In honor of Labor Day, I have appended the latest median household income and poverty data from the American Community Survey (for New York City, the boroughs and the U.S.) to the attached spreadsheets showing this data over the long term. I have data going back to 1970 for poverty (actually 1969, because the census asked about income the year before), and back to 1949 for median household income, so this presents a longer-term view than what you might have read in the newspaper. Certainly this is a different city, and a different country, than it was in 1969, when the city hit its highest payroll employment level, and 1950, when most historians believe New York City reached its pinnacle of national importance. Over that length of time, national economic changes overwhelm in importance anything specific to New York, and inflation makes dollar figures meaningless – the U.S. median household income was $2,619 in 1949, and a penny was actually worth something. By comparing New York City to the national average at each point, however, we can see how New York City residents have fared relative to the rest of the country. And the data show that the average New Yorker, in the time between 1999 and 2006, finally recovered from the early 1990s recession, though remaining worse off, relatively, than in the city’s pre-1970s heydays.

In honor of Labor Day, I have appended the latest median household income and poverty data from the American Community Survey (for New York City, the boroughs and the U.S.) to the attached spreadsheets showing this data over the long term. I have data going back to 1970 for poverty (actually 1969, because the census asked about income the year before), and back to 1949 for median household income, so this presents a longer-term view than what you might have read in the newspaper. Certainly this is a different city, and a different country, than it was in 1969, when the city hit its highest payroll employment level, and 1950, when most historians believe New York City reached its pinnacle of national importance. Over that length of time, national economic changes overwhelm in importance anything specific to New York, and inflation makes dollar figures meaningless – the U.S. median household income was $2,619 in 1949, and a penny was actually worth something. By comparing New York City to the national average at each point, however, we can see how New York City residents have fared relative to the rest of the country. And the data show that the average New Yorker, in the time between 1999 and 2006, finally recovered from the early 1990s recession, though remaining worse off, relatively, than in the city’s pre-1970s heydays.

Following a link from Gotham Gazette, I found that the Center for an Urban Future has released a report on free outer borough tourist “trolleys” such as the Heart of Brooklyn trolley running around Prospect Park. The report can be found here http://www.nycfuture.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/ABumpyRide.pdf . Brooklyn’s trolley gets riders around the park and to the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Prospect Park Zoo, Brooklyn Museum of Art and over to the Brooklyn Children’s Museum. The report finds that the trolleys have added little to the attendance at these institutions, and blames infrequent service and poor marketing. The group is also concerned that the Brooklyn trolley rarely has more than a few passengers on board, and given that it only gets six miles per gallon, it is a poor environmental choice per passenger. The group suggests replacing the vehicles with more fuel efficient models, increasing signage and marketing, and running the service more frequently (even though it is currently underutilized). As a person who has trouble thinking inside the box, needless to say I have a more radical suggestion.

Following a link from Gotham Gazette, I found that the Center for an Urban Future has released a report on free outer borough tourist “trolleys” such as the Heart of Brooklyn trolley running around Prospect Park. The report can be found here http://www.nycfuture.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/ABumpyRide.pdf . Brooklyn’s trolley gets riders around the park and to the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Prospect Park Zoo, Brooklyn Museum of Art and over to the Brooklyn Children’s Museum. The report finds that the trolleys have added little to the attendance at these institutions, and blames infrequent service and poor marketing. The group is also concerned that the Brooklyn trolley rarely has more than a few passengers on board, and given that it only gets six miles per gallon, it is a poor environmental choice per passenger. The group suggests replacing the vehicles with more fuel efficient models, increasing signage and marketing, and running the service more frequently (even though it is currently underutilized). As a person who has trouble thinking inside the box, needless to say I have a more radical suggestion.

After reading my equity and eligibility posts, perhaps you have reached the same conclusion I that have: as government has become increasingly complex, it has also become increasingly unfair. More and more, we find that eligibility rules (or decisions made outside formal rules) favor the better off, the better organized, and the better connected – and those with a greater sense of entitlement. Once the growth of government, as a share of the economy, stopped, the trend has been for the number of beneficiaries to fall even as the benefits available to those in a position to access the system – through direct benefits or tax breaks – increases. And as the debts and pension promises of the past continue to bite, it is basic services for the majority and basic needs for the worst off that suffer, not extravagances for the influential. Equity, fairness, even decency requires that this trend be reversed. Some services and benefits should be made universal. Others should be eliminated. And younger generations have to be treated fairly. Otherwise, we are going to see general strikes in this country by a majority of people with nothing left to lose. That is why equity and simplicity in government was one of my four main themes when I became disappointed enough to run as a protest candidate for state legislature several years ago, as I described in this essay http://ipny.org/equalpro.html .

After reading my equity and eligibility posts, perhaps you have reached the same conclusion I that have: as government has become increasingly complex, it has also become increasingly unfair. More and more, we find that eligibility rules (or decisions made outside formal rules) favor the better off, the better organized, and the better connected – and those with a greater sense of entitlement. Once the growth of government, as a share of the economy, stopped, the trend has been for the number of beneficiaries to fall even as the benefits available to those in a position to access the system – through direct benefits or tax breaks – increases. And as the debts and pension promises of the past continue to bite, it is basic services for the majority and basic needs for the worst off that suffer, not extravagances for the influential. Equity, fairness, even decency requires that this trend be reversed. Some services and benefits should be made universal. Others should be eliminated. And younger generations have to be treated fairly. Otherwise, we are going to see general strikes in this country by a majority of people with nothing left to lose. That is why equity and simplicity in government was one of my four main themes when I became disappointed enough to run as a protest candidate for state legislature several years ago, as I described in this essay http://ipny.org/equalpro.html .

Virtually every method of restricting eligibility comes together in the public health care finance system of the United States. Medicare, and part of Medicaid, have eligibility restricted based on age. Other parts of Medicaid, and public health and hospitals, allocate benefits based on means and need. The exemption of health insurance premiums from taxable income allocates benefits according to the “golden rule,” while the publicly mandated right of those with tax-subsidized private health insurance to keep it (under COLA laws) allocates money based on feudal tenure. Scarce vital organs available for transplant are, theoretically, allocated based on “merit” criteria by quasi-public groups backed by federal and state regulations. When all the direct and indirect (tax subsidy) public spending on health care is added up, it turns out that the federal, state and local governments were already funding approximately three-quarters of all third party (not out of pocket) health expenditures in the country in 2000. Excluding non-vital services the government share was 80 percent. That share is certain to rise as the nation ages, and Medicare and Medicaid account for more of nation’s health care. This entire health care finance system is profoundly inequitable — if it didn’t already exist, would anyone dare to suggest it? Yet politicians continue to propose adding to it rather than scrapping it altogether, so numerous and powerful are the beneficiaries of that inequity.

Virtually every method of restricting eligibility comes together in the public health care finance system of the United States. Medicare, and part of Medicaid, have eligibility restricted based on age. Other parts of Medicaid, and public health and hospitals, allocate benefits based on means and need. The exemption of health insurance premiums from taxable income allocates benefits according to the “golden rule,” while the publicly mandated right of those with tax-subsidized private health insurance to keep it (under COLA laws) allocates money based on feudal tenure. Scarce vital organs available for transplant are, theoretically, allocated based on “merit” criteria by quasi-public groups backed by federal and state regulations. When all the direct and indirect (tax subsidy) public spending on health care is added up, it turns out that the federal, state and local governments were already funding approximately three-quarters of all third party (not out of pocket) health expenditures in the country in 2000. Excluding non-vital services the government share was 80 percent. That share is certain to rise as the nation ages, and Medicare and Medicaid account for more of nation’s health care. This entire health care finance system is profoundly inequitable — if it didn’t already exist, would anyone dare to suggest it? Yet politicians continue to propose adding to it rather than scrapping it altogether, so numerous and powerful are the beneficiaries of that inequity.

We have now reached the bottom of the barrel from the point of view of equity and eligibility – public services and benefits that are rationed, and have eligibility restricted, not on the basis of need, or age, or means, or tax liability, or tenure, or queue, but by a “fair and through evaluation” of “merit.” In public applications and eligibility criteria, merit is sometimes determined by quantitative measurement, sometimes by qualitative criteria evaluated by a panel of “experts,” and sometimes by the whims – or political deals – of individual legislators. Deciding someone’s “merit” presents all the same liabilities as deciding their “need,” but with an added objection – in the United States of America, what business does the government have in deciding one’s merit at all?