121–130 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it cost more per capita to run NYC than it does smaller cities like Austin?
Maybe not to run, but the capital investment is probably higher. As well as things like subways, which there isn't one of in Austin.
If NYC is less expensive to manage per capita, I'm guessing that's reflected in a lower taxation rate. Don't they have a lot of room to raise taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
/me looks at the USA I don't think the overwhelmingly... regressive? conservative government you've been running has done overly well either.
If only there were other choices besides progressive and conservative! /s
You generally either believe that government should be bigger and managing more things, or smaller and managing less things. The details and dividing lines vary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real estate, being a straightforward investment attracts those who couldn't be making more money at pretty much any other type of investment. Hence you get the most clueless people managing the properties.
Putting your money in an index fund will probably make more money than the average real estate investment.
How about: US citizens saved $34B by not having to stay in the highest COL areas? Why should we sympathize with a minority of rent-seekers?
The average New Yorker has a mere one-third of the carbon emissions as the average American. This is really bad for the climate overall. Dense city living is very efficient; living in the suburbs and driving everywhere is not. NYC is the densest city we have.
Or in context, they estimate NYC lost a net 0.8% of its residents and the average income of the incoming and outgoing cohorts differ by -$8,055/y. It multiplies to a big dollar figure because NYC is big and rich. The original content marketing: https://global-uploads.webflow.com/5dc3e2af6a906d9cc232e1bc/... It explains that they're extrapolating from three NYC neighborhoods (Astoria, Tribeca, and Williamsburg). I'm n…
> It explains that they're extrapolating from three NYC neighborhoods (Astoria, Tribeca, and Williamsburg).
Wow. This is garbage-tier methodology that doesn't remotely deserve anyone paying attention to the "results". Talk about sampling bias galore.
Remember which political party runs the city.
While we are at it, lets remember which political party runs the areas that are most dependent on the government. Source: https://wallethub.com/edu/most-independent-states/36426#main...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>NYC is costly, but not as costly as people think Oh come on, it's among the most expensive places to live in the world by almost any metric. Rent? Probably top 5 most expensive in the world. Groceries? Among the most expensive in the world. Restaurants? Among the most expensive in the world. This is bare necessities. It's not as if people in Raleigh are spending massive portions of their budget on "Culture" that som…
It is totally expensive, especially Rent. I'm just saying it isnt as expensive as you think in the big picture. Just across the border, all adults need cars. In NYC, you dont usually need a car (at least before the current subway crisis.) Just across the border, you dont pay city income tax, but you pay absurd property tax.
Well, how good a deal that is depends on your household AGI versus the value of the property you own/rent in each location.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average New Yorker has a mere one-third of the carbon emissions as the average American. This is really bad for the climate overall. Dense city living is very efficient; living in the suburbs and driving everywhere is not. NYC is the densest city we have.
Live in the city for the sake of nature you will never experience because you live in a city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Live in the city for the sake of nature you will never experience because you live in a city.
We're not walled in here, you know. And it's not nature that matters per se but rather having a habitable planet. You're confusing issues here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Go look at the voter rolls I used to do this, and can report the area of London that I lived in turned over 25% of its (voting) residents in a typical 12 month period: that is, before coronavirus time ! They may have relocated within London, of course. I assume that New York City is comparable in this respect. Further assumptions: People not vote-registered are likely to turn over even quicker than that. People who…
You need to look further into the voter rolls and actually correlate voters by identity. 25% moving within the city every year doesn't count; the linked article is talking about "Fleeing New Yorkers", not "New Yorkers moving between neighborhoods" (which is commonplace, unremarkable, and doesn't affect NYC's tax revenue in any way). What we care about here is people that actually moved out of the city entirely, or th…
So the article's reporting fits within my expectation - also noting that a net change of 70,000 people is very small.
The voter rolls will significantly lag outside of election day and - again - is much less likely to include transient residents who won't bother to register, so it's no more likely to be a complete reflection of what has happened than the cellphone data source used here. Something like 40% of the NYC population is not registered to vote.