> How do you know that? Your next statement is that there's no good way to measure that income, how do you know how large that economy is?
Because by the books, 60% of the residents of the most populous and most expensive metro in the US are living there while earning on paper less than a living wage, yet somehow still manage to do so. Either one or more of the following must be true:
1. There is a large off-the-books economy.
2. The study in the article incorrectly determines what a "living wage" is.
3. The vast majority of the people living in New York City are in absolutely dire circumstances but somehow won't leave to literally any other city in the US where they would immediately earn more relative to the cost of living.
I think /both/ #1 and #2 are correct, and that #3 might be correct for some people, but most people in New York City /like/ living there, they feel connected to the city, and ingrained in its culture, which includes a very large amount of #1.
3. The vast majority of the people living in New York City are in absolutely dire circumstances but somehow won't leave to literally any other city in the US where they would immediately earn more relative to the cost of living.
To this last point, moving has costs. At minimum transport costs (fuel, bus ticket, whatever). If they have some furniture worth taking, they need a U-Haul.
People might not have the small amount of cash/credit required to move across the country. Staying in poverty in NYC might be their only option.
Not just that, but in a world where (particularly for poor and immigrant communities) employment is frequently informal and based on social and family networks ("The restaurant my cousin works at is hiring" or "My brother's construction gig needs some extra hands on Friday"), moving to another city means giving up a huge portion of your social capital and possibly all of your earning potential, as well as your (similarly informal) safety net.
While you're correct, and I do account for this in my statement, most studies on the topic found that people refuse to move not due to financial reasons but due to social support systems, primarily family or cultural connections. Something that's not entirely unique, but relatively uncommon in the US, is large cultural and ethnic enclaves in cities, New York City happens to be home to largest number of these, and therefore many people grow up in New York City ingrained into a culture that ties into their ethnicity, and the city itself, in a way which they would not find anywhere else in the US if they moved. Leaving this and family behind to leave the city is considered untenable by many people, especially in cultures that emphasize family connections and multi-generational households as the norm.
These emotional draws are much more meaningful and significant causes for why people don't move than whether or not they can afford the U-Haul one time.
Because by the books, 60% of the residents of the most populous and most expensive metro in the US are living there while earning on paper less than a living wage, yet somehow still manage to do so. Either one or more of the following must be true:
1. There is a large off-the-books economy.
2. The study in the article incorrectly determines what a "living wage" is.
3. The vast majority of the people living in New York City are in absolutely dire circumstances but somehow won't leave to literally any other city in the US where they would immediately earn more relative to the cost of living.
I think /both/ #1 and #2 are correct, and that #3 might be correct for some people, but most people in New York City /like/ living there, they feel connected to the city, and ingrained in its culture, which includes a very large amount of #1.