In related news, here's an article about a new report on the cost and standard of living in NYC, and it's kind of shocking, and makes me think I should move. (Although the headline is crap.) [link]

Seriously. I know things here in SF are expensive, but from the price of lattes to utilities to income taxes, there are many things that are noticeably cheaper than NY.

In related news, here's an article about a new report on the cost and standard of living in NYC, and it's kind of shocking, and makes me think I should move.

DIBS!!!

there are many things that are noticeably cheaper than NY.

Yeah, but just try getting an $8 manicure! t /grasping at straws

Yeah, but just try getting an $8 manicure!

I can do that! It will suck, and make me worry about infection, but I can do it.

Yeah, but just try getting an $8 manicure!

Right?? Anyway, my own personal rent is cheap for NYC and reasonable for any expensive city, so I'm doing fine. But still.

DIBS!!!

Mwah!

Tall lattes are $1 cheaper here.

People have told me to estimate $30 for utilities for a studio/1 br (that's electricity and gas). Versus about $50 or so in NY.

There are no county or city income taxes.

There are no county or city income taxes.

None? Woah.

I know! It cracks me up when people complain about the taxes here.

ETA: Note, this is one reason why CA is essentially bankrupt at this point.

There are no county or city income taxes.

We don't have any here either. But the property taxes for the city? sheesh

Argh. Of course it is! I'm not arguing that! If it's an issue of salary caps OR workers getting laid off, of course I'm on the side of salary caps. Which, okay, probably is exactly what you're saying. I apologize -- that was not at all the way I was looking at the argument.

Not arguing with you specifically, Em. Just something you had said spurred a thought in my head. I know that this:

I'm not arguing that! If it's an issue of salary caps OR workers getting laid off

...is not your argument. I too have a lot more empathy for direct personal or household employees who might have to be let go because an exec gets a salary cap.

I'm just not at all sure that companies would take the money they're not paying their executives and use it to keep more rank-and-file employees. If that really is the way it's going to work, then that's a different story. It's just not the way I generally think of corporate finance working.

Here we are in total agreement. Unfortunately. Yeah, I don't think a company forced to not pay a buttload of money to some execs will instead turn around and employ a bunch of low level people either.

I'm just really sick and tired of this threat from corporate "America" that if we tax them or regulate them or try to apply any kind of law or pressure at all, they will immediately shut down all commerce and fire everybody, which is what all of these free market arguments sound like to me. A bunch of childish "I'll take my bat and ball and go home" BS.

I think Obama has started calling them on it, and I hope he continues. I wish he would do it more often, more effectively and more strenuously, though.

I think Friedman school economics is one of the more dangerous and toxic philosophies ever to grace our planet, and it's taken quite a deep root right now.

I guess I just have some trouble with the "no pity for people making/dependent on people making more than $x" position empirically.

I'm not entirely comfortable with it either, but I think it bothers you more than it bothers me.

Sean, I'm having m-net flashbacks. Remember the days when our screaming fights were in tiny green letters on a big black screen?

*snerk* Yes! And it reminds me how happy it makes me to count you as one of my oldest friends.