> "tech workers" make the same amount in NYC as they do in the Bay Area, they fly completely under the radar and the inequality warriors point fingers at financ

> "tech workers" make the same amount in NYC as they do in the Bay Area, they fly completely under the radar and the inequality warriors point fingers at finance instead As someone in both (my day job is keeping OpenStack working at a hedge fund) and who's been in both job markets: this is because finance actually is the richest. There's literally no point in fixing tech worker salaries in NYC if you're not going to fix finance salaries in NYC. Why is it surprising that the target is the richest? Why do you see that as fickle instead of constant and principled? It would be unprincipled and ideological if people complained about tech salaries in NYC simply because tech is widely disliked, even when there's a bigger target to go after. > Walmart is practically banned from NYC in an effort to save/protect local businesses, while every major, minor, and luxury retailer enjoys larger than life flagship versions of their stores positioned in space constrained Manhattan. I am confused by the juxtaposition of these two claims. Walmart competes with local businesses. Gucci does not. If you want to protect local businesses, not having a Gucci flagship has a qualitatively different effect from not having Walmart. (A place like Uniqlo does compete with local businesses, but I would certainly not call any of the Uniqlo stores in Manhattan "larger than life" - they're barely big enough for purpose, and they're all much smaller than the Walmart in my parents' suburb.)