Get a Life New York Magazine

So I think the way this works is that I'm supposed to respond to this post about this post about this silly article without acknowledging that I saw this post, because I'm ruining the joke here people.

So this Marcin person intrigues me because his blog looks a lot like mine except, as long as we're being honest, I think my little sidebar area looks better with its fancy script headings. I've never been to London so I can't address the merits of his arguments. I also can't really comment on the New York Magazine article (or is it an entire issue?) in question, other than to say that New York Magazine sucks.

It's ridiculous to compare cities without holding wealth constant. Perhaps the average New York Magazine reader doesn't care about the relative cost of living, but that's a key part of what makes one city better than another. If you don't take it into account, you end up comparing apples to oranges. Greenwich Village might (might) be better than Streeterville, but it also costs way more. For many people, the relevant comparison is not New York vs. London but rather New Jersey vs. London-equivalent-of-New-Jersey.

I know, I know, New York Magazine is just trying to make some money, but this is how New Yorkers got such big heads in the first place. Because New York is one of the best cities to live in if you're fantastically wealthy, people see it as some kind of success story. In real life, though, poor people matter too, or at least they ought to. Whatever "bootstrap sensibility" New York has, though, it hasn't made its way into New York Magazine.