By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, June 18, 2017
New York City’s municipal work force is, under the
mayorship of Bill de Blasio, now larger than it ever has been, at nearly
294,000 workers. This is not a matter of staffing up a few agencies that had
been cut back during the recession; as the New
York Times reports, “nearly every city agency now employs more workers than
it did in 2014, when the mayor took office.”
New York City’s population is growing, up about 4 percent
since 2010. But its city work force is growing much more quickly: In 2014, the
city had one municipal worker for every 32 residents, while today it has one
for every 28 residents, or a work force that is about 12 percent larger
relative to the population. Many of those workers are doing work that needs to
be done. Some of them . . . well, from the Times
again: “Sanitation workers are now flanked by civilian outreach teams in blue
dress shirts with expertise in project management and mulch, helping New
Yorkers make sense of its new composting plan.”
New York’s ratio of city workers to residents is much
higher than was Detroit’s (1:60) when that unhappy city went into a financial
crisis, and it is much, much higher than the ratio of such pleasant and
well-administered cities as San Diego (1:130). These figures exclude
public-school employees and a few other large populations of public-sector
employees, such as those of the Port Authority, who are not employees of the
city government itself, so the public-sector footprint is even larger than it
appears.
This is paid for at enormous expense: The average
compensation (including pension and benefit costs) for a New York City
municipal employee runs about $140,000 a year, or four to five times the
average salary. (The median household
income in New York City is just over $50,000.) Altogether, personnel expenses
for the city currently top $44 billion per year and will exceed $50 billion per
year by 2020.
Which puts those composting officers in perspective.
New Yorkers don’t seem to mind — for the moment. The
local economy is healthy and, while there have been a few blips in crime
control, New York remains one of the safest big cities in the country,
especially the parts where the people who pay all the taxes live: 34,500 New
Yorkers pay nearly half of the city’s taxes, and fewer than 1,200 pay nearly a
fifth of them by themselves. I assume their trash collection is executed more
conscientiously than it is in the precincts around Buckley Towers.
New York is unique among American cities: It is not as
pleasant as Los Angeles, as affordable as Houston, or as sensibly governed as
Salt Lake City, but the few thousand people who pay its taxes don’t think of it
that way. If you grew up in St. George, Utah, then New York City is insanely
expensive, terribly administered, and, in spite of its many charms, occasionally
downright hostile. But New York is a bargain compared with Hong Kong, Zurich,
or Singapore, and its public sector exhibits practically Scandinavian
effectiveness and transparency compared with Shanghai, Lagos, or Dubai.
Singapore is considerably cleaner and safer, but it is also a lot less
interesting.
New York lost a tenth of its population in a single
decade (1970–80) when economic crises and out-of-control crime caused many
families and institutions, including financial firms, to decide that they no
longer had to be in New York. Rudy
Giuliani’s great gift to the city was beating down crime enough and whipping
municipal institutions into decent enough shape that a lot of people remembered
that even if they didn’t have to be there, they wanted to be. New York is a
kind of upside-down Houston: People move to Houston because that’s where the
jobs are, but businesses looking for help at the high end of the labor market
have gone to New York because that is where the people they want want to be. Google
will not be relocating to Provo, in spite of its many virtues, because the sort
of people it wants to hire do not want to live there. Young men and women
making large incomes in finance, media, and technology have decided, at least
for now, that the attractions of New York are worth bearing the costs. So have
many affluent older couples, who have decided that New York City real estate is
a pretty good investment (the city has high income taxes but relatively low
property-tax rates) and who want to be able to go to dinner or the theater
without an hour’s commute each way.
That’s all to the good. It’s a big country, and there is
room for New York in it. New York can afford Bill de Blasio — at least for now:
New York moves pretty fast in both directions.
But can the United States afford to adopt the Manhattan
model?
Libertarian invective notwithstanding, public-sector
workers (and not just cops and firemen) do a great many essential and useful
things. We ought always to be open to the possibility that services could be
improved through privatization, competition, and choice, but mainly we just
want the garbage picked up and the streets kept in good repair without our
having to think about it too much. And some of de Blasio’s new hires have been
intelligent choices: He has staffed up the Department of Investigation, which
polices city agencies for graft, fraud, and other species of corruption. (Miami
should take note.) And though the mayor has failed dreadfully in his role as
the city’s advocate, much of what is most dysfunctional about the city — the
mass-transit system, especially — is not under his direct and exclusive
control. Blame Andrew Cuomo for your F-train nightmare.
That being said, the Manhattan model doesn’t mean
delivering services superior to Cairo’s at a price lower than Geneva’s. What it
means is using the public sector as a supplementary welfare state.
The Manhattan model means taxing high-earning residents
at high levels in order to provide absurdly inflated compensation packages to
workers who otherwise would probably earn something much closer to the median
income. It is hardly restricted to New York: Your local school district does
much the same thing, and there are Philadelphia police detectives who, thanks
to “overtime,” earn in excess of $300,000 a year. The helpful folks at your
local DMV are being paid a great deal more than they would in their next-best
option. I have known many vice principals, but I never have been tempted to
hire one away at $100,000 a year. The inflation of public-sector compensation
packages is functionally, and at least to some extent intentionally, an
income-redistribution program. The same principle applies to government-funded
“infrastructure” projects that often do not provide anything like meaningful
infrastructure but do provide a lot of “job creation,” as the politicians like
to say.
Jobs doing what? Don’t think about that one too much.
As globalization continues to increases the rewards for
the highest-performing workers and entrepreneurs and to put pressure on the
wages of those in the middle and at the bottom, the Manhattan model will become
more and more attractive: “Create jobs” performing tasks of questionable value
— seriously, composting advocates? — and pay them what a decent lawyer in a
small city might expect to make. It’s a handy way to operate a welfare program
without the unpleasantness of honestly accounting for the costs or the stigma
or receiving an obvious handout.
It’s working, for now, in New York. Detroit had a little
less luck with it, because there are not very many 26-year-olds earning
$600,000 a year who want to live in Detroit. How will it work at the national
scale? Between Sanders-ism and Trump-ism, it seems likely that we will find
out.
No comments:
Post a Comment