What Happens When the Richest US Cities Turn to the World?

[cannedairspray]

It helps to read the thread.

The idea that most New Yorkers or Londoners are like this is laughable. I, living in Baltimore, have more friends in Mililani or Harrogate or Fayetteville than I do on the Eastern Shore or Maryland Panhandle. But I'm not silly enough to think that's commonplace.

[Capsule F]

Also, fantastic article and 100% accurate. For example:


http://goldengatebridge.org/research...Plaque-OT1.jpg

"The Golden Gate Bridge construction project was carried out by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel Corporation founded by Howard H. McClintic and Charles D. Marshall, both of Lehigh University."

"Main Cables: John A. Roebling’s Sons Company"

So basically these West Coast cities wouldn't be shit, and now do not return the favor. Nice try Pedestrian.

[Capsule F]

I read the comment you pasted again, and it still means nothing to me.

The high level decision makers, i.e. the ones that hold the direction of large corporations, businesses etc. in their hand do not look to the hinterland. They look to a select few international cities.

[cannedairspray]

That's great but ultimately not very important.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

It helps to read the thread.

The idea that most New Yorkers or Londoners are like this is laughable. I, living in Baltimore, have more friends in Mililani or Harrogate or Fayetteville than I do on the Eastern Shore or Maryland Panhandle. But I'm not silly enough to think that's commonplace.

And again, it doesn't matter what most people are like.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

And again, it doesn't matter what most people are like.

"Most people" make up the vast majority of cities. As a very important person, it pains me you tell you, a slightly important person, that. But it's true.

What 10000 people in London and NYC think doesn't define the cities anymore than 300 in Arlington and Williamsburg do for them.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

"Most people" make up the vast majority of cities. As a very important person, it pains me you tell you, a slightly important person, that. But it's true.

What 10000 people in London and NYC think doesn't define the cities anymore than 300 in Arlington and Williamsburg do for them.

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree, because I think you're wrong.

The 10,000 "most important" people in New York have more influence, and define that city moreso than the "least important" several million people.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree, because I think you're wrong.

The 10,000 "most important" people in New York have more influence, and define that city moreso than the "least important" several million people.

What defines New York to you? That might be the issue. I think of New York and I think of the Yankees, the Village, Times Square, foldable pizza, the subway, etc. The culture. The people.

You think of...Citigroup?

[10023]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

What defines New York to you? That might be the issue. I think of New York and I think of the Yankees, the Village, Times Square, foldable pizza, the subway, etc. The culture. The people.

You think of...Citigroup?

Yep. Wall Street is an enormous part of it.

Do you disagree that a big part of New York's identity is being one of the world's great financial centers? And media, fashion, etc? Are Lloyd Blankfein and Anna Wintour, or historical figures like J.P. Morgan or Felix Rohaytn not a more significant part of that than the average person on the street?

What do you think supports the cultural institutions like the Met and Lincoln Center? What built Times Square? Why does Phoenix, which today has more people than New York had at the turn of the 20th century (when it was already one of the world's preeminent cities), not have these things? Why does a city of 5 million people have more significance than a state of 5 million people but no global cities? Why does New York have its iconic skyline?

I would argue that the answer is the type of people who come to and live in these major cities, the "great and good" of society. And those people increasingly form a global tribe in cities.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree, because I think you're wrong.

The 10,000 "most important" people in New York have more influence, and define that city moreso than the "least important" several million people.

I usually agree with you, but this is soooo out of touch. If anything the top 1% has maybe 10% of the influence in a city while the 9-10% beyond that have like 20% of the influence, and maybe 11-50% have like 30% of the influence while the last 50% have 50%. What the individuals lower on the ladder lack in personal power, they make up for in numbers. The voices of 1000 small business owners worth maybe $1-10 million are far louder than the voice of one billionaire. Why? Because in the aggregate they are worth just as much while also having 1000 voices instead of one.

In fact, I would say that many of the world's most powerful and wealthy people are far more vulnerable to the masses than they would think. Just look at the recent outing of sexual aggressors ruining the influence and careers of many powerful men. Look at voters electing Trump (while also an influential billionaire) against the will of literally the entire Washington establishment. Look at Brexit, again a wild attack against the classes you mention. When elites start thinking like you do the guillotine usually isn't far behind (literally or figuratively).

The elites you mention love to sit in their lairs and circle jerk, but the reality is that their influence ends shortly outside of the radius of their ego and the few weak souls that are sucked into orbit around it (egos large enough to have their own gravitational field). It may feel great to be sucked off all day long by the 1,000 employees you have under you, but the other 7 billion people on earth don't give a shit about you or probably don't even know you exist. Many of those who are aware you exist actively loathe you because you, Mr. Executive, come off as a pompous ass. So while you might be sitting at the helm of a lever of power or two, they will take the first chance they get to take you out. Just look all these people biting it because they were assholes to women.

I've done fairly well for myself to the point where I am "more influential" than the average citizen, but I don't think for a second that makes me more influential than say 1000 normal citizens. Sure my voice is louder because I'm friends with the local politicians, attorneys, other business owners, etc., but at the end of the day that only goes so far. I can see, however, how some people live in a bubble so long that they think they are all mighty. I mean that's basically what happened with Clinton, she was groomed so long for the role that she couldn't possibly lose the election and it's exactly that attitude of complacency that lost it for her. Same happens with all these creeps and their sexual harassment, you get used to grabbing asses and banging whoever you want and eventually you get lazy and obvious and get caught and kicked out of your company. I see the same attitude in your posts in here "we are more important than anyone, we can't possibly not matter more than everyone else, blah blah". Reality check: no one believes you and no one cares.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by 10023

Yep. Wall Street is an enormous part of it.

Do you disagree that a big part of New York's identity is being one of the world's great financial centers? And media, fashion, etc? Are Lloyd Blankfein and Anna Wintour, or historical figures like J.P. Morgan or Felix Rohaytn not a more significant part of that than the average person on the street?

What do you think supports the cultural institutions like the Met and Lincoln Center? What built Times Square? Why does Phoenix, which today has more people than New York had at the turn of the 20th century (when it was already one of the world's preeminent cities), not have these things? Why does a city of 5 million people have more significance than a state of 5 million people but no global cities? Why does New York have its iconic skyline?

I would argue that the answer is the type of people who come to and live in these major cities, the "great and good" of society. And those people increasingly form a global tribe in cities.

But they're not that important in the larger scheme of things as to the identity of a city. They're just not. Washington DC will exist and its culture will exist with or without spooks. It'll be just fine.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

But they're not that important in the larger scheme of things as to the identity of a city. They're just not. Washington DC will exist and its culture will exist with or without spooks. It'll be just fine.

DC wouldn't exist without the federal govt. I mean, it's a planned federal city. No "spooks" in DC, then no DC.

Wall Street is pretty damn important to NYC, and an essential part of its character. It's the dominant local industry. Not quite to the same extent as govt. in DC, but pretty close. Something like 25% of local tax revenues are from the financial industry.

[cannedairspray]

Yes, but I specifically said spooks. Louis has it right. Bankers traveling between London and NYC don't make or break them, anymore than intel officers going back and forth between DC and Williamsburg make them.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by 10023

Yep. Wall Street is an enormous part of it.

Do you disagree that a big part of New York's identity is being one of the world's great financial centers? And media, fashion, etc? Are Lloyd Blankfein and Anna Wintour, or historical figures like J.P. Morgan or Felix Rohaytn not a more significant part of that than the average person on the street?

Oh brother. While I agree that the concentration of wealth in New York contributes to it being a premier cultural center, you obviously confuse the consumption of taste with making of taste. See, you are a taste-consumer. You consume things that other people create. Because you have money, you get to try these new things before most other people get to. The overcoat, the tasting menu, the sofa. I'm sure you have wonderfully curated little life there in London. This does not make you exceptional. It is the taste-makers who are exceptional. These are the people who are most vital to a city, and if they aren't valued above the taste-consumers, then the cultural vitality of the city will die. Ten thousand yous doesn't make up for a single Justin Peck. Or Kerstin Bratsch. Or Sufjan Stevens.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Bingo, I have a cousin who is a lead designer at Levi's in SF. His design choices are worn by millions of a people a year as he basically sets the fabrics used in every article of clothing they produce. It's a midlevel job at Levi's at best. He probably has far more "influence" despite making just less than $100k on society than 10023 does. No one knows who he is or has heard of him (yet, he's young and ambitious so maybe that'll change), but he is the one actually putting those jeans that make you think "oh sweet, what a different fabric" in stores. You don't know he's the one doing it, but for every bit of "taste" peddled in our culture, there's a person like him who is actually setting it. No one is looking at what investment bankers in NYC are wearing and setting their next clothing line or interior design trend based on it. In fact, people in those levels of society often display grotesque tastes that are garish mimicry of the original, trend setting, style. Almost as if they can't process what truly makes something fashionable so they see a style and blow it out of proportion in an attempt to "outdo" it.

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

Yes, but I specifically said spooks. Louis has it right. Bankers traveling between London and NYC don't make or break them, anymore than intel officers going back and forth between DC and Williamsburg make them.

Also a lot of "spooks" are actually kind of stupid. A friend of my father's is a big time defense contractor and he believes that oil self generates on the scale of decades under ground despite a century of geological science proving these are ancient deposits from millions of years ago. Literally he believes something that, if true, would mean we actually have no idea how to locate oil deposits when, in fact, we've actually gotten extremely good at it. Just because this guy sells missile guidance tech to the government and is worth a lot of money doesn't mean his abysmal ideas are propagated with any real effect to society at large.

[mhays]

I'm just scanning through, but 10023's basic idea is right on this one. People at the top (of any organization) make decisions that affect everybody in major ways, whether it's the rise and fall of businesses, or what movies get made and how, or government policies.

Of course "influence" can mean a lot of things.

[10023]

Originally Posted by pico44

Oh brother. While I agree that the concentration of wealth in New York contributes to it being a premier cultural center, you obviously confuse the consumption of taste with making of taste. See, you are a taste-consumer. You consume things that other people create. Because you have money, you get to try these new things before most other people get to. The overcoat, the tasting menu, the sofa. I'm sure you have wonderfully curated little life there in London. This does not make you exceptional. It is the taste-makers who are exceptional. These are the people who are most vital to a city, and if they aren't valued above the taste-consumers, then the cultural vitality of the city will die. Ten thousand yous doesn't make up for a single Justin Peck. Or Kerstin Bratsch. Or Sufjan Stevens.

I'm not claiming to be a tastemaker. I wouldn't have claimed to be one of the "10,000 most important people" in NY or London either.

When you have that kind of money, or influence (as, say, the editor of a major publication), then you are a tastemaker. There are lots of people making art. Andy Warhol didn't become successful and wealthy because his art was objectively good, but because an influential segment of New York society took a liking to it (and to him). There has probably never been a successful artist (in their lifetime, at least) without wealthy benefactors.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think I agree that being globally connected means prosperity. Detroit has a very globally connected economy and is obviously not the picture of prosperity. I think the key to whether or not your city is doing good is how connected it is to the information economy.

Greater Detroit (which is what this would refer to, not just political borders) is still prosperous. It has a per-capita income that exceeds some cities that are considered prosperous. The city of Detroit is having a hard time, and that does weigh on the metro area statistics, but the metro area overall is doing a lot better than the Detroit-only stats would lead one to believe.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ Bingo, I have a cousin who is a lead designer at Levi's in SF. His design choices are worn by millions of a people a year as he basically sets the fabrics used in every article of clothing they produce. It's a midlevel job at Levi's at best. He probably has far more "influence" despite making just less than $100k on society than 10023 does..
...

There area a lot of jobs like that. Even a low-level staff reporter for a city's major daily has a fair bit of influence relative to his or her pay grade.

In some ways I have had roles where I had outsized influence relative to my near-zero visibility, when I was in charge of production deployments of web-based companies. Keeping things smooth and speedy enabled the companies to nimbly respond to changing business needs, and as long as I did my job nobody outside the companies even had reason to imagine I existed yet if I did my job poorly I very well could have destroyed the businesses directly or indirectly. Even internally, the companies didn't always realize how much power I had over their business. That I'm a dependable, reasonable person means I would never even consider using that power for evil, and yet I really did wield the power to make or break the public perception of the company's reliability. A few keystrokes could mean the difference between imperceptible upgrades to the company's systems and hours of downtime that would have resulted in significant business loss and/or substantial federal penalties. People in my role, doing it wrong, quite literally have destroyed businesses in the past - there are case studies of such situations taught in business schools. And yet I'm virtually unknown.

[woodrow]

Boy, this is a stupid thread. Did any of you read the article? This conversation has nothing to do with that article except the title. Read it, and click on the links to the articles, essays, and studies. It is worth your time.

It isn't about who is the most important, or richest, or most influential in taste, or travels between New York and London. It is about how major cities, across the globe, are no longer attached to their region, and even countries to some extent, and the ramifications of this disengagement.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm not claiming to be a tastemaker. I wouldn't have claimed to be one of the "10,000 most important people" in NY or London either.

When you have that kind of money, or influence (as, say, the editor of a major publication), then you are a tastemaker. There are lots of people making art. Andy Warhol didn't become successful and wealthy because his art was objectively good, but because an influential segment of New York society took a liking to it (and to him). There has probably never been a successful artist (in their lifetime, at least) without wealthy benefactors.

I can't help but agree with some of what you're saying, and I apologize for the snarkiness in my previous post. I don't think there's an easy calculation for influence in society--economic vs cultural vs political etc. or even within cultural strata. My temptation is to say that the least of the taste-makers are more important than even the most important taste consumers, but this obviously isn't true. David Zwirner certainly has more influence than the guy spray painting subway maps on Prince Street. Anna Wintour certainly has more influence than the woman making saris in Jackson Heights. But the balance is in the creators favor--severely so. But of course ranking societal value seems terribly vulgar, especially when you seem to place so much importance on wealth. Plus, it just seems wrong. I feel like my wife's relatively poor fashion friends contribute more to New York culturally than most of my banker friends who all make gobs of money but have never been to an art gallery or Lincoln Center in their lives.