In 2009, unless something changes, term limits will kick in and 38 NY City Council members will not be eligible to see re-election.

Eight years ago when the situation was similar I had already heard enough gossip and rumors and read press reports that I had compiled a list of many potential candidates for the open Council seats.

That has not happened yet this time. Only 6 candidates have declare their interest in running for an open City Council seat on the NYC Campaign Finance Board website and while I’ve hear a few rumors and there has been some press reports about likely 2009 Council candidates (Assemblyman Denny Farrell, Lower Manhattan community activist Madelyn Wills & Julie Menin), I have not heard nearly as many names as 1999.

A recent Reuters article captures how it is possible that Americans, collectively, have been able to spend about six percent more than they earned each year over the past half-decade. “Between 2001 and 2006, the Moorheads refinanced their three-bedroom San Diego home at least nine times, county records show…Moorhead and her husband now owe $603,000, up from $196,000 when they started, and more than $10,000 over what their house is worth, according to one online estimate. They're likely to lose it soon if they can't somehow make payments greater than their monthly income.” This couple somehow borrowed and spent (and paid in refinancing fees) $400,000 more than they earned in five years, or $80,000 per year. Multiply that by a few million similar middle-income families, and as many lower income households with sub-prime loans, and you have the intermediate-term direction of our economy. This has already gone on longer than I thought it could, but things that cannot go on forever won’t.

…because the additional staff has already been hired. According to Current Employment Survey data from the New York State Department of Labor, government employment fell by 3,100 in New York City and rose by 6,700 in the rest of the state in the 12 months through April 2007. The long-term trend thus continues.

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.”

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.

Most of the political press in New York have apparently decided that they must interpret everything Mike Bloomberg does is part of a campaign for President.

In Saturday’s NY Times, a story about Bloomberg speaking in Houston began:

Sounding a lot like a presidential candidate, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg laid out the framework for a national energy policy on Friday and accused Washington lawmakers of “passing the buck” on meaningful energy reforms.

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.

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.

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.

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?”