Filed under Economics, Sociology
Chastising the slaves for fleeing the plantation
I’ve become convinced that there is a massive, sick conspiracy among American journalism schools. Some time between the young, fresh-faced kids’ arrival at university and their graduation into the big, bad world, they are kidnapped and given full frontal lobotomies. It’s the only way to explain how reporters everywhere can consistently churn out idiotic stories, like this one from the Albany Times Union on the flight of the rich from the Capital District’s major cities:
The Capital Region’s wealthiest residents are largely missing from the area’s cities, following a decades-long migration to towns where lots are larger and tax bills are smaller.
The pattern should be obvious to anyone who’s spent time here. It’s hard to miss that Loudonville is generally wealthier than neighboring Albany, for example, or that Niskayuna is more upscale than Schenectady.
In Schenectady, for example, only 2.1 percent of households (473 homes overall) have annual income above $150,000 — a percentage that’s well below the regional average. Meanwhile, 34.1 percent of Schenectady households have annual income below $25,000. The pattern is similar in Albany and Troy.
People with the means to do so DON’T choose to live in decaying, decrepit, disgusting cities? Straight from the No Shit, Sherlock Department.
The statistics raise questions: Why do the affluent avoid urban areas here? Can Capital Region cities lure them back? And, if so, how?
As a citizen of the Empire State’s capital, I have a three point plan for getting people with money to move back to this un-fair city:
- Arrest Mayor Jennings along with his cohort of crooked cronies and the entire Common Council for crimes against sanity. Appoint fiscal libertarians to replace them.
- Pass a law restricting voting rights to those who pay taxes. This will probably disenfranchise more than half of the city – which is the whole point.
- Smash every single one of the public employees’ unions. No more undeserved raises and vacation days for you!
In other words, no, you can’t bring the wealthy back.
It’s not as though urban neighborhoods can’t attract wealth. Big cities such as Boston and New York have large concentrations of the affluent. Closer to home there’s Saratoga Springs, where high-priced condos are being concentrated near the city’s downtown. There, 11.7 percent of households have annual income above $150,000.
Interestingly enough, none of those cities are crime-ridden, run-down dumps. I wonder if there’s a correlation?
Rocco Ferraro, executive director of the Capital District Regional Planning Commission, cites familiar urban bugaboos as reasons for that. The area’s cities, he said, are perceived to have higher crime, worse schools, and higher taxes than their suburban neighbors.
Maybe that’s because they DO have “higher crime, worse schools, and higher taxes”. Maybe it’s because of stabbings that occur on well-trafficked street corners in “good” neighborhoods. Maybe it’s because of incidents like the first few days of school at Albany High being canceled because the student schedules couldn’t be produced on time. These things, strangely enough, NEVER occur in places like Guilderland, Colonie, or Clifton Park.
Experts say cities should be concerned about populations that include so few wealthy households, because those residents pay hefty tax amounts that help fund vital city services. Cities that don’t have many higher-income residents often are forced to raise tax rates, which may create a downward spiral by encouraging wealthier residents to live elsewhere.
“Experts say plantations should be concerned about populations that include so few slaves, because those residents perform the hard labor that helps provide vital plantation services.” Paraphrasing is fun!
The solution to getting out of this cycle of doom is simple – stop using the wealthy to fund bloated public employees’ pensions, politicians’ salaries, welfare, and all of the myriad largesse of city government. When people don’t get what they want with the vote, they vote with their feet – and the moneyed are voting to not live in metropolises where their precious pennies are appropriated to provide filthy lucre for the undeserving.
That, in part, is why urban planners say it’s so vital that cities lure the wealthy back. They note, too, that well-heeled residents spend more in stores and restaurants, creating jobs and further broadening the tax base.
So basically, instead of recognizing that their system of soaking the rich is physically unsustainable, they’re trying to come up with a way to get them niggers back in the cotton fields where they belong. Good luck with that.
Although I acknowledge the critiques of America’s culture of suburbanization as having merit, I can’t endorse them fully because none of them recognize the full suite of factors that drive sprawl. New Urbanist thinkers like Jim Kunstler and Dmitry Orlov love to blame suburbanites for the decline of American cities, but they fail to consider that the choice to stay in a crumbling, corrupt, violent urban hellhole or relocate to a clean, crime-free, efficiently run town is a no-brainer for most people. Most would prefer to live in the cities where they work, but a declining quality of life forces their hand. To blame them for urban decay is to blame the victim.
I speak from experience. I grew up in the Eastwood neighborhood of Syracuse, New York, a place that was relatively safe and quiet when my family relocated there in the early 90′s – ironically from one of the nearby suburbs. Since then, Eastwood has degenerated into a pseudo-slum, with human garbage of every color and creed infesting the once-placid place of my youth. White trash renters, black ghetto queens, thugs who wear their pants around their knees, and other low examples of mankind strut the streets. Corner convenience stores put security cameras on their signposts and steel bars on their windows to deter robbers. Whole blocks of businesses stand abandoned. Muggings and murders, which never occurred years ago, are commonplace. My parents would never have bought a house in Eastwood had they known that nearly two decades later the surrounding streets would be inhabited by the worst of society. If it weren’t for the fact that my youngest sister is still in high school, they’d have set sail for greener, cleaner pastures already.
As for me, I live in Albany not out of any sentimental attachment to the place, but both because I prefer to be where the action is and I like not having any sort of commute to work. But if I had a wife and children, there’s no “Peak Oil” lecture, no matter how well argued, that could convince me to stay in this sclerotic shithole. I could give a crap about the rest of the world – what matters is the safety and well-being of my family. As long as people must choose between the fate of the world and that of their loved ones, sprawl will continue, and there’s not a single argument you can make against it that will have any impact. Like so many things, the cities are going to have to get worse before they get any better.
I’ve always wondered what happens as the scum marches on from the new towns they destroy. Is the number of crappy people increasing or do the towns they wrecked get reclaimed at some point? Or does everything end up like Detroit?
A more accurate representation would be forcing the slave-owner to live on the slave plantation THAT HE OWNS.
And I think that is a SWELL idea. They too should enjoy the Good Times their immigration, welfare, and economic policies inflict on everyone else.
That would fix the problem right fast.
Oh, and their children should go to the same public schools they inflict on everyone else to.
Very true. Be glad you live in a country that allows you to move to a lower tax region within. In the UK the entire nation is under the grip of socialists. There’s simply no competition between regions for popualtion – just for handouts from the central state.
It’s nice to know it’s the rich law abiding taxpayers who are the cause of urban decline and public finance squeezes. God forbid it’s the fault of the untermensch who actually commit all the crime and soak up all of the welfare spending.
Krauser crooned to his owner:
Do you mean like Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff?
Needless to say, it is the poor that run the economy.
And the welfare and Section 8 policies… and Great Society…. and Divorce Law were hardly put in place by the poor.
Uh, public school was established and set up by the poor?
Immigration law passed by the poor?
VERY good post! It is actually funny, I stumbled upon this blog through another one, and i come to find out that you’re local! I’m from the outskirts of troy, myself, near Brunswick. Albany is so corrupt its depressing.
Troy has seen better days…however, I do think Tutunjian is doing a fairly decent job.
Smash every single one of the public employees’ unions. No more undeserved raises and vacation days for you!
Maybe private sector workers shouldn’t have roled over to the demands of their employers. Sad to say, but the public sector is the only place left with generous, and I’d argue humane, working conditions commonplace in the rest of the world. Even attempting to argue for lower pay in exchange for more vacation days is impossible with many employers.
“the public sector is the only place left with generous, and I’d argue humane, working conditions commonplace in the rest of the world”
By “the rest of the world”, do you mean “some parts of Western Europe”? Or do you mean some fantasy world that only exists in your daydreams?
The “public sector” is just a collection of unproductive sinecures financed on the backs of the politically unconnected. They are exploiting the working public and should be despised by all.
No Mike. Didn’t you know that in Socialism, money and wealth simply grow on trees? Nobody creates wealth – it’s just there and the Rich steal it.
I’d argue it’s easy to smash both world poverty and poor working conditions with one simple policy: Increase the legal minimum wage to $400 an hour.
Then we’ll all be rich, own yachts, and all have a large house by the beach but with an easy commute to the city.
I am going to post a linkfest everyday. The topics will typically involve economics, scientific research (mostly pharma) and other interesting/ controversial stuff.
Today’s linkfest (with my comments) is a homage to the hubris of our ‘elites’.
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/linkfest-december-14-2009/
If stealing wealth is possible, good sir, then perhaps you should attempt to prove that the current class of kleptocratic idiots that run North America in fact EARNED their wealth.
Good luck with that, good sir.
That, in part, is why urban planners say it’s so vital that cities lure the wealthy back. They note, too, that well-heeled residents spend more in stores and restaurants, creating jobs and further broadening the tax base.
So basically, instead of recognizing that their system of soaking the rich is physically unsustainable, they’re trying to come up with a way to get them niggers back in the cotton fields where they belong. Good luck with that.
The other approach is to move the human garbage in with the productive citizens by way of Section 8 and other “affordable housing” programs. If the hosts move away from the parasites, well then, the parasites will have to be moved to wherever the host goes!
After all, it’s so unfair that people who work hard and have money should be allowed to enjoy spending their money on themselves.
It’s not as though urban neighborhoods can’t attract wealth. Big cities such as Boston and New York have large concentrations of the affluent.
We’ll see how long that lasts in Boston, now that Mumbles Menino has slapped a 6.3% property tax increase on the city–a nice thank-you to the fools who put him back in office.
I’ll still maintain that DC is more corrupt.
see: Barry the botard
FB,
Another thing that would put the brakes on urban sprawl is the elimination of the death tax. Many family farms get sold, because the kids can’t pay the 55% federal estate tax on land that’s now valued in the millions of dollars. So, they sell their land to a developer, and it gets built up.
MarkyMark
Nice article.
High taxes keep family sizes small for the middle class, whereas the welfare classes that pay no taxes have no incentives to limit procreation. This dysgenic approach to creating the next generation of citizens will continue to tear at the walls of civilisation for decades.
Public employees’ unions are destructive but cannot be touched. Affirmative action hiring assures that the lowest quality workers are hired first and fired last. Not being qualified for anything more demanding than sitting with surly expressions, taking extra long breaks and leaving early — the untouchability of union membership is a godsend.
California and Michigan are collapsing upon that foundation. More to follow.
Ironic:
You’re confusing the wealthy (the focus of the TU piece) with the super-wealthy. I believe it was the Audacious Epigone who discovered that the super-wealthy are generally liberal (Warren Buffett, George Soros, etc.) while the merely wealthy are conservative. You basically want to punish the merely wealthy and the middle class for the crimes of the super-wealthy.
Ron:
Wow, somebody from the Capital District reads this blog? I am gratified. Most of my readers are out of the area.
I agree that Tutunjian is one of the better upstate mayors. Unfortunately, he and everyone else is shoving turd against tide.
David Alexander:
That’s not the problem. The biggest problem is that in many states, including here in New York, in order to get a job, any job, with the state, you have to join a union. It’s the reason why PEF, NYSUT, and other public unions in this state have swollen to such gigantic proportions. What really chaps my ass about this law is the fact that since union membership is compulsory, the union has little loyalty to its newer members. So despite being part of an organization that is supposed to protect them against the excesses of their employers, many lower-level state employees often end up getting screwed over by their employers anyway. This never happens with private sector unions.
Maybe so, but the government won’t be able to uphold those conditions for much longer.
The Blanque:
Are you a fan of Howie Carr, by any chance? Loved listening to his show when I lived in New England.
“if I had a wife and children . . .”
Bwahahahaha! This reminds of a “The Simpsons” line:
“This comes out of my salary! If I had a girlfriend she’d killed me!”
Interesting — On Google Streetview, the neighborhood streets of Eastwood, Syracuse, NY actually look really aesthetically pleasing — quaint houses, mature street trees, lots of greenery. However, the view of the arterial streets displays a lot of blight and abandonment. Plus, one thing I’ve learned about Google Street View is that it can make the most ghetto areas look quite livable. Maybe that’s because a part of me still incorrectly expects the ghetto to consist of Caprini Green style brutalist high rises or Jordan Downs style military barracks apartments.
I don’t fully agree with new urbanism. Although I think rowhouses and condos should be an available option, I think there is a limit to to the number of people who would prefer such dwellings. Most people are going to prefer the elbow room that comes with a single family house. That said, I hate post-WWII suburbs. I bike everywhere, and would rather not deal the post WWII suburban street topology where side streets within subdivisions don’t connect to adjacent subdivisions, thus forcing anybody who wants to get anywhere onto a 55 mph 6 lane arterial street full of both aggressive and highly distracted drivers. I don’t have any issue with cul-de-sacs by themselves, but the lack of connectivity in newer suburbs is maddening to me. I do recognize, however, that for residents of these areas, a subdivision full of dead ends is actually more of a feature than a bug. They like it for the same reason that I hate it.
Al Fin says:
December 14, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“Nice article.
High taxes keep family sizes small for the middle class, whereas the welfare classes that pay no taxes have no incentives to limit procreation. This dysgenic approach to creating the next generation of citizens will continue to tear at the walls of civilisation for decades.”
Even after taxes and welfare, the middle class still has more money than the lower class, so there must be something else at work.
[...] left this comment on yesterday’s post on the rich being chased out of the Capital District’s cities: A more accurate representation would be forcing the slave-owner to live on the slave plantation [...]
Syracuse
Hehe, that bump in the road along I-81 on the way to Ottawa.
The other approach is to move the human garbage in with the productive citizens by way of Section 8 and other “affordable housing” programs.
The mass expansion of Section 8 was based on the experiences of the Gatreaux programme in Chicago, and the desire of governments to get out of the business of maintaining public housing. Gatreaux basically worked because it was an option programme with considerable screening to ensure that the best candidates would get the housing vouchers to move into a white neighbourhood. Modern day Section 8 urban housing policy is basically sold to people as the obvious conclusion of Gatreaux, but if you take out the screening and allow populations to congregate wherever, you end up with a pool of residents that get dumped into working class areas regardless of race.
whereas the welfare classes that pay no taxes have no incentives to limit procreation
The problem is that welfare isn’t magically going to make you rich, and thanks to low IQ, that segment of the population has no hope of ever becoming middle class even if they defer having children. I’m earning $15K a year, and I’m not fond of it because it limits my consumption and saving, but $15K per with 2 kids is misery even with welfare.
FWIW, I’d imagine that the higher birth rate is compensated by the higher murder rates.
the union has little loyalty to its newer members
IIRC, the only union in New York City that didn’t sell out it’s young was the Transport Workers Union, and coincidentally, it’s the only union that went on strike despite the Taylor Law and didn’t agree to reduce wages for incoming employees over existing ones. In contrast, NYPD, FDNY, and the unionized portion of the civil service apparatus basically gave raises to existing employees by reducing the starting pay of new employees for their first two years.
Just for sampling purposes, my father was a unionized civil servant for a much maligned part of New York City’s social welfare state.
This never happens with private sector unions.
It’s primarily due to pandering by politicians for a core source of loyal votes in an election. Plus, I suspect the fact that pension benefits can only be negotiated “upward” via legislation basically ensures that the only way to get concessions is to screw new employees. Plus, one blogger once noted, everybody pays the same dues regardless of income so their pay is trivial, and during layoffs, once you’re fired, your out of the union and can’t do much to complain about internal structure to demand reform.
I don’t fully agree with new urbanism. Although I think rowhouses and condos should be an available option, I think there is a limit to to the number of people who would prefer such dwellings.
As a railfan and quasi-transit activist, I’d agree with your sentiments. It’s going to be hard to convince everybody that such higher density is ideal, but there should be a place for it, and it should be supported with the transportation options to ensure that the options are viable. While I like living in the ‘burbs, I also like having a regional railway network so I don’t have to sit in traffic to get to Manhattan or anywhere else in the metro area or even other parts of the Northeast Corridor. And I say such things even as a roadgeek who loves driving as well.
I bike everywhere, and would rather not deal the post WWII suburban street topology where side streets within subdivisions don’t connect to adjacent subdivisions
Nassau County managed to avoid this problem slightly since the homes are basically from that immediate post-World War II era first wave of suburban housing or the pre-war stock, so we have smaller cul-de-sacs and streets do connect to each other, but not on the level of a street grid. It’s not as bad for walking around or using a bike, and it’s faster for drivers to navigate local streets too.
Sorry it took me so long to respond.
Are you a fan of Howie Carr, by any chance? Loved listening to his show when I lived in New England.
Haven’t listened to him years; I need to unwind as I drive home, not get worked up to the point where I want to drive off Storrow Drive and into the Charles.
[...] Bardamu posted about people fleeing the tax heavy cities in New York. I believe Americans love being slaves more than any other people on earth [living at this time], [...]
[...] needs to blow the lid off of the conspiracy to lobotomize journalism students before its too late, I tell you. Tags: Idiocy, Journalism, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Person of [...]
[...] this logic, I get to blame the Italians for the fact that Albany is an overtaxed, underperforming, ruined little burg. Fuck those greaseballs – we should’ve shipped ‘em all back to the motherland the [...]
[...] imagine its somewhat obvious that I have a low opinion of the American journalist class. One of these days, I’ll get around to [...]
[...] “Chastising the slaves for fleeing the plantation” – What people like Jim Kunstler don’t get about white flight. [...]