Archive for August 26, 2009

Are hip cities leveling economic disparity?

Many large cities have enclaves of depressing poverty and some of immense wealth.  But getting past the extremes, there is some evidence that in expensive cities, the difference is diminishing between what people in typically higher paying professions (such as doctors) are earning and those in normally lower paying occupations (such as retail clerks).

From a 2005 report I found by chance by Sagoon Conan Lee of the Sauder School of Business:

Average wages tend to increase with city size. Most explanations of this urban wage premium emphasize productivity spillovers. This paper proposes a consumption-side explanation….The wide consumption variety found in large cities is more important to high-skill hence high-income) workers than low-skill workers, and thus the higher wages found in large cities are due to the selection of high skill workers choosing to live there. A testable implication f my theory, distinguished from productivity-based theories, is that urban wage premiums may be negative for high-skill workers. This implication is confirmed by data on the medical profession. At the top skill level, there is substantial urban wage discount: doctors in large  cities are paid 8 percent less than their peers in small cities.

And it makes sense.  For a city to function well, you need everyone from chefs to dishwashers, doctors to janitors and barristas to barristers.   But, in occupations requiring less education and experience, wages tend to be lower.  In hip, urban areas where many people want to live, life is expensive and in such places minimum wage often is not a living wage.  Therefore, to attract and retain staff, employers have to pay higher wages in these types of occupations than they do in a city.

At the other end of the shrinking spectrum, educated individuals, such as doctors, want to live in big, cosmopolitan cities with great cultural activities, world-class restaurants, and other amenities.  They’d rather not live in smaller communities that lack these things.  Therefore, they typically demand a premium to live and work outside of a big city (which given the lower living costs means a high standard of living).  Meanwhile, many will accept a lower salary and lower standard of living to be in the amenity-rich city.

While medical specialists and burger flippers are still earning vastly different sums, both are needed and the difference in their earnings is comparatively smaller in the expensive cities.

As North America urbanizes over the next decades, this may be an interesting trend to watch.

Metro mania

Tens of thousands of people stood in line for hours yesterday to experience the new rapid transit line in Vancouver. Such excitement has not greeted new transit options before, which got me thinking about the relationship between metro lines, a city, and its residents.

Unlike two previous routes, which primarily link suburban residential areas to downtown, this “Canada Line” links a variety of great places — real destinations — together:

  • The financial core / downtown area and nearby Granville St. Entertainment District
  • The trendy,  restaurant-rich condo-ville of Yaletown
  • City Hall and the new retail developments adjacent as well as the Vancouver General Hospital complex
  • Langara University College
  • River Rock Casino (which has a theatre that brings in great retro musical acts)
  • The Vancouver International Airport

Many more citizens can see themselves benefiting from this line, compared with the previous two which have really only served commuters from bedroom communities.  I think that accounts for the extra excitement.  That it opened three months early, and in August, also helped (not sure how many would have stood in the rainy November weather had it opened on schedule).

It will be interesting to see how ridership does.  I could see this line having much more balanced use beyond during rush hour as people go about their daily activities.

For those of you familiar with transit and metro systems,  what’s your experience?  Do metro lines connecting special places — destinations — have better ridership?  Do they mean more to you and other residents in the city?

This is not to say a debate doesn’t continue about whether this infrastructure was worth the cost (although I personally think it’s a worthwhile investment in a future, green, livable region).   I’m wanting a different discussion on what makes rapid transit work, and what makes rapid transit draw people from a variety of backgrounds. 

Automotive advertising and newspaper struggles

Many city newspapers in North America are struggling.  A few months back in a post I suggested it was because they were not covering local topics, instead picking up on non-analytical wire copy and propaganda media releases rather than reporting actual events.

The Global Urbanist has another theory, suggesting in a recent e-mail that newspaper declines are actually linked to a decline in advertising dollars from car companies and the fact that automotive-based commuters simply don’t have time to read the paper.
So s/he asks:

Why do newspapers have an automotive section?

On reviewing the world’s largest newspapers, I realized they circulated in regions with high transit use.  Japanese newspapers hold the top five spots in circulation numbers.   Japanese are also the largest users of passenger rail services.  Almost half of Tokyo’s 30 million residents commute by rail everyday. In the United States the top newspapers also correlate with the top mass transit centres with the exception of USA Today.  That exception could be explained as being the airline’s newspaper.  Daily airline passenger traffic in the U.S. is equivalent to almost half of New York City transit user traffic.

This makes sense since a train ride or a flight is the ideal environment to read a newspaper as opposed to the attention demands of driving an automobile.  So why do North American newspapers spend so many resources promoting automobile culture, and hardly any promoting transit?  Does the decline of transit culture in North America equate to the decline in daily newspaper readership?

Of course the answer is newspapers are funded by advertising, not readership.  There are a lot of advertising dollars coming from the automobile culture.  Whether it is a classified ad to buy or sell a used vehicle, an auto dealership promoting new deals, or a manufacturer promoting the upcoming model; there’s a lot of revenue coming in from drivers.  When was the last time Bombardier or Siemens promoted their latest rail innovation in the newspaper?  So newspapers are initially drawn by the advertising revenue from the automotive industry that leads to the long term detriment of their readership.

Today North American newspapers find themselves on a road to extinction.  On-line options get much of the blame, but these options are also available to Japanese, Germans, and British, all of whom maintain substantial readership numbers among their major newspapers.  The lengthening of the North American driving commute is as responsible if not the key factor to the decline of the continent’s newspaper industry.  When cars drive themselves or there’s significant increase in mass transit traffic the industry might start to recover.  Metro International is the fastest growing newspaper in the world and there key success factor is that they distribute at transit hubs.

Your thoughts?
p.s. I’ve been busy with family and vacation, but have several big posts percolating that I hope to post in the next few days