“New York City is never going to be the lowest-priced place to do business; it is just the most efficient place to do business.” Well said, Mayor.
In placing value over cost, Bloomberg was able to justify such a statement, made after his 2003 economic development summit. This statement, to me, epitomizes the values New York City has stood by for as long as I can remember. High-rise buildings and Wall Street exemplify how high cost comes with efficient business.
Yet, as Brash clearly explains, this is still the city highly defined by harsh class difference–exorbitant luxury and poverty both prevail in NYC.
I can’t say I endorse any particular way to solve this problem, or that I have a brilliant economic solution to fix the economy–I thought that job belonged to the CEO mayor. However, what I do would disagree with is the approach of a clear-cut solution. The problems prevalent in New York City are heavily rooted in history, immigration, and migration–rooted hundreds of years before our generation. So while Mike Wallace seems to think that a New Deal approach would do it, and Bloomberg took the rebranding approach, I would say that maybe a combination of approaches is how to fix the high inequality rate of the “Luxury City.” Again, I don’t know how per se (I’ve only taken Economics 102), but I think the way in which we approach these issues needs to change. I doubt it would be possible to have a One-Stop Center of New York City to fix all our problems.
