Please read at least half of New York City Is Dead Forever (Altucher) and share whether you agree or disagree with the author’s argument. Clearly state what you agree or disagree with and provide reasons for why you agree or disagree. Also, please comment on how the author organized the piece. Do you think it was organized in an effective manner? Your response should be six to 10 sentences long.
18 thoughts on “Blog Post #7: New York City Is Dead Forever (Altucher)”
Comments are closed.
As I read “New York City is Dead Forever” by James Altucher and read all his evidence, I don’t agree with his argument that New York City is dead and won’t ever come back. The part that I disagreed with the most was with Altucher saying that New York City hasn’t been through something worse than the COVID-19 pandemic and “has never been locked down for five months. Not in any pandemic, war, financial crisis, never” (Altucher). I agree to some extent that the COVID-19 pandemic is a new precedent but New York City has gone through a Great Depression, World War I, World War II, and a pandemic before. Every single time it has come back stronger and during these difficult times, there were people who thought the same thing about New York City being dead. It’s important to be optimistic because if the people who lived during these times had the same mindset as Altucher, then New York City wouldn’t have become the place that Altucher enjoyed so much. Altucher’s argument claimed that because of bandwidth, things won’t go back to normal but I disagree. We’re only using this technology because it’s the best option to keep everyone safe but this technology can never give people the same experience that being in person can. I think that this piece was organized in an effective manner because he broke up his piece into subheadings. These subheadings let the audience know what certain sections are going to be about and how it supports his argument. Overall, this piece had great evidence to support the author’s claim even though I completely disagree with the argument.
In my opinion, his argument is really exaggerated. In order for you to say that New York won’t come back from the dead never, is such a big statement for which he does not have enough evidence to back up. In his article, he uses evidence in his favor to persuade people that New York is forever dead, he did not mention the efforts all of our representatives are doing to keep NYC alive. Did not mention the open restaurants policy under his business section, which has relieved the economy in the city a lot. I do believe all the arguments he is making, we are going through a though time, however, I believe his argument is a little too exaggerated, one he does is a business owner and for me, it does not give him enough credibility to predict what is going to happen next in the city. When it comes to the structure of the article, it helps a lot due to how he broke it down so that people are not overwhelmed when looking at so many words. The subtitles help a lot if you just wanted to skim through the article.
I think Altucher did a good job organizing the piece by dividing his evidence into subsections, making it easier for the audience to follow up on his points. He was able to include dialogues from people he knew of and use them to help him argue that New York City is dead forever. However, I disagree with Altucher’s claim because the piece felt too single-sided. Altucher seems to leave out possible optimistic groups out there and the changes to business policies for job interviews and online working. He leaves out the approaches people are making to deal with this virus and uses evidence that shows people’s negative feelings such as how people think “Midtown should be called ‘Ghost Town’!” His argument would be more agreeable to me if he uses both pieces of evidence regarding improvements and challenges during this time. Then, I can better choose a side given all sides of the story to see if I agree with his claim. Altucher’s evidence was relatable in a sense where I can resonate with his feeling after seeing stores close down, college transfer to online learning, and seeing how empty Midtown Manhattan becomes, but being able to resonate with his feelings does not mean that New York City is therefore dead forever. I can agree that things are changing in a way that not many people expect and want but not that it is dead forever. Things are always changing. Perhaps it will get better. Altucher’s argument is too definite that it leaves no room for a sense of hope (that I think exists), and so I don’t agree with his argument.
I disagree with the author’s point of view. Altucher said “First, when has NYC been through worse? Even in the 1970s, and through the ’80s, when NYC was going bankrupt, and even when it was the crime capital of the US or close to it, it was still the capital of the business world.” These words are the reason I disagree with him. In the 1930s, at that time, the United States and the world experienced a greater economic depression. The situation back then was worse than it was in 2008. But in the end, New York is still one of the world’s economic centers. Even if we are facing the threat of Covid-19, I think it cannot be as devastating as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Altucher uses subheadings to organize his articles. Through the subtitle, he lets the reader understand what he is talking about next. Under the corresponding subheading, Altucher cited examples to prove that New York City has suffered a heavy loss and is completely dead. Although I disagree with his point of view, I think this is an effective way.
In my opinion, I disagree with Altucher that New York City is dead forever. In his article, he claims the restaurants were closed and workers were left. They are not going to come back because they would find out they still open or work in a restaurant that costs less and stay close to their family. However, even though they are not coming back, but there will have new blood comes in. New York City is the center of finance and developed in tourism. When the pandemic past, people who come from all around the world will travel to NY. This will bring a lot of business opportunities to New York City and help to rebuild the economy. Throughout the article, Altucher listed different aspects that pandemic effect to NYC to support his claim. He broke all his reasons into different sections. For example, the restaurants were closed in the Food section and the remote learning in the college section. Breaking down the evidence into small pieces is helping organize an effective manner. This also makes his argument clearer and audiences easier to understand.
I agree with many of Altucher’s points. For example, this article is organized in the way how each field affected by the epidemic. It was organized in an effective manner, which allowed the reader to see more clearly how each area was affected. I agree that business, culture, food, commercial real estate, and college have all been affected by the epidemic; that is why many people are moving out of NYC. It’s true that NYC will have a hard time recovering to normal in a short time. I especially agree with Altucher when he says, “But this time it’s different. One reason: bandwidth…The difference: bandwidth got faster.” Due to this epidemic, a lot of works, learning became online, and these have made a lot of employers realize that a lot of things can be done online, which in a sense doesn’t affect their work; however, at the same time reduces a lot of overheads, such as renting a studio. I agree with that, but I don’t think people are completely adapted to online life. Online life makes a lot of work complicated. For example, from a student’s point of view. Online learning cause student can’t use a lot of school resources, like the library, or even contacting teachers can be a problem. I believe if the epidemic passes, many people will still return back to NYC, whether for work or study. Therefore, I think NYC will be back to normal, but it’s going to take time.
I agree with James Altucher. I saw the news yesterday that Strand Book Store is forced to close because of the Covid-19. The revenue has dropped nearly 70% compared to last year, and the loans and cash reserves that have kept them afloat these past months are depleted. Strand BookStore is a city landmark. It was founded in 1927. I believe that a lot of New Yorkers(including me) have their own impressive memories with this bookstore. My first English novel was bought from the Strand Book Store. How sad this book store is forced to close. This pandemic destroys a lot of small business. My favorite hot pot restaurant and bubble tea store closed. Author separated the article into different parts with subtitles. This way is very organized because each subtitle represents different reasons why New York is dead forever.
After reading through the article, New York City Is Dead Forever (Altucher), I can understand his point of view. I do agree that NYC is having problems and it may not go back to its original prosperity. In fact, I knew that the people living in New York have left this city; this is a statistic I saw a few years ago. And if the people are leaving even before the coronavirus, then people’s decision to leave this city during the epidemic is nothing odd. I mostly agree with Altucher about the part about taxes and rents where he mentions what the public asks, “Wait a second — I was paying over 16% in state and city taxes and these other states and cities have little to no taxes?…” I personally think that the reason why people in New York can bear this amount of renting fees and taxes should be because of the flourishing job opportunities. However, since the epidemic, the opportunities decline drastically, can people still afford the rents and other expenses? It is clear that the expense to live in New York is much higher than most of the other states. And even if the rent, in this period of time, drops, the job opportunities do not necessarily return; therefore, I agree that leaving New York can be the right choice.
I think Altucher organizes the piece in an effective manner because of how he divides the reasons to support his claim. He even adds the subtitle for each section of the reason; this makes me understand what he wants to express in a certain part of the article more clearly.
I do not fully agree with the author’s argument. He claimed that one of the reasons that New York City will be dead forever is the increasing bandwidth speed. Yes, internet is making remote work and learning the best option in these unprecedent times, but I don’t believe majority of life will stay like this after the pandemic (if it will end…). Speaking for myself and people around me, life on zoom is not what we would go for if we have the choice. Human interaction is needed for a healthy lifestyle. Some businesses may prefer remote work but even then, the city shouldn’t have such a drastic change even as people realize this other way of business.
I haven’t been in Manhattan, but my neighborhood trying its best to open up. At least in the summer, many of the businesses set up booths in the streets in order to still serve the people. All of us are looking forward to the time when everything goes back to normal.
When I first read the title, my thought was something more drastic, possibly like the city in risk of extinction etc. I am actually relieved the article is about the empty streets due to the pandemic. I mean, NYC is still here. The buildings are still here. They (the buildings) may switch owners but I seriously do not believe people won’t come back again, into their homes and out into the streets.
The article did bring up important points organized in categories of the various parts of the city. It is easy to see the main parts like college, businesses, real estate, etc. being affected by the pandemic. Also, structured in a question and answer format in some paragraphs, the article is effective in providing evidence for the author’s position. However, I still don’t believe NYC is dead forever as the pandemic led to new opportunities but do not permanently erase the ones that we had.
I disagree with the author’s argument that New York City is dead and it won’t bounce back. I believe that NYC will bounce back and will be better than before covid days. However, I do understand where he is coming from because of the changes that we need to make in order to keep everyone safe. Every aspect of our daily lives is changing. Cases are rising, stores are closing, companies are filing for bankruptcy, people are filing for unemployment, popular landmarks are empty and other hardships. It’s only a matter of time before people can go out again because these won’t last forever. The author said “We are officially AB: After Bandwidth. And for the entire history of NYC (and the world) until now, we were BB: Before Bandwidth.” To an extend, I agree with the author because it’s the best way for us to interact virtually and keep everyone safe. In the future, this is also very likely that we might stay like this because nowadays, it’s all about technology. I’m sure that all of us are looking forward to going out without having a mask on.
The article is very well organized with different categories. It’s easy to follow each subtopic because readers can see what each section is going to be about. Toward the end of the article, he also structured his writing with questions and answers. Overall, this piece is organized in an effective manner and his evidence is very effective in backing up his argument.
After reading the article, I would like to say that I disagree with the author. I do agree that NYC is dead and has been dead for a while now but I do not think NYC is dead forever. What makes NYC such a famous city is the fact that there are so many diverse people roaming the streets looking for opportunities. I agree with that aspect gone NYC is not the same as it was pre-pandemic. But this doesn’t change that NYC will bounce back from this crisis. If you look at NYC right now, with no vaccine or cure for the virus, people are still trying to safely roam around NYC. It’s not that we don’t care about catching the virus but it’s that we want to revive the city after months of the streets being empty. NYC-ers will always find a way to make this city how it was pre-pandemic because we know it will bounce back to its peak.
The author effectively organized the article by separating his key points into categories. By doing so, the article flowed more efficiently because this allowed the readers to know exactly what the next section of the article was about. He also mentions the three different categories (reasonings) he was going to talk about at the very beginning of the article making the structure of the article effective.
In my opinion, I disagree with his point that NYC will be dead forever. I do not think the city is dead now, it is just less traffic from what we are used to. There are not crowds in Time Square like many are used to. There are still people roaming the streets wearing mask and staying safe. Many restaurants have introduced outdoor dining. A lot of business and schools had made the transition to online with hybrid classes. Also, a lot of stores offer curb side pickup so people can still shop. The city might not be booming as before the pandemic, but it is not dead either. Many people might be moving out of New York now but once this pandemic is over, I think all those people who moved away are going to move back. New York will bounce back stronger. Altucher organizes the article with different headings so it clear to the reader which part you are reading about. I think this is very effective because the reader can clearly understand all the evidence presented.
I disagree with Altucher’s argument that New York City is dead forever because NYC is a big city where everyone wants to meet. The author organizes this piece of article by sectioning into subsections. I think it was organized in an effective manner. Every subsection have an adequate amount of detailed statistics and evidence. I disagree that NYC will be dead forever because COVID-19 and quarantine will come to a end and NYC will be flourished with people coming back. There are outdoor dining still going on.
I disagree with the opinion NYC is dead forever because the pandemic is just a temporary state and that people are very social. Topics such as restaurants and artists seem temporary. However, I do agree with his opinion on the change of the status quo. Taking his example of working away, it opens a possibility that it might be permanent. He mentions a book editor saying how there was not really a need to return to the office. The piece is organized by an introduction stating where it talks about his personal anecdotes and a few sections that talk some statistics. I don’t think it was organized in an effective manner. It felt as if he stated just different reasons and not really have a particular structure.
I disagree with James Altucher about how NYC is dead forever. I believe NYC isn’t as hectic as before, but I don’t think it is dead. I also disagree when he said something about how NYC hasn’t gone through something worse than the pandemic. NYC has gone through the Great Depression, and I think it is far worse than the pandemic. I do agree that the reasons to stay in NYC are very little at the moment because of the pandemic. However, NYC is still going slowly, so I wouldn’t say it is dead forever. I felt that Altucher’s argument was a very one-sided negative opinion. He didn’t mention all the good things that are also happening in NYC. There are still a lot of businesses that are still going. I see many people on the streets with their masks on outdoor dining, going grocery shopping, or just relaxing in the park. There is still a diverse amount of people that still live in NYC. Also, I’ve heard there are hybrids now for some schools. The author’s organization for the piece was very good and clear. I felt it was organized in an effective manner. I liked how there were different headings for each topic discussed. It made it clear to know what I was going to read for that section, and the reasons he gave was clear to locate.
When I read “New York City is Dead Forever” by James Altucher, I don’t agree with his argument that New York City is dead and won’t ever come back. This year’s COVID-19 came suddenly and violently, which made it difficult for everyone to react quickly. But this does not mean that New York is dead forever. Although under the influence of the epidemic, New York and the world have been hit hard both in terms of economy and life. But this does not mean that we cannot repair the impact of this epidemic in the future. It’s just that many of the blows caused by the epidemic cannot be repaired in a short time and require a long time. The author believes that New York has not experienced an event more serious than COVID-19, but I do not agree with this view. Because the financial crisis that occurred in 2008 is one of them, the subsequent impact of the financial crisis is no less than that of thE COVID-19. But the blow caused by the financial crisis is slowly being repaired. No matter what direction things will go in the future, people should maintain an optimistic attitude towards life. There should be no negative attitude that New York cannot return to normal.
I think James Altucher was being a bit hyperbolic when explaining New York as a ghost town. He breaks the article up into the changes that have happened in the past few months due to Covid. Covid 19 did impact New york drastically, but there have been other tragedies that happened that have hurt us in the past as well, and every time we were able to bounce back and rebuild the economy. I disagree with Altucher completely, New York is a big busy city, and no matter what may happen New York would definitely be able to get back to the economy and life it once had before. Even now there are many people who are going out and enjoying their time in new york and all over the world even though we are experiencing a pandemic. New York is not a ghost town at all, yes, there are less people in the street, but thats personal preference because of their own health issues. New York is fully capable of returning to its economic state pre covid.