Thanks liberals. https://nypost.com/2019/03/09/new-york-city-is-edging-toward-financial-disaster-experts-warn/ And we know what comes next https://mobile.twitter.com/billdeblasio/status/1104761249613656064
Maybe they should try to get some sort of large corporation set up a second headquarters in the state and pay $25 billion in taxes
lmao good one
...according to the chief economist of a company youāve never heard of
Don't know if the content is legit or not, but it is very hard to take anything on NYPost seriously. NYPost has produced so much bs that I don't even know why it hasn't gone bankrupt yet.
Question: if an honest article brings in $1 in profit and clickbait brings in $10, which one is more likely to be written if the year is 2019?
They aren't honest enough to be news, and they aren't entertaining enough to be fiction (fake news can be funny after all). I don't know why people are still reading it. I have told Google Now to stop showing NYPost after seeing so much shit from them a few months ago.
> And we know what comes next. California?
California has a budget surplus greater than the budget of many states.
Hahahaha.
Lol, breaking news: Wall Street person warms of falling skies if rich people donāt get their way 100% of the time.
Thank goodness they didnāt give Amazon a bunch of tax money, eh? ;-)
Can't tell if you're aware that NYC would have received far more tax revenue if Amazon had come to town, despite the $3B subsidy
If you look closely, you'll see he was being sarcastic, hence the wink emoticon.
Wtf is de Blasio spending all the money on? NYC looks like the inside of a dumpster, almost everywhere. The air quality in Midtown is the worst I've experienced in the US by far. As nasty as the bad parts of SF look, the city as a whole is much cleaner and the infrastructure is in much better shape. And I already think the SF government is a shitshow, somehow spending $32k on homelessness per homeless person per year, which is more than it spends on unemployment, per unemployment recipient, per year. Sometimes I wonder if the City of New York seeks to hire as many people as possible who couldn't possibly be hired elsewhere. Full disclosure: I am normally a Democrat.
> normally a Democrat. Not for long. š
We need Bloomberg back in the NYC mayoral office. His company can run itself. To be fair, I'm pretty sure NYC still looked like the inside of a dumpster everywhere while he was in office. But at least the deficit wasn't increasing so quickly. TBH I have no idea what added benefits we're getting from de Blasio, aside from renovating the Subway from its current Shit- standard to a new Shit+ standard
I am surprised you actually compared the cleanliness and infrastructure of SF and NYC. Is there even a contest haha... NYC is like the epitome of old and smelliness. But truth be told, I still love it here.
What is there to love about NYC, aside from the best nightlife and most diverse population in the world? Please tell me so I can take full advantage and enjoy this city as much as I enjoyed SF. Food is not much better. More expensive for similar quality to SF, but with more easily accessible variety. Museums are better for sure, but there are only a dozen or so that are worth seeing if you've visited museums around the world. This will not matter after living in NYC long enough. Beaches are great in summer because the weather is hot. Definitely better than their SF counterparts. You can see all the same nationally and internationally renowned bands you'd see in SF/Oakland. Contrary to popular belief, NYC public transit is actually less efficient than that of SF. See: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best-cities-for-public-transportation Nature access, weather, city layout/feel, architecture, cleanliness, tech job opportunities, tech pay and taxes are all better in SF. Cost of living is the same, at least in Manhattan. In NYC, beaches, nightlife, diversity, museums and debatably food (which is more expensive yet slightly more varied) are better. LA offers the same advantages with much better weather and beaches and lower taxes and cost of living, but horrendous traffic and public transit. Dating as a straight guy: slightly better in NYC due to ratio. Quantity is better, but quality (as measured by average physical fitness and IQ) is worse. EDIT: Viewing this list objectively, I prefer NYC over SF while the weather is warmer.
You wrote it up very well here. For me, I love the vibrancy and culture here. Where one wants/prefers to live is very much personal. Your write up espouses on the pluses and minuses of both places. Some things matter more to some than others. From your concluding statement, it sounds like a good way out may be to work out a WFSF/LA arrangement over the winter months. :)
There are budget cuts and city hiring freezes and more being proposed by de Blasio. The budget lost a billion in revenue due to stock market swings. The state mandates that NYC have a balanced budget - which is a backdoor way of pushing austerity and shifting costs onto regular people. Ny times: āNew York has a lot of high earners and high net worth individuals who may have, at the end of the year, chosen to take capital losses,ā said Jared Walczak, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. āThatās going to be a much bigger hit to New York than to a typical state.ā Itās just neoliberal austerity politics. The poor get charged more for services or have those services cut because they city is run for Wall Street.
New York is such a rich city there is no excuse. Blaming a small stock market blip for the fiscal problem is really weak - nyc runs on finance, and they should be planning to survive an actual recession. NYC has a millionaires tax that was recently reapproved and the top 1% pay nearly half of all taxes, much higher than in the us as a whole.
Thereās a city reserve budget that they have over a billion in. At any rate, Iām not making excuses - Iām against the faux-progressive neoliberalism of de Blasio or Cuomo as much as Iām against the Republicans. Iām just countering some of the superficial and factually incorrect statements in this thread. NYCās āliberalā government did not āoverspendā because no cities spend collected tax money - they spend expected tax money. Thatās why the stock market drops at the end of the year meant their revenue projections were off and they now have a deficit (more spent than actually ended up being available at the end of the year). But state politicians put a law in place that mandates a balanced budget. This is what Democrats do in order to look progressive but act just like conservative Republicans in practice. Republicans make a political virtue out of austerity whereas Democrats in liberal areas create laws that force them to make cuts when the economy goes down and city revenues are reduced. Then they say: āwell, weād love to provide services in this time of need, but the state government mandates that we cut these programs/raise transit fares/demand personnel cuts/etc. our hands are tied.ā
Thought exercise ā if only hedge fund peeps pay their taxes, would such happen? And I see some pitchforks coming my way.
More like, if only pensions weren't completely unfunded and also dependent on there being 8% growth indefinitely, which clearly is not going to happen.