> So the taxpayers should pay so the people with low income or no income can live iny Manhattan?

Yes. It's a city not a luxury resort. If people are to work all kinds of jobs at all levels of income there, then people at all income levels should be able to live there as well. This mechanism accounts for that.

> Why not also provide them with expensive cars and exotic vacations?

Maybe they should idk. Seems completely unrelated though and no one is arguing for that here so I don't know why you want to or why I should.

> If people are to work all kinds of jobs at all levels of income there, then people at all income levels should be able to live there as well.

Why should taxpayers subsidize employers unwilling to pay a living wage?

Yes I agree we should force employers to pay living wages.

They're definitely closely related issues but I don't know that you can completely solve for one in terms of the other though.

Manhattan isn’t a city, it’s the most expensive borough of a city. They don’t need to live there.

I know what manhattan is and I'm against it becoming a luxury development for only the rich, while the people who work to service them are bused in from far suburbs at tremendous personal cost.

So who should get to live there, ultimately? There's plenty of land in general, but land in Manhattan is sharply limited, so how do we decide who gets in, if it isn't going to be based on ability to pay?

Welcome to Galt’s Gulch, where only millionaires can afford to live! Every minimum-wage is being filled by someone who’s constantly exhausted from their four-hour commute from Poortown.

so the low-income workers should be required to commute into manhattan so they can take care of wealthy people?

They don’t need to go into Manhattan at all.

So then who does the low-income work in Manhattan?