[wolverine876]

> Seattle and Austin are totally comparable, even preferable, to NYC and SF in many ways.

I'm sure we can find ways, Seattle and Austin are wonderful places, and what makes NYC and SF special doesn't appeal to everyone. But really Seattle and Austin are not even close. There's a reason NYC and SF have been centers of culture and business for generations; there's a reason that demand is so high that housing costs are stratospheric.

[simulate-me]

Sure NYC has certain desirable aspects. Seattle has a different set (e.g. way better nature). The point isn’t to compare the cities to find the absolute best. Rather, the question is whether or not the benefits of certain cities or worth the cost. For high earners, the cost of living in NYC is hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per year. For some percentage of people that cost is simply not worth it and they move. To claim people don’t move because of taxes is to deny basic economics.

[wolverine876]

> To claim people don’t move because of taxes is to deny basic economics.

No, it's just not framing the entire economic question around taxes. There are many, many other factors. You can live in places with no taxes at all, but people don't choose to.

> the cost of living in NYC is hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per year. For some percentage of people that cost is simply not worth it and they move

They've already moved in that case, but the demand for NYC is enormous.

> For high earners,

Who do you think lives in NYC?

[simulate-me]

Maybe we're discussing different things. I was responding to the claim that higher taxes doesn't cause people to move. Just because high earners live in NYC doesn't mean that there weren't some high earners that left due to taxes.