This morning I replied to this tweet—
This is the kind of quantity that might turn into quality https://t.co/E2asoioEEx— blue lives splatter 📉 (@postcyborg) July 2, 2020
—which was itself quoted this tweet—
I don't know who needs to hear this, but 20,000,000 Americans are at risk of being evicted by September 30.— Robert Reich (@RBReich) July 1, 2020
—to which I replied—
Just glancing at the cited article, but I think this # is misleading. They define "at risk" based on unemployment without considering variation in eviction protections. They do imply the most evicting cities (fewer protections) will be the big evictors now, which seems right.— julian francis park (@jfpark3) July 2, 2020
Not that I think most of the eviction protections are that great, but they are, to a degree, an indicator of the level of tenants movement activity in an area, & also an indicator of places where some resolution to the income loss may occur.— julian francis park (@jfpark3) July 2, 2020
—and to which I received the fellowing qualified affirmation—
I think you're right ofc, but have to conclude that even an adjusted concept of at-risk is still in the same order of magnitude and those with less risk are not in an ultimate sense far behind— blue lives splatter 📉 (@postcyborg) July 2, 2020
The article under discussion is "20 Million Renters Are at Risk of Eviction; Policymakers Must Act Now to Mitigate Widespread Hardship."
There, the authors use three figures to illustrate their argument. First, they graph their estimation of those at risk of eviction.
Second, and I think most importantly, they show the 25 most evicting cities in the US.
Third, also significant, they show the breakdown of at risk percent and total population by state.