PDA

View Full Version : The Vitality of the Northeast?



alex ballard
March 14th, 2005, 06:50 PM
I've heard that the South and Western sections of our country are growing exponetally at the expense of the Northeast and Midwest. Is there any way the Northeastern section of the country can come back with equally strong economic and popualtion growth? Is the region (outside of NYC) going to de-popualte like Detroit or Buffalo? Or are we primed for a really big comeback? Can the same hope (or non-hope) be said for the Midwest?

And how big is the South really growing? Is it all over, or just in the cities? And do you think the South or West will ever get urban cities like the Northeast Corridor? I would love to see Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, and Charlotte become urban and diverse like NYC.

debris
March 14th, 2005, 07:50 PM
I don't think the NE will ever grow substantially again, but that's not necessarily bad. The statistics are something like this: since 1980, the country has grown 50% and real incomes have gone up 10%, while Manhattan has grown 10% and real income in Manhattan has grown 50%. Restrictive zoning in NY, NJ, Boston, DC, etc. prevents strong population, but pushes up land values and incomes as people and businesses compete for scarce space. Lower cost businesses head for the middle of the country, as well as middle class people. The NE winds up with richer residents, as well as immigrants.

The same thing has been happening in northern California.

I think as time goes by the established cities of the west will more closely resemble the NE. It will never be quite the same, because the NE and midwest developed during the railroad age, while Los Angeles is a product of the automobile age. But nowadays you see a nascent subway in LA, light rail in Denver, Seattle, Minnepolis, etc. I think attractive cities in favorable locations like these will densify as they mature.

alex ballard
March 16th, 2005, 03:51 PM
I don't think the NE will ever grow substantially again, but that's not necessarily bad. The statistics are something like this: since 1980, the country has grown 50% and real incomes have gone up 10%, while Manhattan has grown 10% and real income in Manhattan has grown 50%. Restrictive zoning in NY, NJ, Boston, DC, etc. prevents strong population, but pushes up land values and incomes as people and businesses compete for scarce space. Lower cost businesses head for the middle of the country, as well as middle class people. The NE winds up with richer residents, as well as immigrants.

The same thing has been happening in northern California.

I think as time goes by the established cities of the west will more closely resemble the NE. It will never be quite the same, because the NE and midwest developed during the railroad age, while Los Angeles is a product of the automobile age. But nowadays you see a nascent subway in LA, light rail in Denver, Seattle, Minnepolis, etc. I think attractive cities in favorable locations like these will densify as they mature.


Do you think the Northeast will still be economically and politically revelvant even with a shriking precentage of the popualtion?

Also, do you see a turnaorund for the Northeast. Sure, it doesn't have to add 1 million people a year like Florida, but is healthy growth (5-10% per census) attainable? Are all the young people abandoning the city and Northern sections of the country like what the census says? Why does the media like to paint a picture of the NE declining into oblivion?

Bob
March 16th, 2005, 07:47 PM
I can't help but think our entire economy is but a balloon losing air. With each manufacturing plant shipped overseas, the jobs and the know-how go with it. Tie to that the annual drain of dollars out of this country, and it becomes clear that the rest of the world is becoming richer at our expense.

Alas, the northeast is but a symbol of the larger problem.

Eugenius
March 17th, 2005, 11:08 AM
I beg to differ.
The loss of manufacturing jobs only reflects the fact that the US has been transformed from a manufacturing economy into a service economy. The "know how" you are referring to is generally low-skilled labor. That is the niche that China and India are filling now with their $2/day labor forces.

The industries that matter in today's economy, and that are growing both in absolute sense and as a share of the total economic picture are Financial, Legal, Advertising, Media, Entertainment - in all of these fields the Northeast, and New York in particular, are the undisputed kings.

As for the "flow of dollars out of the country," that is really only half of the picture. The other half is the flow of the dollars back into the country to repatriate the profits (as the corporations have been doing ever since last year's tax reform), plus an occasional foreigner buying himself a pricy New York condo.

alex ballard
March 17th, 2005, 01:14 PM
I beg to differ.
The loss of manufacturing jobs only reflects the fact that the US has been transformed from a manufacturing economy into a service economy. The "know how" you are referring to is generally low-skilled labor. That is the niche that China and India are filling now with their $2/day labor forces.

The industries that matter in today's economy, and that are growing both in absolute sense and as a share of the total economic picture are Financial, Legal, Advertising, Media, Entertainment - in all of these fields the Northeast, and New York in particular, are the undisputed kings.

As for the "flow of dollars out of the country," that is really only half of the picture. The other half is the flow of the dollars back into the country to repatriate the profits (as the corporations have been doing ever since last year's tax reform), plus an occasional foreigner buying himself a pricy New York condo.

So you're saying the Northeast corridor is posied to be a future leader in the nations economy due to the industries that now dominate our area?

NewYorkYankee
March 17th, 2005, 02:02 PM
The NE IS now a leader, and ALWAYS will be.