As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

Post by ajross » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

appleshore wrote: post #24

pm90 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad take. You're assuming that incoming folks won't change the politics of funding decisions of the city. In most cases, they do change them, and change cities for the better.

Do you have an example of that? Perhaps I’m biased being in LA and SF but those city budgets seem irreplaceable broken. Infinite amounts to pensions while no one can propose viable fixes to problems.

Post by romski » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #35

nostrademons wrote: post #27

Perez's Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital makes the point that when a technological revolution occurs, gains are frequently concentrated in a small number of locales that are the first to adopt the new technology and adapt their local industries to the new structure of the economy. This results in significant economic (short term), military (medium term), and geopolitical (long term) power. The changing…

Fundamentally, fragmentation. I think the Civil War is a relevant example, honestly. What happens when the disparity between the Silicon Valley elite and the Iowa cattle farmers becomes too much for one side to bear? What's weird this time is the technocrats are pretty spread out on the coasts, and then you have cities like Denver right in the middle. It will be a bit more nuanced than "North vs. South" next time. Pe…

Post by raverbashing » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

appleshore wrote: post #24

pm90 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad take. You're assuming that incoming folks won't change the politics of funding decisions of the city. In most cases, they do change them, and change cities for the better.

Do you have an example of that? Perhaps I’m biased being in LA and SF but those city budgets seem irreplaceable broken. Infinite amounts to pensions while no one can propose viable fixes to problems.

Post by mud_dauber » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

moate wrote: post #33

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture counts. This is probably gonna get me killed, but I would have qualms with starting or moving a business to a city where reproductive rights are under continual attack. The situation is inhumane.

Part of the problem with places like Alabama getting left in the dust is opinions voiced by elected officials in Alabama. There's literally nothing that would motivate me to move to a place like that despite extremely low cost of living.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

jmastrangelo wrote: post #40

sbierwagen wrote: post #26

>But interviews with entrepreneurs and officials in Nashville point to a mix of factors behind its success, including some that were out of the city’s control, such as the state’s lack of an income tax, and others associated with its unique local assets. NYC and SF, both big tech hubs, both have income taxes.

NYC and SF both have tremendous advantages that Nashville doesn't, Nashville needs to compete. I don't know if NYC and SF are examples of good governance, or examples that show great cities can support lots of poor governance as long as they retain the things that make them great.