores in the USA, so there's no problem! Same logic you're using, by the way
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  You're not very knowledgeable about the geography of New York either, are you? Like your 450 number is from all 5 boroughs, did you not realize that New York City refers to all 5 boroughs and not just like Midtown or something? - I don't know why you're trying so hard to mislead people. Do you just live in Soho and want to act like Soho is lower Manhattan? Or more specifically, like the 4 blocks of Broadway in Soho that got hit hardest? I already commented this but those protests did not do widespread damage to Manhattan, there were very centralized pockets of damage. In fact, Manhattan probably had the most damage by dollars because of Soho luxury stores, but by actual damage to individual businesses the outer boroughs were infinitely worse off, and even that was highly centralized...
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    No, I'm the one who's not misleading people. Looting was 90% concentrated in lower Manhattan. If you were there, or watch any news report from the time, it's extremely obvious and supported by the evidence. All I said is that lower Manhattan had widespread looting, which is true. Everybody here throwing out total retail or even total businesses in NYC to discredit what I'm saying are the ones being misleading. Everything I've said is backed up by facts. Say 450 is an accurate number. Well 90% can reasonably be assumed to be lower Manhattan, and we know lower Manhattan is less than 5% of the landmass of NYC. So no, you're the one being misleading. Pretty crazy all these people trying to gaslight as if it didn't happen, when I lived there and walked down the streets and saw it myself. It's no surprise an ex cop just won as mayor of NYC, when you have people with this attitude supporting retail theft/looting at all costs. New Yorkers got tired of it, sorry.
    - tedunangst 5y ago
      Instead of the hand waving insistence that 450 is probably concentrated in Manhattan, why not just post a source that actually tells us how many stores in lower manhattan were looted?
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      > All I said is that lower Manhattan had widespread looting, which is true. It's not true. The only people who would say this are faux-New Yorkers who use Lower Manhattan as a term when they mean 5th avenue in Soho and Broadway in Flatiron District (aka the bougie retail areas of Lower Manhattan that account for like 1% of the landmass). As someone who lives next to Barclays where 5000 people gathered and works in Midtown, you're just pushing a false narrative that oversells what happened to outsiders. I walked those same streets, I live in NYC too, and I'm not falling for it. - What you're doing is exactly what you're accusing others of doing. Confusing basic facts to push a narrative. The looting sucked, yes businesses got hurt, but saying "Manhattan was ransacked" is an insult to what a place that's been ransacked looks like. That's the point. ...also: > It's no surprise an ex cop just won as mayor of NYC, when you have people with this attitude supporting retail theft/looting at all costs. New Yorkers got tired of it, sorry. The guy who didn't know NYC includes the outer boroughs is trying to speak for New Yorkers. Maybe next you'll tell us about grabbing your daily baconeggandcheese from ock at Gregory's Coffee. God help us all.
- msbarnett 5y ago
  I'm more than familiar with the boroughs of New York City. The 450 "vandalized and in some cases looted" statistic you provided was for New York City as a whole. If you would like to confine your focus to Lower Manhattan, the onus is on you to find the relevant statistic for Lower Manhattan, because that 450 includes vandalism from all over the city (to repeat your own quote with appropriate emphasis, "An estimated 450 businesses across New York City were vandalized and in some cases looted in late May and early June, according to the city's Department of Small Business Services.") To really get a true picture of things, we'd also need to know what the background level of vandalism for business in a more-than-a-month time window is - because I assure you, it is not zero. > I could also say 450 is only .000001% of stores in the USA, so there's no problem! Same logic you're using, by the way No, the logic I'm using is that if .000001% of stores in the USA were "vandalized and in some cases looted", then the statement "Huge percentage of stores were vandalized and had their goods stolen" made about the USA would be laughably hyperbolic and incorrect simply on the cold facts.

adam_arthur 5y ago

You're not very knowledgeable about the geography of New York, are you? Do you know what the landmass of lower Manhattan relative to overall New York City is? Do you understand what a non uniform distribution is? Clearly nobody responding is familiar with basic math. I'll spell it out for you guys. Landmass of lower Manhattan = very small vs overall New York. Using total retail stores in New York is highly misleading for that reason alone. I could also say 450 is only .000001% of stores in the USA, so there's no problem! Same logic you're using, by the way

BoorishBears 5y ago
You're not very knowledgeable about the geography of New York either, are you? Like your 450 number is from all 5 boroughs, did you not realize that New York City refers to all 5 boroughs and not just like Midtown or something? - I don't know why you're trying so hard to mislead people. Do you just live in Soho and want to act like Soho is lower Manhattan? Or more specifically, like the 4 blocks of Broadway in Soho that got hit hardest? I already commented this but those protests did not do widespread damage to Manhattan, there were very centralized pockets of damage. In fact, Manhattan probably had the most damage by dollars because of Soho luxury stores, but by actual damage to individual businesses the outer boroughs were infinitely worse off, and even that was highly centralized...
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  No, I'm the one who's not misleading people. Looting was 90% concentrated in lower Manhattan. If you were there, or watch any news report from the time, it's extremely obvious and supported by the evidence. All I said is that lower Manhattan had widespread looting, which is true. Everybody here throwing out total retail or even total businesses in NYC to discredit what I'm saying are the ones being misleading. Everything I've said is backed up by facts. Say 450 is an accurate number. Well 90% can reasonably be assumed to be lower Manhattan, and we know lower Manhattan is less than 5% of the landmass of NYC. So no, you're the one being misleading. Pretty crazy all these people trying to gaslight as if it didn't happen, when I lived there and walked down the streets and saw it myself. It's no surprise an ex cop just won as mayor of NYC, when you have people with this attitude supporting retail theft/looting at all costs. New Yorkers got tired of it, sorry.
  - tedunangst 5y ago
    Instead of the hand waving insistence that 450 is probably concentrated in Manhattan, why not just post a source that actually tells us how many stores in lower manhattan were looted?
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    > All I said is that lower Manhattan had widespread looting, which is true. It's not true. The only people who would say this are faux-New Yorkers who use Lower Manhattan as a term when they mean 5th avenue in Soho and Broadway in Flatiron District (aka the bougie retail areas of Lower Manhattan that account for like 1% of the landmass). As someone who lives next to Barclays where 5000 people gathered and works in Midtown, you're just pushing a false narrative that oversells what happened to outsiders. I walked those same streets, I live in NYC too, and I'm not falling for it. - What you're doing is exactly what you're accusing others of doing. Confusing basic facts to push a narrative. The looting sucked, yes businesses got hurt, but saying "Manhattan was ransacked" is an insult to what a place that's been ransacked looks like. That's the point. ...also: > It's no surprise an ex cop just won as mayor of NYC, when you have people with this attitude supporting retail theft/looting at all costs. New Yorkers got tired of it, sorry. The guy who didn't know NYC includes the outer boroughs is trying to speak for New Yorkers. Maybe next you'll tell us about grabbing your daily baconeggandcheese from ock at Gregory's Coffee. God help us all.
msbarnett 5y ago
I'm more than familiar with the boroughs of New York City. The 450 "vandalized and in some cases looted" statistic you provided was for New York City as a whole. If you would like to confine your focus to Lower Manhattan, the onus is on you to find the relevant statistic for Lower Manhattan, because that 450 includes vandalism from all over the city (to repeat your own quote with appropriate emphasis, "An estimated 450 businesses across New York City were vandalized and in some cases looted in late May and early June, according to the city's Department of Small Business Services.") To really get a true picture of things, we'd also need to know what the background level of vandalism for business in a more-than-a-month time window is - because I assure you, it is not zero. > I could also say 450 is only .000001% of stores in the USA, so there's no problem! Same logic you're using, by the way No, the logic I'm using is that if .000001% of stores in the USA were "vandalized and in some cases looted", then the statement "Huge percentage of stores were vandalized and had their goods stolen" made about the USA would be laughably hyperbolic and incorrect simply on the cold facts.