Published in The Economist. It shows the difference in cost-of-living between 2003 and 2013. However, I see two issues:
Making index = 100 for New York both in 2003 and 2013 is wrong. The reader will think New York prices stayed flat over 10 years, and it makes all comparisons 2003-2010 for other cites meaningless, as index might not have evolved the same way outside New York.
The choice of cities listed below is questionable. Why is Mexico City not listed?