Author: Larry Littlefield

Bloomberg: If I Did It

|

It is a full year before civilians like myself should really be bothered about the 2008 Presidential election, and I’m already sick of it. I’m sick of Rudy, sick of Hilary, and in particular I’m sick of Mayor Bloomberg’s independent non-campaign. Now comes word from the Mayor’s “friends” that he plans to run, spending up to $1 billion, (gasp!), if he merely believes he can “influence the national debate.” Although this is way outside my area of expertise, with everyone writing about nothing else it seems, if I have to listen to it I might as well put my two cents in. If the Mayor wants to come up with a plan for a theoretical campaign he isn’t guilty of, I believe he shouldn’t run by himself in a reprise of the Perot, Nader and Golisano 15 minutes of fame. That would strike many as an ego trip. Instead he should recruit independent candidates for the House of Representatives throughout the country, who agree with his platform and agree to vote in a block for Speaker if they win, to run with him. Win enough seats to swing control of that body, and he’d really be in a position to “influence the national debate.”

Feudal New York

|

With State Senate Republicans spending money like it’s going out of style and certain Democrats moaning about high taxes on our poor middle class citizens, those unfamiliar with New York State may wonder what the state’s predominant political philosophy is. As recent events once again demonstrate, that philosophy is a modern version of feudalism. Under capitalism, you get what you earn, at least in theory. Those who believe that people need an incentive to work and innovate can agree with that. Under socialism, you get what you need, at least in theory. Those who believe that we are all part of one human family can agree with that. But over time, when you have the same group of people in power, both capitalism and socialism degenerate into feudalism, under which the privileged expect to continue to get what they have been getting, and perhaps a little more, whether they need it or not, deserve it or not. For those who have real needs, and who produce real earnings, it’s just tough luck. The latest example of feudalism in action: congestion pricing.

Bureau of Economic Analysis Data: Where New York’s Money Comes From

|

In a final post on Local Area Personal Income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, I will summarize where different parts of New York State get their money. The spreadsheet was attached to the prior post. Given that people often live in one place and work in another, there are two ways to answer that question: what sectors are bigger parts of the economy in different places based on their share of money earned at work; and from where do residents of different places receive their money money? Given that this is a blog read by political types, I’ll stick to the answers that could be politically interesting.

Bureau of Economic Analysis Data: Pay Per Worker and its Public Policy Implications

|

Local Area Personal Income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis includes both personal income and earnings data (the CA05 series) and employment data including (unlike other series) the number of self-employed proprietors (CA05). A spreadsheet with a summary of this data for 2005, including three worksheets of output tables ready to print, is attached. I’ll discuss this information in more detail in a later post, but here I’ll just make the point that excluding the high-paid Finance and Insurance sector, with its insane bonuses and hedge fund traders, the average private-sector earnings per worker (wages and benefits) in Downstate New York (New York City plus the suburbs) continues to be one-third higher than the national average (or 134 percent of that average in 2005). The higher earnings are primarily due to Manhattan, where earnings per worker was double the national average even with Finance excluded, though Westchester workers are also well paid. There is a rough correlation for broad areas (Upstate, Downstate), between what private sector workers get paid, relative to their U.S. counterparts, and what local government workers get paid.

Bureau of Economic Analysis Data: Where the Money Is and Isn’t

|

Local Area Personal Income data for 2005 was released by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis at the end of April, and the data shows the continuation of longstanding trends and conditions in New York City and State. Nationally, per capita income for the year was $34,471, but for New York City it was 21 percent higher (despite our high poverty rate), for the Downstate Suburbs it was 49 percent higher, for the New York Metropolitan Area as a whole it was 31 percent higher, and for New York State as a whole it was 16 percent higher. The dataset, which begins (for some series) in 1969, shows that all of these areas suffered a substantial decline in income, relative to the national average, in the 1970s and staged a recovery in the 1980s. Changes have been less dramatic, but still significant since then. It also shows that Manhattan and the Downstate Suburbs are really wealthy, but most of the rest of New York State is relatively poor, with Upstate not doing as poorly compared with New York City’s outer boroughs as the relative level of complaint would suggest. Spreadsheets are attached; the discussion continues after the jump.

PLANYC2030: What About the Stuff?

|

According to PLANYC2030, “our density, apartment buildings, and reliance on mass transit means we are also one of the most carbon-efficient cities in the United States; New Yorkers produce 71% less CO2 per capita than the average American.” I certainly agree with that concept; the specific number for carbon savings, however, is probably too high. Much of the world’s energy is used to make consumer goods and bring them to their point of consumption, and to produce the fuels needed to do so and meet other energy needs. But New York City doesn’t produce its own fuels, and doesn’t produce many of its own consumer goods either. These are made across the country, and across the world, and then bought, used, and disposed of here. Some of that coal being burned in China and diesel fuel being burned to move massive container ships, therefore, is needed to produce and ship goods that will be used in New York City. Properly counted, you can’t tabulate the city’s contribution to greenhouse gasses without asking “what about the stuff?”

PLANYC2030: Transportation for the Rest of Us and The Rest of the Time

|

As I discussed in my last post, PLANYC2030 is focused on finding the money to maintain the existing transportation system, shifting new development to locations near subway and commuter rail stops, and improving travel to and within the Manhattan Central Business district, New York State’s most important economic asset. I agree with most of what was said. In this post, however, I’ll discuss what wasn’t talked about in much detail — trips to the Central Business District from areas beyond walking distance from rail stops, and trips outside ones’ one neighborhood (where one can walk) to locations outside the Central Business District (where you can take transit). My suggestions, over and above those in the plan, follow. If you are not interested in planning and transportation issues, you might want to give this post a pass.

PLANYC2030: Transportation and the Central Business District

|

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released 2005 Local Area Personal Income data, and while I will discuss it in detail when I have time, I can say that one thing continued to be true: excluding the Health and Social Service industries, which are primarily government-financed, Manhattan accounted for half (in this case 49.8%) of all the private-sector earnings in New York State. Not the city or metro region — the entire state. Given that just about everyone from Montauk to Buffalo is living off the economic engine of the Manhattan Central Business District directly or indirectly, it is no surprise that PLANYC2030 is focused on the transportation system that supports it. And with the cost of maintaining the existing rail and road transportation systems, let alone new transportation facilities, so great that one wonders if even Manhattan can afford it, it is no surprise that the plan merely restates many major projects and initiatives already agreed to, such as the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and a new tunnel to New Jersey. The plan has, in reality, two new major proposals. First, it suggests using zoning to move new development to places with existing rail transit, rather than extending rail lines to new areas, since new rail transit lines are for the most part not affordable. Second, it includes a financing proposal to relieve CBD traffic congestion while also preventing the transportation system from going bankrupt and taking the Manhattan CBD, and thus the city and state, down with it.

A New Era For Parks and Recreation?

|

I was glad to see parks and recreation get some additional attention in PLANYC2030, and in a subsequent additional announcement by the Parks Department. We are at the end of a third era for this public amenity, or trying to recover from that third era. In the first era there were few public parks, but the public streets, lacking motorized traffic and parked cars, were available for children to play and adults to socialize. In many parts of the city there were private and informal recreation facilities, like private pools, sandlots on vacant lots in the still-developing city, and beach and rowing clubs, the latter taking advantage of the city’s extensive waterfront. In the second era pollution forced people out of the water and traffic and parking pushed them off the street, but Robert Moses built hundreds of small parks. These, however, were too small for the city to afford on-site staff, and thus expensive to maintain. So when money ran short we reached the third era, with the streets and waterways still mostly off limits, small parks often and vandalized or in disrepair, school playgrounds off limits after school and sometimes used for parking during it, and larger parks maintained much better in places where private contributions are available. Will a fourth era now arrive?

PLANYC 2030: RATIONING SCARCITY

|

Let’s say we have a public benefit, service, facility or square footage of space that theoretically belongs equally to everyone, cannot be increased at a reasonable cost, and for which the demand far exceeds the supply. How do you decide who gets it? Do you have everyone grab what they can as fast as they can, hoarding and wasting, while those with greater needs are left out in the cold — and disaster is risked if the public benefit, service, facility or space is overwhelmed? Do you use a political process where insiders with power get permits that are then passed on to other insiders, while everyone else, rich and poor, is left to do without? Or should those who have use of the scarce resource have to pay, with the funds used to compensate those who do without it, so that demand equals the supply? New York City has, in fact, has a scarcity of traffic capacity in the Manhattan CBD — and many other areas — on weekdays, and a shortage of electrical generating capacity at peak times on hot days. Today it uses a combination of a grab by those who feel entitled or are willing to sit in traffic (by driving over free bridges or cranking the air conditioning during power shortages) and political power (on-street parking permits) to decide who gets to drive to Manhattan and use electricity on 90 degree afternoons. PLANYC2030 has a different suggestion, and I agree with it.