Ixiel comments on Open Thread May 16 - May 22, 2016 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Elo 15 May 2016 11:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (121)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 May 2016 02:55:21PM 1 point [-]

You think Manhattan (which is, technically speaking, a county) doesn't pay its own way?

Comment author: Ixiel 10 June 2016 01:21:34PM *  1 point [-]

Update: Gov's office didn't dig up the study. On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember, whether that was misdirection or misremembering. Even though I could see a case for the tax draws being even bigger, it doesn't overcome the prima facie implausibility.

Thanks for the update; "it ain't what you don't know but what you know that ain't so that kills ya," as I've seen attributed to Twain (but every quote has been attributed to Twain so grain of salt)

Comment author: Lumifer 10 June 2016 02:32:06PM 1 point [-]

On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember

One more possible explanation. NY state is not the most coherent organization and I've seen sets of statistics for NY counties that just did not include NYC boroughs. Evidently, even though they are counties, they are considered a special enough case to just ignore them on occasion. So maybe your study just said in a small footnote somewhere "Oh, we'll pretend NYC does not exist".

By the way, you might find this report interesting.

Comment author: Ixiel 10 June 2016 04:18:46PM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, even scrolling up to my own comment, referring to NY as a "mostly rural state" only works since in most cases with which I interact, the NYC residents don't count as TRUE Scottsmen... ;)

Edit to comment on link also: Wow, that is definitely NOT the data I remember. Older, but still. Thanks for that. It all started in a stockholders' meeting for my family's business (employing 2500-7500 people largely in what this report calls the capital district depending how you count) so motivation for bad data is not hard to identify. This year's meeting is in a few weeks and I'll definitely be bringing this up. Thanks as usual.