Bank of America execs warn junior staffers to ‘dress down’ as NYC crime surges | Hacker News Reader

Bank of America execs warn junior staffers to ‘dress down’ as NYC crime surges

nypost.com

46 pointshncurious47 comments

As a lifelong NYC resident: the NYPost is a completely unreliable narrator when it comes to just about any city statistics.

Investment bank policies, written by the paranoid generationally wealthy from their out-of-city homes, are similarly unreliable.

Some forms of crime are up year over year- in part because NYC was deserted last year- but nearly all forms of crime on 5, 10, 20 and 30 year timeframes are way, way down.

My teenage girl children are free to roam around the city at nearly all hours in ways that would have been unthinkable when I was their age. It is incredible how safe NYC is.

There IS, however, a very sad upswing of mentally ill on the streets and subways. They may frighten tourists, but are harmless, worthy of help and pity. It is shameful that none of the pervasive enormous construction projects are going to facilitate homing them, even considering the trickle down.

Cheers.

Crime is down in major metro areas all over the world since the start of the pandemic. The tangible erosion of public safety is unique to the U.S.

I've lived in both NYC and Chicago in the past decade. The rapid changes in both cities are quite alarming and no amount of hand waving about 5-30 year time frames is going to make people feel better about the sharp reversal that has occurred in the past 18 months.

Simply false. For all intents and purposes, stranger to stranger crime was virtually zero before the pandemic and is virtually zero now.

Usually I would ask for a source for such an outlandish claim. This has not been my personal experience in NYC. Your use of "for all intents and purposes" and "virtually" are doing quite a bit of heavy lifting.

Haha, yeah. "For all intents and purposes", "virtually", and don't forget the weird "stranger on stranger". Perhaps if the perpetrator knows you, it makes it better?

Stranger on stranger is a normal way to segment crime. It controls out things that aren’t putting you at risk.

Should be easy to find out using a google search, no? Here you go:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statist...

Total crimes, 2020: 1817, 2021: 2268

Quite a bit of an increase. 2021 is not over yet.

I'm not really trying to counter-argue your point, just clarify, but… isn't that the one-week stats? The YoY stats are 2020: 87,608 vs 2021: 90,362.

And that's WITH lockdowns and a way fewer people on the streets in 2020. Of course 2021 would be higher with vaccinations.

So on track for maybe a 4% increase. Doesn't quite look like crisis to me. Of course, breakdowns of the type of crime might be helpful. It wouldn't take much of a single type of crime (like assault related to mask/anti-mask or something of that nature to cause a jump).

It sure will be zero when cops never show up to take a report (or just stop being called in bc of that the above)

I'm curious, as a lifelong resident of NYC would You say there are certain sections of the city that are more or less dangerous than others? I have not lived in NYC but have lived in other metropolitan cities and found that all of them had dangerous areas. As far as your comment on generational wealthy living out of city, I find this very interesting as it seems to indicate an anti-gentrification sort of thing that might be occurring, this is something that I have not seen or heard of in any cities other than those on the decline. Anyways, I will take your word on the safeness of the city and at some point in my already half over life I hope I get the opportunity to visit.

I grew up in the Bronx. If anyone tells you that you can safely go anywhere you want in NYC at any time of day, tell them to go first and report back.

NYC is a fantastic place. It is very safe anywhere you would possibly want to go, unless you're going on a crime tour. That doesn't mean it's safe everywhere.

In other words, yes, there are certain sections of the city that are more or less dangerous than others.

Yeah as someone who lived in NYC and nearby Jersey City for over a decade before moving out, I was very surprised by OP's comment:

> are free to roam around the city at nearly all hours in ways that would have been unthinkable when I was their age. It is incredible how safe NYC is.

Yes, the lower / Southern part of Manhattan, below 96th St is fairly safe at all times of the day or even night. But, and this is a big but, stray anywhere out of those "safe" Manhattan neighborhoods and you'll be terrified at how unsafe it is even at dawn or dusk. I've had friends who were mugged early mornings or evenings in areas like Harlem, East Harlem and the Bronx, even when there was a bit of light out. You hear police sirens round the clock in these areas.

Anecdotally, when I last visited Manhattan last year, I did notice the following and can confirm that OP is right about this, though I suspect this may improve as life in Manhattan goes back to normal in the months and years to come (maybe?):

> There IS, however, a very sad upswing of mentally ill on the streets and subways. They may frighten tourists ...

The mentally ill and homeless are vastly more likely to be dangerous, violent, or criminals. It's simply naivete or wishful thinking to imagine otherwise.

I think you may want to go try to validate that claim with data! You may find that you were engaged in wishful thinking. ;)

"The overall rate of criminal offenses was 35 times higher in the homeless mentally ill population than in the domiciled mentally ill population. The rate of violent crimes was 40 times higher and the rate of nonviolent crimes 27 times higher in the homeless population. Homeless defendants were significantly more likely to have been charged with victimizing strangers."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7641002/

You could find an unending stream of such results. It's common sense that drug addicted mentally ill people will engage in more anti-social behavior, crime included.

You just changed your population from “the mentally ill AND homeless” to “the mentally ill homeless.” Very different claims. I understand you mean well but this isn’t helping.

This point is, and has always been, about the mentally ill homeless. Mental illness, is, of course, more common in the homeless than in the general population.

Here is the grandparent:

"very sad upswing of mentally ill on the streets and subways. They may frighten tourists, but are harmless"

Here is the parent:

"The mentally ill and homeless are vastly more likely to be dangerous"

So, no. The population hasn't changed even slightly.

I guess it's also possible that you misread my quote and didn't see or understand the second sentence which I will repeat for you here. "The rate of violent crimes was 40 times higher and the rate of nonviolent crimes 27 times higher in the homeless population."

Isn't it easier to discuss things when looking at actual stats? https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statist...

Year to date (stats from this week) show that NYC is still at historic lows for crime rate. Total rate of crime is up 3% this year, but down -6% over 11 years, and -77% over 28 years.

Most crime that's up is forms of theft. The biggest thing to note for grand larceny auto, is that the normal number is very low, and its 28 year rate is the most historically low (down 90.8%), so any change in the numbers is going to look dramatic.

I wonder why NYPost is posting about the dramatic increase in robbery (Up 3% year to date), but not about hate crimes (up 96% year to date)?

It's very telling that one of the only posts here that links to real data is being downvoted.

What exactly does "dressing down" mean for these folks? Does this mean we'll see fewer of those "Midtown Uniform" fleece vests?

Don't wear a suit or you'll be the target of the poors. Put a little dirt on your face before you go in public so they think you're one of them.

I work in Manhattan and commute to my office every day by subway. The story exaggerates a bit. In general it is and feels pretty safe during the day and during normal commuting hours. And banks tend to be VERY risk averse when it comes to safety and security.

However, the city just doesn't feel as safe as it did a few years ago. Part of this is that there are fewer people out and about than there used to be (because of Covid). But the trend predates the pandemic and I know a number of women, colleagues and otherwise, who have been followed or don't feel safe walking around alone at night anymore. There is definitely a problem, though I'm hopeful the new mayor will improve things.

Allusions to telling women to dress down...

Guys, don’t wear too flashy of a tie on the subway.

Probably more like "don't wear that $4000 suit and $10000 rolex for a few months"

I've known people who have lived in NYC for many decades who have never even once set foot on a MTA subway staircase.

So that's whose taking the elevators.

No surprise Johnathan was mugged. Did you see what he was wearing?

He was asking for it rolling up that sleeve and flashing his watch. If he didnt want someone to grab it he should have covered it up.

There's victim blaming and then there's practical actionable advice. The latter is empowering, I'm not sure why there is such a strong reaction against it. "Here is a risk that you face. Here are some things you could do to reduce that risk." Great, sounds good to me.

Telling a child not to get into a stranger's car is not victim blaming, is it?

How about advising a person to wear a mask in public to reduce their chance of getting sick?

How about telling a woman to wear a veil not to provoke erection in adolescents ? :D

Something as passive as what you wear should not be a trigger for crime in a reasonable city. Telling people they should dress for the fascists' peace of mind is not progress.

Yes absolutely in some countries and cultures women should absolutely be told that they must cover up, not go about in public un-escorted, etc.

It's not about your beliefs or your imagination of what the world is or should be, it is about actual reality for these people.

The difference between telling a child to not get into a stranger's car, vs telling a women not to dress scantily, is that a child would never need to get into a stranger's car (they are often tricked), but an adult woman would want to dress scantily as that is a personal choice of theirs. The fact that there is risk for a woman dressing scantily is the problem - which is why the "actionable advice" for them not to dress that way is called victim blaming.

All those situations are different by definition. Without getting bogged down into a child having a reason to get into a car because they want a lift to get somewhere, I'm not talking about the differences. I'm talking about the similarities. Which are ways people might choose to reduce risk.

Not that I'm saying dressing differently reduces risk mind you, I don't have statistics at hand to know whether it does or does not in western countries. I was commenting on the advice to avoid being a target on the street by hiding that you're a banker. That's not victim blaming.

But if women not "dressing scantily" as you say were to statistically reduce the chance of them being victimized in some situation, that seems like a pretty important thing for them to know. Or would you prefer that data was hidden from them?

If you go to another country dressed however you wish, you might be acosted, too. We share our cities.

At the same time Morgan Stanley tells young bankers they’re nuts if they aren’t if the office.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/morgan-stanley-boss-to-young-b...

So… don’t come in lose out on networking and in person opportunities. Come in, but don’t be too obvious a target for criminals.

That’s some button meme material right there.

The junior staffers should be thankful they are not execs, the way things are lining up for the markets in 2022 the execs will be forced to wear sackcloth and ashes.

But at least we're not under a Republican mayor and all those racist policing policies that... completely cleaned up the city.

you never scrutinized what they "cleaned up" did you?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/spotlight/20...

mostly they cleaned up the statistics.

#WONTFIX

Or, instead of completely cleaning up the city, merely claimed credit for nationwide demographic trends that started 3-4 years before said mayor ever ran for office and continued since. Plenty of references, e.g., [1], from many years before said former mayor has come under multiple criminal investigations.

[1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2007/sep/01/how-much-cred...

Look up who started Compstat and what their vision and their actions were like. Starting with Giuliani, the mayors didn’t help at all. They made things worse. Jack Maple is a flawed but awesome person. It’s unfortunate others like the mayors get so much credit.

I would love to get a response to why I was downvoted. Jack Maple is a hero. The leaders of NYC who made things worse and got all the credit are the opposite. Downvoted because of political in-group reasons?

Please do not take HN threads into political flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so ban accounts that make a habit of it (regardless of what they're flaming for or against).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com