Thanks for posting this Marc, It made me think. First I wonder if the relationships between business, government, and citizens that we see in much of the EU would be a better system for us in the US. It seems like we've encouraged businesses to leave the US. Second I wonder what happened to the public-spirited CEOs of the past that kept their wages low and looked after their employees? Investing in stock by backs instead of their businesses and people seems to be the norm these days.
You are very very correct. I am 73. I remember Western New York in the 50s and 60s. It was a good place to be. The first big shock was steel. Steel’s big problem was awful management at the companies and the union. They were doomed. Add a little push from government at all levels (EPA, NYS, Erie County, and Lackawanna) and the plants closed in droves.
In the late 70s and early 80s home building virtually stopped. Why? There was no need for new subdivisions.
Companies relocated out of western New York because it got too expensive to do business here. Attracting new business was only possible by giving away the store. Real life story. I was on an economic development committee and we attracted a major employer. Then we did not. When they went to their executive corps and looked for folks to staff the new enterprise, they all refused. The higher personal taxes and cost of living (as opposed to Ohio and Kentucky) would have reduced their standard of living.
Now to the “affordable” housing in Erie County New York. It is a fraud. The selling prices of the homes are suppressed by the high taxes. You have a silent partner sucking your capital. When most people look at buying a home, they look at the monthly payment. In some localities the real estate tax portion at least one-half of the payment. This does reduce selling prices. In another western NY county a single family home with a value of $120,000 has a real estate tax burden over $6000.00. That would be a monthly payment of about $850.00. Mortgage $350.00, Taxes $500.00. Your secret partner is robbing you at every turn.
I am now living in Sharonville, Ohio just outside the peoples republic of Cincinnati in Hamilton County. Why? Two of my three children and 5 of 7 grandchildren live here. There are Jobs and there have been for at least 20 years. Southwestern Ohio is just plain cheaper to live in. Health insurance, car insurance and home owners insurance are cheaper. I deliberately live in an apartment complex to avoid all the work associated with home ownership.
Keep up the good fight but I wish you luck in the Socialist Empire of New York.
Mark, I would only add that while growth is important, the human capital that makes up that growth (and how it is "watered") matters even more. Buffalo, for example, finds its greatest export to be its people. I am sure you can relate. Best, Chris
This, and Marc's previous article, in my opinion, represents a serious lack of insight and broad-based and long-term thinking. I've been around long enough to experience, first-hand, the detrimental effects of overpopulation. Continuous population growth is not sustainable (duh) and in many parts of the world, including the USA, the population is well beyond what it should be for the best well-being of the majority of the population. Only the socio-economic top 1-5% or so of people benefit (overall) from mass consumerism and over-development, and that is a very self-centered benefit. Most social and environmental problems that the world is dealing with today are caused by or exacerbated by over-population. Cities will thrive or decay by forces that have nothing intrinsically to do with population numbers. Shiny cars and pretty cities are nice, but they are in no way a measure of the quality of life for the majority of humans, not to mention wildlife. What most countries of the world should be doing is implementing moral and ethical policies that discourage (but not prevent) couples from having more than two children, especially if they can't afford to care for their children on their own. A very slow (100+ years?) dial-back of global population from it's current 8 billion to the 3-4 billion level is probably best, for the sake of future generations. Along with continued innovation for energy, wildlands, and wildlife conservation.
Mark, you couldn't be more wrong. We ought to be encouraging more people on the planet and in our country. Human beings are awesome (mostly). Trying to shrink world population is a bad idea, will set us back as a species, and is the kind of self-loathing that leads to a worse world for all.
No self-loathing here Marc, just caring and concern for all young people and future generations and the hope that they will have a healthy planet and environment to grow, explore, enjoy and thrive in. Overpopulation will inevitably lead to less freedom and lower average prosperity than otherwise. It's amazing that two people who live in the same world can have diametrically opposed viewpoints, but there you go. We are living in an amazingly polarized country/world today.
All you need to do is look at Western Europe... Their systems are failing due to a lack of young folks to continue to pay the bill. In the situation you are promoting some generation is going to have to be the one that steps backwards, does without and allows a reset.
Play this out - we are suffering under global warming, mass extinction, overfishing, destruction of our reefs, loss of habitat, the great Pacific garbage patch and the list goes on and on. In the not too distant future we'll start seeing mass displacement of mankind as sea levels rise. Trying to understand how growing the world population to let's say, 9 billion, 10 billion, 15 billion and so on addresses these challenges. Would like to hear how you suggest addressing these serious issues - all of which are related to overpopulation. To borrow from your former note, would it be good for us to be as densely populated as other countries? There is nothing to suggest that it would be good for humanity to cut down the rest of the forests and destroy the rest of the oceans - unless we are acting selfishly and greedily for only our own generation and not for our children.
Thank you for your article (The Only Cure). Please write an article actually about the only cure.
In my estimation, that is to reduce corruption. I see corruption as the underlying core cancer in our society and world. Rampant, unbridled corruption is what has been sucking the life out of our economy, educational system, legal system, government, and of course, our "health-care" system. Corruption creates a completely unsustainable closed system.
The rapid disappearance of the middle class is due to the purposeful massive redistribution of the astounding resources available. As you know, there is more than enough available housing, food, clothing, healthcare, jobs, power, water, will, and creative ideas for everyone. The problems of lack arise from the completely corrupt hoarding via corruption. (I am absolutely NOT advocating for socialism!)
A major underlying leg of the core problem of corruption is the very existence of the corporation in its current iteration.
Corporations enjoy the status of people with most of their rights and privileges without many of the responsibilities!
Corporations have a single legal mandate: to maximize shareholder value. This necessarily ignores civic duty, responsibility to society, morality, ethics, generosity, and even basic integrity. Those virtues only come into play via market forces (100% self-interest).
Corporations largely insulate the corrupt from personal liability! Therefore, CEOs have zero incentive to do what's "right".
Corporations bend (twist) governments.
Capitalism works. But we don't have capitalism - we have a hybrid of corporatism/oligarchy. They don't work, just as socialism doesn't work.
If you agree, please use your influence to spread this word. When more people realized the underlying core issue, real change can commence. Thank you.
The logic is stretched pretty thin and does not add up between the two articles. Continuous population growth is not sustainable and there is sufficient research on it, please look up.
In addition, the reasons behind the decay are complex. Taxes, the way people are treated by the local companies, the local culture, opportunities for people to grow, to see their children do better, weather, health, education etc.
Jenn, continuous population growth is absolutely sustainable. If the United States tripled our population, we would still be less populated per square mile than, say, France, or Italy.
Fact check: the U.S. has increased population all along (46% in fact, from 1980 to 2020; from 227m up to 331m). Furthermore, according to Census data, the only declining decade for NY (the entire state) was the 70s, even 2020 showed growth vs 2010 in NY. Obviously western NY has taken it on the chin.
In fact, Buffalo sounds like Pittsburgh in a lot of ways (Pittsburgh is still 50% smaller than it was in the '50s), but a solution to the decline is not "growth" per se, growth is the RESULT of efforts that solve the problem, not the solution. I think I'd look at places with huge growth (Texas maybe?) and see what they have done which make sense for NY. It's a tough nut to crack probably involving better universities, taxes, tariffs, housing costs and a litany of other things, all of which are hard to effect.
I love how you snuck in the political buzz word. I guess you haven't actually been across the Atlantic to the happiest countries in the world which happen to be in Northern Europe. I will never understand the penchant to mix politics and business out in the open.
vote against democrats, most are marxist, many are worse...
I know a lot of Democrats, most are hard working folks who love their families...
good germans....
That of course makes zero sense.
cents used to be worth something...
lemmings are plentiful.
Cents....?? Pennies?
Enjoyed the read. Lifetime resident of NY, about to retire, and with intent to relocate for all the reasons you mentioned.
We're sorry to lose you Joseph!
Thanks for posting this Marc, It made me think. First I wonder if the relationships between business, government, and citizens that we see in much of the EU would be a better system for us in the US. It seems like we've encouraged businesses to leave the US. Second I wonder what happened to the public-spirited CEOs of the past that kept their wages low and looked after their employees? Investing in stock by backs instead of their businesses and people seems to be the norm these days.
Great article Marc. Thank you.
You are very very correct. I am 73. I remember Western New York in the 50s and 60s. It was a good place to be. The first big shock was steel. Steel’s big problem was awful management at the companies and the union. They were doomed. Add a little push from government at all levels (EPA, NYS, Erie County, and Lackawanna) and the plants closed in droves.
In the late 70s and early 80s home building virtually stopped. Why? There was no need for new subdivisions.
Companies relocated out of western New York because it got too expensive to do business here. Attracting new business was only possible by giving away the store. Real life story. I was on an economic development committee and we attracted a major employer. Then we did not. When they went to their executive corps and looked for folks to staff the new enterprise, they all refused. The higher personal taxes and cost of living (as opposed to Ohio and Kentucky) would have reduced their standard of living.
Now to the “affordable” housing in Erie County New York. It is a fraud. The selling prices of the homes are suppressed by the high taxes. You have a silent partner sucking your capital. When most people look at buying a home, they look at the monthly payment. In some localities the real estate tax portion at least one-half of the payment. This does reduce selling prices. In another western NY county a single family home with a value of $120,000 has a real estate tax burden over $6000.00. That would be a monthly payment of about $850.00. Mortgage $350.00, Taxes $500.00. Your secret partner is robbing you at every turn.
I am now living in Sharonville, Ohio just outside the peoples republic of Cincinnati in Hamilton County. Why? Two of my three children and 5 of 7 grandchildren live here. There are Jobs and there have been for at least 20 years. Southwestern Ohio is just plain cheaper to live in. Health insurance, car insurance and home owners insurance are cheaper. I deliberately live in an apartment complex to avoid all the work associated with home ownership.
Keep up the good fight but I wish you luck in the Socialist Empire of New York.
Mark, I would only add that while growth is important, the human capital that makes up that growth (and how it is "watered") matters even more. Buffalo, for example, finds its greatest export to be its people. I am sure you can relate. Best, Chris
This, and Marc's previous article, in my opinion, represents a serious lack of insight and broad-based and long-term thinking. I've been around long enough to experience, first-hand, the detrimental effects of overpopulation. Continuous population growth is not sustainable (duh) and in many parts of the world, including the USA, the population is well beyond what it should be for the best well-being of the majority of the population. Only the socio-economic top 1-5% or so of people benefit (overall) from mass consumerism and over-development, and that is a very self-centered benefit. Most social and environmental problems that the world is dealing with today are caused by or exacerbated by over-population. Cities will thrive or decay by forces that have nothing intrinsically to do with population numbers. Shiny cars and pretty cities are nice, but they are in no way a measure of the quality of life for the majority of humans, not to mention wildlife. What most countries of the world should be doing is implementing moral and ethical policies that discourage (but not prevent) couples from having more than two children, especially if they can't afford to care for their children on their own. A very slow (100+ years?) dial-back of global population from it's current 8 billion to the 3-4 billion level is probably best, for the sake of future generations. Along with continued innovation for energy, wildlands, and wildlife conservation.
Mark, you couldn't be more wrong. We ought to be encouraging more people on the planet and in our country. Human beings are awesome (mostly). Trying to shrink world population is a bad idea, will set us back as a species, and is the kind of self-loathing that leads to a worse world for all.
More humans + more freedom = a better world.
No self-loathing here Marc, just caring and concern for all young people and future generations and the hope that they will have a healthy planet and environment to grow, explore, enjoy and thrive in. Overpopulation will inevitably lead to less freedom and lower average prosperity than otherwise. It's amazing that two people who live in the same world can have diametrically opposed viewpoints, but there you go. We are living in an amazingly polarized country/world today.
All you need to do is look at Western Europe... Their systems are failing due to a lack of young folks to continue to pay the bill. In the situation you are promoting some generation is going to have to be the one that steps backwards, does without and allows a reset.
Play this out - we are suffering under global warming, mass extinction, overfishing, destruction of our reefs, loss of habitat, the great Pacific garbage patch and the list goes on and on. In the not too distant future we'll start seeing mass displacement of mankind as sea levels rise. Trying to understand how growing the world population to let's say, 9 billion, 10 billion, 15 billion and so on addresses these challenges. Would like to hear how you suggest addressing these serious issues - all of which are related to overpopulation. To borrow from your former note, would it be good for us to be as densely populated as other countries? There is nothing to suggest that it would be good for humanity to cut down the rest of the forests and destroy the rest of the oceans - unless we are acting selfishly and greedily for only our own generation and not for our children.
Read "America Alone".... It fully explains this. Demographics don't lie and we need a higher birth rate or we lose, (if it's not too late already)...
Dear Marc:
Thank you for your article (The Only Cure). Please write an article actually about the only cure.
In my estimation, that is to reduce corruption. I see corruption as the underlying core cancer in our society and world. Rampant, unbridled corruption is what has been sucking the life out of our economy, educational system, legal system, government, and of course, our "health-care" system. Corruption creates a completely unsustainable closed system.
The rapid disappearance of the middle class is due to the purposeful massive redistribution of the astounding resources available. As you know, there is more than enough available housing, food, clothing, healthcare, jobs, power, water, will, and creative ideas for everyone. The problems of lack arise from the completely corrupt hoarding via corruption. (I am absolutely NOT advocating for socialism!)
A major underlying leg of the core problem of corruption is the very existence of the corporation in its current iteration.
Corporations enjoy the status of people with most of their rights and privileges without many of the responsibilities!
Corporations have a single legal mandate: to maximize shareholder value. This necessarily ignores civic duty, responsibility to society, morality, ethics, generosity, and even basic integrity. Those virtues only come into play via market forces (100% self-interest).
Corporations largely insulate the corrupt from personal liability! Therefore, CEOs have zero incentive to do what's "right".
Corporations bend (twist) governments.
Capitalism works. But we don't have capitalism - we have a hybrid of corporatism/oligarchy. They don't work, just as socialism doesn't work.
If you agree, please use your influence to spread this word. When more people realized the underlying core issue, real change can commence. Thank you.
Great read, so true. Born in NYC, like to visit once every decade but never moving back.
The logic is stretched pretty thin and does not add up between the two articles. Continuous population growth is not sustainable and there is sufficient research on it, please look up.
In addition, the reasons behind the decay are complex. Taxes, the way people are treated by the local companies, the local culture, opportunities for people to grow, to see their children do better, weather, health, education etc.
Jenn, continuous population growth is absolutely sustainable. If the United States tripled our population, we would still be less populated per square mile than, say, France, or Italy.
Fact check: the U.S. has increased population all along (46% in fact, from 1980 to 2020; from 227m up to 331m). Furthermore, according to Census data, the only declining decade for NY (the entire state) was the 70s, even 2020 showed growth vs 2010 in NY. Obviously western NY has taken it on the chin.
In fact, Buffalo sounds like Pittsburgh in a lot of ways (Pittsburgh is still 50% smaller than it was in the '50s), but a solution to the decline is not "growth" per se, growth is the RESULT of efforts that solve the problem, not the solution. I think I'd look at places with huge growth (Texas maybe?) and see what they have done which make sense for NY. It's a tough nut to crack probably involving better universities, taxes, tariffs, housing costs and a litany of other things, all of which are hard to effect.
Perhaps there are reasons other than the birth rate that explain the exodus from New York state.
I love how you snuck in the political buzz word. I guess you haven't actually been across the Atlantic to the happiest countries in the world which happen to be in Northern Europe. I will never understand the penchant to mix politics and business out in the open.