In my view, what we are most likely to see is a slow-rolling migration of larger and larger swaths of the financial services industry; not a quick exodus. Many very wealthy New Yorkers will remain for largely social and cultural reasons, as they have always loved the city for what it has long offered in so many ways.
Already, many of the "back-office" jobs at financial firms have been relocated to lower cost areas of the country. Just recently, total JP Morgan job numbers in Texas surpassed those in New York. Technology allows more decentralization of these functions now.
Additionally, the number of very-high-paying jobs in the wealth management industry has been growing much faster in the Dallas area recently than in NYC. I understand that leasing in Old Parkland (near downtown Dallas and a favorite of finance guys) has been going exceptionally well.
As mentioned earlier, Mamdani, apparently having learned nothing about the history of rent control, now suggests that exacerbating an already serious problem by subjecting even more properties to rent control, is the right prescription for improving the lot of NYC's working class. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rent control has worsened the affordability and livability of the NYC housing stock; not improved it. As you have probably noticed, an economy does not respond favorably to administrative diktats. (Remember what an abject failure Nixon's price controls of the early 1970s were? What do you think happened to inflation in the aftermath of that harebrained plan?)
Fans of rent control might learn a thing or two from this:
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/...footnote_nt389
It's utterly astonishing that so many people seem incapable of learning anything at all from history.
then you should pay for it 
