misun78

You're spot on with that explanation, thanks.

Yeah I totally understand your viewpoint but as other posters have said, my comment was directed at standard urban/suburban areas.

NYC, Boston, and SF if SF can get its act together. There are a plethora of small livable cities as well such as Boulder, CO.

You haven't explained why but I can preemptively say it isn't. Go outside the confines of American suburbia/countryside and you will see how out of touch these vehicles are to sustainable and healthy living.

Unfortunately agree, especially given how much of an influence the auto industry has on our government.

My goal is hence to make enough money to allow my family and I to live in an urban walkable environment. The venn diagram overlap of areas that have a high proportion of large trucks and how livable they are is quite small anyways.

Let me be the first one to say it - anyone who drives a large pick-up truck for non-commercial reasons is a grade A asshole. SUV drivers aren't that far off, though I sympathize with the game theory element of buying SUVs to protect against other larger cars -- but I would expect you to take accountability and drive slower and safer than smaller cars.

These monstrosities are environmentally unfriendly, pedestrian unfriendly, kid unfriendly, biker unfriendly, small car unfriendly, and are antithetical to the type of walkable and bikable cities that point to healthier and happier living. I wish we could tax the crap out of these things and drive them out of our towns.

Oh please, you have a right to privacy in your own homes, but not in shared roads where your driving can endanger others. I welcome this news and hopefully one day we have traffic cameras across every block in the country, that have already proven to reduce speeding/reckless and driving, and to directly impact the ~40k deaths we have on the roads each year.

Not the OP but as someone who grew up in Chicago, but then spent a large time in NYC, here are some examples:

1. Talent Density: Chicago is optimized talent-wise at a regional level (the midwest), while NYC is optimized at a global level. Chicago simply doesn't have the same pull if you don't live in the midwest the way NYC does for folks living anywhere across the world. This creates an obvious talent gap.

2. Culture: Chicago operates as a much more of an all-American city, reflecting cultural attitudes not too dissimilar from the rest of the country. Examples here include a heavy sports culture, emphasis on drinking/going out. You see a similar trend with NYC transplants (like myself in my early 20's) but you're eventually forced to grow out of it in NYC and create a more unique and diversified identity. I haven't seen much of this in my social circle from Chicago who never left.

3. Industry Density: Chicago is considered top at a few select industries including insurance, commodities etc. OTOH, there are very few industries that NYC would not be considered top in. Strong talent begets strong talent and this creates the sort of network effect that's present in the bay (for tech), and in NYC, but not in Chicago minus a few industries. These network efforts, over a long enough timeframe, fundamentally alter the landscape of one's career.

4. Local v.s. global maxima: Chicago allows you to reach a relatively easier maxima (career or culture wise), which likely means Chicagoans are happier on average. That concept doesn't exist in NYC or the bay. It pushes you to reach a global maxima which is inherently more challenging. For example, getting a job at Google likely sets you for life in Chicago. In NYC or the bay, that's simply a starting point. This isn't for the faint of heart but is highly rewarding if you're ambitious and work-oriented.

5. Arts and Fashion: The same concept of local v.s. global maxima exists here too.

6. Food: Far more global and unique in NYC than in Chicago (which in-itself has great food)

I would maybe keep SF and LA as tier 1.5 (ignoring the fact that LA is mostly a collection of suburbs) given their presence at the global scale, but there is a drop-off in tiers for all other cities. Chicago is a great example, it's usually considered a sister city to NYC, but as someone who grew up there and then later spent time in NYC, the differences in cultural attitudes between the two could not be starker.

This is a pretty reasonable approach but I would caution against potentially being too overly-conservative in eventually moving to the bay/NY if career ambition is a goal. What's often missing in these budgeting numbers is the intangible variable of a far lower ceiling of income potential that you have to trade off. How does the calculus change if say there is some probability X of reaching a potential far higher than 150-160k, as tends to be the case in these HCOL areas?

The person who posted is still active on Twitter - https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_d...

Double standard much?

Parents must take the leave? whats with such an involuntary enforcement?

People can question all they want about why wealth is not trickling down but that doesn’t change the underlying analysis or outcomes around why this is a bad idea. You may get income redistribution and trickle down but if it changes the underlying systems that create wealthy, those same people will just end up poorer but more equitable.

I can easily fire my asset manager, or switch to a plethora of low cost options, or manage my capital myself. How exactly will I have those options with the wealth tax if you like you said, I’m not getting that rate of return justifying the tax?

My inclination for these kind of systems isn't so much to prevent the act from happening in real-time but more around providing law enforcement with enough footage to land the perpetuators in jail. Of course if that part of the system is broken then we're truly screwed no matter what.

This article doesn’t provide a baseline to compare the latest survey against? What percent of tech workers were already on the fence with regards to moving out before the pandemic hit?

Good for you in being somewhere with zero violence in looting, while here in nyc, entire neighborhoods (soho, herald square etc) has been ransacked and cops run over to death. National guard cannot come soon enough to put away these perpetrators in jail.

“Yours end when it begins harming someone else” is in itself a slippery slope and a dangerous precedent used by folks to limit free expression. How exactly do you define “harm”? Does emotional or mental or spiritual/religious harm count? If so you are one step closer to a complete dismantle of the first amendment.

Hence I think that statement should be extremely narrowly applied to direct physical violence (and threat of), and that’s it. Anything more and you are just masquerading as wanting to censor speech under the guise of that highly exploitable statement.

Jeez, what a bureaucratic nightmare this sounds

If that’s the core argument for UBI i.e. it’s far more efficient, why do such proposed initiatives come with significant tax increases on the population? Your analysis should theoretically support a net decrease in spending on welfare (hence lower taxes) or best case, no additional increase. You would have a lot broader support if UBI wasn’t tied to egregious tax proposals like a wealth tax.

Why do you think immunity passports are a terrible idea? What else works better barring a long term vaccine?

The markets seem to vehemently disagree with that entire narrative.

Building up socio-economic status is a straw man point here given how widespread the effects of this downturn are. It could be that parts of the middle class that are protesting may have lost their jobs or businesses and the stimulus checks don’t offset that as much as it would for lower income folks.

If you look at the median age of covid fatalities in Italy at age 81.5, this question is entirely valid. Some of the numbers I read pointed to a 16-20% all cause mortality rate for that group irrespective of covid. So by definition the circles overlap to a meaningful extent.

Super interesting, thanks. Do you know if anyone has graphed the excess mortality on a month by month basis? That data would be invaluable in understand the timelines of actual spikes in excess mortality, irrespective of covid-19 testing and diagnosis. For example, did it spike up in March in NYC compared to Jan or Feb?

Can you point to some sources?

Have these tests been antibodies though? Normal tests otherwise only test for active infections afaik.

As again with political analysis, I am seeing downright inconsistencies and biases in judging responses to this pandemic, based on what side one is on. Do you apply the same remarks to the POTUS as well?

I hope you are not including Cuomo — the governer at the epicenter of the worst hit NY — in your “list of good governers”? This was his quote from early March:

"People are reacting like this is the Ebola virus. This is not the Ebola virus. This hysteria that you see, this fear that you see, the panic that you see is unwarranted. We have dealt with worse viruses. This spreads like the flu, but most people will have it and they get on with their lives."

The irony in you typing this from most likely an iPhone/Android/PC made in China by factory workers under conditions far far worse than Amazon is quite palpable.