New Geography

Tag: New York City

  • New York City Net Domestic Migration Losses Improving

    A New York Times article by Sam Roberts indicates that

    "According to Census Bureau estimates released last week, in the year ending July 1, 2013, the city recorded the third consecutive gain in its non-Hispanic white population.

    During that same period, the city gained more people than it lost through migration. Neither of those gains has probably happened since the 1960s, according to demographers."

    It is true that net migration, domestic and international, was positive between 2012 and 2013. However, net migration was also positive in the years ended 2012 and 2011, according to Census Bureau data.  Among the three recent years, the lowest net migration total was in 2013 (Table).

    New York City Net Migration: 2011-2013
    Year Domestic International Combined
    2011    (55,807)           69,076       13,269
    2012    (64,383)           71,752         7,369
    2013    (67,629)           73,615         5,986
    Total  (187,819)         214,443       26,624
    Data from Census Bureau

    Further, net domestic migration has continued to be negative. The city has lost a net 187,000 domestic migrants in the first three years of the decade. This is an average of more than 60,000 annually. This is, however, an improvement from the 2000s, when net domestic migration averaged a minus 135,000.

  • Will New York’s Economy Strangle Itself With Success?

    Big cities have been on a bit of a roll in recent years. But sometimes you can have too much success, as we may be seeing in the case of New York. This week the New York Times reported that finance firms are moving mid-level jobs away from Wall Street to places like Salt Lake City and Charlotte.

    There’s a lot going on here. First, a lot this is driven by New York’s success, not its failure. New York is increasingly valuable as a site of high end production. As a result, lower value activities get squeezed out and replaced with higher ones. Despite the exodus of Wall Street jobs, New York City has been booming, and a stat from last year showed that the city was within 60,000 jobs of its all time employment high. This sort of churn is somewhat normal when high value and lower value economic geographies come into contact within the same physical space, as I noted regarding California in “Migration: Geographies in Conflict.”

    It might be tempting for city leaders to actually celebrate this, but they shouldn’t. In a city that is desperate for middle class jobs, these are white collar middle class positions that are being lost. New York has stunningly high levels of income inequality – Joel Kotkin has noted it is the same as Namibia’s – and this can’t be making it any better.

    Also, is there any precedent for a city being successful and dynamic, over a longer term purely as a production center for ultra-high end activities (with perhaps an associated servant class)? Sure, places like Aspen can do it. Imperial capitals seem to have been able to do something of the sort. Perhaps that’s how New York’s leaders like to see their city, but they are taking an awful risk.

    New York is too concentrated in high end activities already, notably the high end of finance, as Ed Glaeser noted in his article “Wall Street Is Not Enough.” This renders it extremely vulnerable to downturns in that sector.

    It might seem like exporting finance jobs would be part of that re-balancing, but when they are lower end positions, all you are doing is re-concentrating finance at more elite levels. Because to these types of businesses cost is almost literally no object, they have driven the cost of New York real estate through the roof.

    When one industry becomes super-dominant in a neighborhood, Jane Jacobs noted it could lead to a situation she called “the self-destruction of diversity,” where a particular type of user – generally banks – gobble up the land and ultimate sterilize what formerly drew them to the area.

    I wrote about this in regard to Chicago in a speculative piece called “Chicago: Corporate Headquarters and the Global City” in which I note a flow of corporate headquarters back into global cities, albeit reconstituted executive headquarters only).

    This puts the bigger cities in a tough spot. They have to continue to go up the value chain because smaller cities are rapidly eroding their competitive advantage at lower ends. Ultimately we’ll see where this leads but I don’t think it’s healthy in the long term at all. Figuring this out is just one piece of the rebuilding our overall economy for the 21st century that needs to be accomplished.

    Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. This piece originally appeared at The Urbanophile

  • New York City Population Growth Comes Up Short

    Just released census counts for 2010 show the New York metropolitan area historical core municipality, the city of New York, to have gained in population from 8,009,000 in 2000 to 8,175,000 in 2010, an increase of 2.1 percent. This is the highest census count ever achieved by the city of New York.

    Nonetheless, the figure was 245,000 below the expected level of 8,420,000 (based upon 2010 Census Bureau estimates). The higher population estimate had been the result of challenges by the city to Census Bureau intercensal estimates. The city of New York attracted 29 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Approximately 43 percent of the metropolitan area’s population lives in the city.

    Overall, the New York metropolitan area grew from 18,323,000 to 18,890,000, an increase of 3.1 percent. The suburbs grew approximately twice as rapidly as the city of New York, at 4.0 percent, and attracted 71 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

  • Rasputin’s Tunnel?

    First, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie cancelled the proposed intercity and suburban rail tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan because of the financial obligations its out-of-control costs could impose on the state’s taxpayers. Then he delayed the final decision, under pressure from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and other supporters of the tunnel. In the end, the proponents were unable to provide the financial guarantees necessary to keep New Jersey from having to pay more than it had committed and Christie cancelled the tunnel for good. Or so it appeared.

    Now, the tunnel may be back. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has studies underway that could lead to extending subway Line 7 from a station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue to New Jersey instead.

    Early press reports suggest the line can be built for $5.3 billion, which is approximately one-half the cost of the previous proposal. It is more likely that Governor Christie will buy the Brooklyn Bridge with tax money than this amount is in the “ball park.” The subway tunnel would be only four blocks (15 percent) shorter than the cancelled tunnel.

    The previous tunnel had the less than attractive name, “Access to the Regional Core.” Given the back and forth history of this project, a more appropriate name might be “Rasputin’s Tunnel,” after the Russian mystic whose enemies failed in multiple attempts to murder (though in the end, they succeeded).

  • New York Political Leadership Forces Another Fare Hike

    The New York Post editorialized (October 8) against what it called “Another TWU Fare Hike,” blaming the union for the fares that will now rise to $2.50 for a ride. The editorial writer goes on to say of MTA chief Jay Walder, “It’s not his fault that straphangers get whacked while the MTA’s unionized workers — whose blue collars come with fur trim — don’t have to make a single sacrifice to meet the MTA’s shortfall.”

    In response, I posted the following comment to the New York Post site:

    Not his fault? Well, perhaps not personally. But surely it is the responsibility of the MTA and those in Albany who have skewed law labor and regulation to create this untenable situation. It is about time that public officials, such as those who run the MTA, be held account for what they have given away to the unions. The unions could not have taken it without the agreement of the MTA and other local and state political officials.

    The way the Post tells it, you might think that the Transport Workers Union (TWU) had engineered a coup and had forcibly taken control of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. It fact, it was all quite legal. Interests such as the TWU have used their political influence to obtain the expensive contracts that place the riders a distant second, after the employees and the taxpayers an even more distant third. The MTA was not compelled to sign overly expensive labor contracts. Albany was not compelled to insulate transit unions from the economic reality faced by everyone else, including private sector union members. Washington was not compelled to give transit labor unions job protections that would be the envy of European public sector unions. These protections are a considerable factor in driving expenditures up 100% (inflation adjusted) over the past 25 years, while ridership has risen only 40%. The appointed and elected representatives did so willingly, and to the detriment of the people, whom they were supposed to represent.

    The Post rightly complains about this, but places the blame in the wrong place. If the MTA, state and federal officials who have so skewed transit economics in favor of unions, had instead served the riders and taxpayers first, then New York and the nation would have much more transit services, its fares would be lower and there would be much more ridership.

    The Post also errs in saying “Only in New York could such a perverse equation come to be.” In fact, the situation is no different in most metropolitan areas of the nation. Transit agencies have routinely avoided efficiency measures that would have increased transit ridership and reduced costs (such as competitive contracting or competitive tendering of services), raised fares and cut services.

    As the process has unfolded over decades, the TWU and other local transit unions simply responded to the incentives that were established by the elected and appointed officials. This has contributed, along with extravagant and in rail transit expansions, to rendering transit financially unsustainable. The problem is that the public interest in transit has been hijacked by special interests.

    A more appropriate headline for the editorial would have been “New York Political Leadership Forces Another Fare Hike.”

  • High Cost of Living Drives New York’s Fiscal Deficit with Washington

    Between now and the end of the year, a hot political topic here in New York will be whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire for people in the highest income bracket, as the Obama administration proposes, or whether to extend those cuts for everyone. Advocates taking the latter position will correctly argue that higher rates will be especially harmful to New York, because of the large number of wealthy people, who live here.

    What is not likely to be discussed, however, is that because of the exorbitant cost of living in New York and the surrounding suburbs, federal taxes take a supersized bite out of the incomes of all New Yorkers, who in the vast majority are not wealthy at all. The result is that here in New York City, which is arguably the poorest city in America when it comes to what people can actually afford, we end up subsidizing other states and localities, where people pay less to Uncle Sam, even as they enjoy a higher standard of living than we do.

    How could this be? The answer is that because New York and the surrounding suburbs are so expensive, businesses have to pay higher salaries to recruit people to work for them. According to the ERI Economic Research Institute, a leading data survey company that helps corporate clients set compensation packages and calculate the cost of doing business throughout the United States and elsewhere, these higher salary costs are substantial.

    They calculate, for example, that a typical registered nurse in metropolitan New York earns $82,712 versus a national average of $65,464. In the case of an accountant, they calculate a figure of $74,388 versus a national average of $58,712. In the case of an administrative assistant, as they define those job responsibilities, they calculate a figure of $59,243 versus $47,961 nationally. And finally, they also provide data for someone working as a janitor. Here the figure they calculate is $38,142 versus $31,220.

    Sounds great. Who doesn’t want a higher salary? But unfortunately, it’s not that simple. The problem is that the IRS doesn’t care how much you can actually buy with your hard earned dollars. They just want to see the number printed on your W-2. And as we all know, the more you make, the more you pay.

    For the average registered nurse in New York, filing as an individual, and assuming no special deductions or one-time credits, the tax bite amounts to $14,381 versus $10,219 for the average registered nurse in the rest of the country. An accountant here pays $12,444 versus $8,531 nationally. For an administrative assistant, the figure is $8,656 versus $5,844. And in the case of a janitor, the figure is $3,899 versus $2,864.

    But wait, it gets worse than that. Based on data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, it turns out that the cost of living in the New York metropolitan area is significantly higher than the difference in salaries alone would indicate. According to their data, the cost of living here is 45 percent higher than in the rest of the country or approximately twice the difference in salaries.

    Yes, employers have to pay more to recruit people to work here in New York, but they don’t have to make up the whole difference. Economists refer to this as money illusion, which is their way of saying that people find it difficult to distinguish between the nominal value of money and the true purchasing power of that money in the marketplace.

    If we recalculate salaries to take into account the cost of living, it turns out that the federal tax premium that New Yorkers have to pay is even greater. Thus, if the tax bite were to reflect the actual standard of living for a registered nurse in New York, the real tax would be $8,106 instead of the actual tax of $14,381 or a difference of $6,275. For an accountant, the difference would be $5,775. For an administrative assistant, it would be $4,352, and for a janitor, $1,778.

    The lessons here are clear. In the short term, New York’s Congressional delegation needs to restrain efforts to raise taxes in Washington, D.C., because the impact here will be greater than elsewhere. And in the longer term, we need to determine why the cost of living in New York is so high and then implement the reforms necessary to fix the problem and give New Yorkers a standard of living that is competitive with rest of America.

  • Supporting Small Business in NYC: The Harlem Metro Market Project

    The Harlem Community Development Corporation has come up with a rather unique plan to combat high real estate prices in the district. It proposes establishing an open-air market under the Metro North tracks spanning one mile, or 22 city blocks. This new market would accommodate about 900 vendors, helping to increase the now low number of local entrepreneurs and independent retail stores in Harlem.

    The market would not only attract vendors, but tourist traffic as well, which would help rejuvenate a neighborhood hampered by soaring commercial real estate costs. It costs anywhere from $125 to $225 per square foot for commercial space in Harlem’s prime locations, resulting in only 42 stores for every 10,000 residents. The Metro market project would ease pressure on small, independent retailers and allow potential entrepreneurs the chance to create viable businesses in the city.

    This need for such a project reflects the economic trends and challenges facing the larger New York urban area’s middle class. New York City has the nation’s highest cost of living, and like the rest of the nation, is still experiencing the effects of the recession. The middle class, including small business owners facing high rents, struggles to make the six-figure salaries needed to meet the city’s high cost of living.

    Harlem’s Metro market project, which would encourage an independent entrepreneurial spirit, embodies the required plan of action for New York City. The city needs to find inventive ways to deal with its economic reality in order to reverse the recession and revitalize its appeal to the energetic and the ambitious.

  • BRT is ERP (or, Bus Rapid Transit is Enlightened Responsible Planning)

    Robert Sullivan’s recent article in New York magazine, “Subway on the Street”, marks a welcome addition to transportation discussions in New York City. New Yorkers are currently faced with seemingly paradoxical transportation plans that call for subway and bus service cuts, while relatively short and exceedingly expensive underground subways are being built (Sullivan discusses both).

    However, also at the same time, a monumental partnership between the city’s transit agency (MTA) and the DOT is taking root. The result is a new bus rapid transit line in the Bronx – Bx12 SBS, short for “select bus service” – the focus of Sullivan’s article.

    To be clear, bus rapid transit is not a New York innovation. Cities throughout the world, and in the United States, have experimented with bus rapid transit lines with general, albeit not absolute, success. But it is nonetheless refreshing to see the largest city in the United States accept buses as potential congestion relief tools.

    Jay Walder, a New Yorker named head of the MTA after holding a similar position in London, brought the same promise of a more fully integrated bus and rail system to his home city.
    Encouraging innovation, expanding applicability and increasing efficiency are not the exclusive domains of the private sector, even if it feels that way. New York is showing, as cities repeatedly do, the potential for public-sponsored reinvention as a result of resilience.

    Howard Kozloff is Manager of Development Strategies and Director of Operations at Hart Howerton, an international strategy, planning and design firm based in New York, San Francisco and London.

  • Phantom Exodus Driven by Phony Cost Comparisons

    If Tara Siegel Bernard of The New York Times is right, (city of) New Yorkers must be among the most irrational people in the world. In “High-Rise or House with Yard,” she describes the purported financial advantages of living in a co-op apartment in Brooklyn versus suburban South Orange, New Jersey.

    The irrationality is that, despite the money that households can save by staying in the city, a net more than 350,000 left for the suburbs between 2000 and 2007, as E. J. McMahon and I found in Empire State Exodus, which summarized IRS inter-county migration data. Indeed, each of the city’s five boroughs lost domestic migrants to the suburbs during the period. An analysis by The New York Times itself found that the city had lost net domestic migrants to every suburban county in the metropolitan area as well as to every county in newly exurban northeastern Pennsylvania. This includes Allentown-Bethlehem and Scranton-Wilkes Barre, toward which New Jersey land use regulations have driven new development.

    “High Rise or House with Yard” stands alone in claiming that New York City is less costly than its suburbs. The most recent (and authoritative) ACCRA cost of living index for Brooklyn is a full 40% higher than in the South Orange (the Newark-Elizabeth area). This is before considering the fact that the Brooklyn home is a 1,000 square foot coop apartment with two bedrooms and one bath, while the suburban home is a 2,000 square foot house in South Orange with four bedrooms and 2.5 baths. Smaller apples may well be less expensive than bigger oranges. The Times also assumes that the suburban resident will commute by train to Manhattan, at more than $400 per month. It is also possible that, like 80% of South Orange commuters, the new suburbanite may choose to work in the New Jersey suburbs. Maybe New Yorkers are not all that irrational after all.

    Moreover, people are moving even further than the suburbs and exurbs, with almost as many people moving from New York City even further away. The latest Bureau of the Census data indicates that every borough experienced a net domestic migration loss between 2000 and 2009. More than 1.2 million residents left New York City, nearly as many people as live in the cities of Washington and Boston combined.

    • Manhattan lost more than a 140,000 net domestic migrants, more people than live in the city of Hartford.
    • Brooklyn lost nearly 450,000 net domestic migrants, more people than live in the city of Miami.
    • Queens lost a 420,000 net domestic migrants, nearly as many people as live in the city of Cleveland.
    • The Bronx more than 200,000 net domestic migrants, more people than live in the city of Providence, Rhode Island.
    • Staten Island did much better, losing only 5,000 net domestic migrants. But then, much of Staten Island looks more like suburban New Jersey than New York City

    In the face of these losses of which at least some at The New York Times are aware, the article notes that “Many empty-nesters are giving up the high-maintenance house in the suburbs in exchange for the attractions of city life.” Not that many.

    Photo: New Jersey Suburbs

  • New York Migration Study, the State Continues to Lose Residents

    The Empire Center for New State Policy has released “Empire State Exodus,” which details New York’s continuing loss of people and their incomes to other states. The report was authored by E. J. McMahon, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute and director of the Empire Center and me.

    Since the beginning of the decade, New York has experienced a net domestic migration loss of more than 1,500,000, the largest loss in the nation. The extent of this loss is illustrated by the fact that Katrina/Rita/defective dike ravaged Louisiana lost a smaller share of its population than New York, which also led in relative terms.

    The report uses the latest Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data to examine how many New Yorkers have left the state, where they have gone and how much income they have taken with them. It includes detailed breakdowns of population migration patterns at a regional and county level.

    More than 85% of the domestic migration loss was from the New York City region (combined statistical area) of New York State and more than 70% of the loss was from New York City itself. The data shows a continuing exodus from the city, to the suburbs and to elsewhere in the nation.

    The annual net loss of New Yorkers to other states has ranged from a high of nearly 250,000 people in 2005 to a low of 126,000 last year, when moves nationwide slowed down sharply along with the economy.

    Households moving out of New York State had average incomes 13 percent higher than those moving into New York during the most recent year for which such data are available. In 2006-07 alone, the migration flow out of New York drained $4.3 billion in taxpayer income from the state. New York taxpayers moving to other states had average incomes of $57,144, while those
    moving into New York averaged $50,533 as of 2007, according to the report.

    “Even with its large domestic migration losses, New York’s total population has grown slightly since 2000, thanks to a large influx of immigrants from foreign countries,” the report says. “But New York’s share of U.S. population is still shrinking. A continuation of the domestic migration trends highlighted here will translate into slower economic growth and diminishing political influence in the future.”

    The report is available at EmpireCenter.org.