I would MUCH rather get a gift card than a bad gift, as long as the gifter knows me well enough to get me gift cards that he or she knows I'll use. Banana Republic gift card? Free clothes! Barnes and Noble gift card? Free books and games! Cold Stone gift card? Free ice cream! Best Buy gift card? ...Um, I guess I'll go buy a spare phone charger in case mine breaks? Do they even sell phone chargers at Best Buy? But thanks for thinking of me...
@CL I guess I don't understand the snark? She doesn't charge me for individual meetings. I pay her the same whether I meet with her weekly or annually or never. Why in the world would you be condescending about it?
Is the Times' internet access down or are they just uncritically repeating lies told to them by unspecified "companies"? Because the nominal corporate tax rate in the U.S. is not the highest in the world, and the effective tax rate is far lower. In any case, most countries charge somewhere between 30 and 35 percent, not "under 10 percent." It's not too surprising that a company whose leader didn't believe in charity wouldn't believe in paying taxes, either. Under Steve Jobs' philosophy, all money on the planet should just belong to Apple, I guess.
By franklina on Airbnb, Not in NYC
The thing is, AFAIK this enforcement only happens if there's a complaint. Presumably this happened pre-AirBnB, if a Craiglist weekend "sublet" warranted a complaint to 311 and was investigated by the city. It just wasn't publicized - probably partly because AirBnB wasn't advocating for changing the short-term hotel law at the time. Frankly, in such a densely populated city, I like having some protection as a neighbor against someone running a hotel out of my residential building. If I can't tell my neighbor rents out her place from time to time, no worries. But if it gets out of hand, (esp. as the user base of AirBnB grows beyond early-adopter tech geeks) I want some recourse. Transient tenants often don't have the same level of respect for the neighbors, the building, etc. as a longer-term resident might, incentive-wise...
I actually think Logan had the right approach with that interview -- just letting him speak for himself, to dig his own hole if you will. If she had confronted him more directly, I think he would've become defensive, and I suspect his defense strategy would be to concede some smaller points while still holding fast to the big one (Dude, Yr Rich.) That said, I hope the negative reactions in the comments (which I agree with -- the only reason I didn't comment wasn't I would have just been piling on) don't scare off potential Rich People interview subjects, or result in only very apologetic and self-aware Rich People coming forward. I think one of the really important things this site does is present a lot of different perspectives on money, and if it were all just people in their 20s with liberal arts educations trying to Make It In the Big City the site would be much more boring and less special.
I just... I can't even... HOW IS A $32,000 LEXUS AN AVERAGE CAR? I just can't feel sorry for this guy's money worries when he is living with 3 cars and 3 houses and a 3 year cash cushion in savings. I honestly can't imagine how anyone could be so un self aware.
@@fo - I'm a black person with a name that falls in between the two ends, "Monica". I think it helps that my name doesn't "tell my race" but honestly if someone doesn't want to hire a Blk person, when a Blk "Mary" goes for an interview, she will go thru the process only to be turned away.
OK but we can all agree that it would show a REAL lack of empathy if her friend responded "don't you mean better for whom?"
@fo I am pretty sure there is no value in a simplistic, stupid argument like, "African orphans vs sick American baby?" (since you pointed out it's not like you can just earmark your unspent health care dollars for international aid, or anything else). And any person with a functioning sense of empathy can recognize the difference between a theoretical sick baby and the actual baby of the person they're talking to.
@Michelle You mean, "economists"? But seriously, jumping off the earlier post here, if you ask an economist the same question, they *might* answer it either way--because it is possible that the single American child will produce lifetime 'surplus' greater than the million Africans. She did give the correct answer--"For whom?"--but if we can't discuss the policy of allocation of medical expenditures in the hard cases (and this is clearly a hard case), then we might as well just give up, as nibbling at the edges on the easy cases, and getting people to take care of [condition X] before it turns into [condition Y], which costs 10x to treat, is not going to magically make Medi-Caid/Care cost meaningfully less. Also, anyway, the more accurate question from the friend is whether it is better to spend the $1.2m that way, or for medical insurance w/o that coverage to cost everyone $100 (or whatever) less per year. Because that $1.2m wasn't going to Africa, ever, anyway. A discussion of US mecical costs and Africa *should* focus on the costs of patented drugs--we (USA) subsidize the *entirety* of the rest of the world on all patented drugs.