How much would financial reform hurt New York City?

Today President Obama gives a speech on financial re-regulation in New York City—a.k.a., the city he and Congress are out to hurt with financial re-regulation. Okay, I exaggerate. Although as my colleague Michael Scherer pointed out yesterday, if financial reform is done right, Wall Street banks will see profits decline, at least in the short term, and that will mean less money for the Big Apple.

As a proud resident of Gotham, let me step up to say: I can live with that.

Naturally, all of us here don’t feel that way. Last week, I saw Robert Lieber, New York City’s deputy mayor for economic development, speak on a panel at a meeting of the Regional Plan Association (RPA). He echoed the many comments of mayor Michael Bloomberg about why financial reform would be bad for the city.

If, for example, derivatives trades are made transparent by a centralized clearinghouse, then there will be less profit in the system for traders to harness. If finance firms make less money, then they’ll have to pay their employees less—which will directly impact city coffers. In a good year, more than 10% of city revenues come from taxes on Wall Street-related compensation and corporate earnings. Less money for Wall Street isn’t just about trendy restaurants and luxury condo towers taking a hit. It’s also about the city not being able to hire as many police officers and teachers.

That’s the argument anyway. I’d like to make another one. Maybe New York City shouldn’t be so dependent on such an alcoholic boyfriend of an industry. When times are good, they’re really good. But when times are bad, we all get smacked around and the economy goes kaboom. As the city’s Independent Budget Office recently pointed out, financial re-regulation may crimp the profitability of financial firms, but it may also leave a less volatile industry at the city’s core.

And it’s not just that high finance is so volatile—it’s also incredibly inequitable. According to the New York State Comptroller, in 2008, Wall Street accounted for 24% of all wages paid to New York City workers, yet just 5% of the jobs. Is it great that the city gets to collect taxes on those wages? Sure. Would it be nicer if workers got to share in a bigger slice of the city’s economic output in the first place? Arguably it would. I understand that rich bankers with gobs of disposable income create jobs for lots of busboys and parking-garage attendants. I guess I can just picture a municipal economy that’s based a little less on the trickle-down theory.

Now, I do think it’s valid to argue that one of New York City’s key business clusters is financial services, and that a city needs to protect its clusters because clusters boost efficiency and help to attract more jobs. At that RPA panel discussion, some people made the case that Midwest politicians lobby for Big Corn, so why shouldn’t New York City officials get parochial about high finance? Fair enough. Interest groups make the world go ’round.

I just don’t think the rest of us need to buy the hype. After all, New York City isn’t some auto-addicted town in the Rust Belt. New York is a major financial capital—that’s true. But it’s also a major capital for media and publishing. And advertising. And tourism. And film and TV production. And the theater. And fashion. Excluding all the companies that make their money in banking, insurance, real estate and other sorts of finance-related industries, New York City is still home to 45 Fortune 500 companies, including Verizon, Pfizer, News Corp., Colgate-Palmolive, Estee Lauder, Barnes & Noble and JetBlue Airways. And that’s not counting companies in the ‘burbs, little outfits like IBM and PepsiCo.

I thought it was very telling when, at that RPA meeting, someone in the audience asked Lieber to name the biggest threat to New York City’s economy. Without missing a beat he said, “immigration policy.” That’s right. Not financial re-regulation. Nope. It’s the fact that the world sends its brightest students to the United States to receive their college education and then, $250,000 worth of investment later, we send them home because they can’t get visas to stay in the country. “It’s not great politics, so you have to keep pounding away at our representatives,” Lieber said.

That would be a much better use of time than fighting financial reform.

Related Topics: Michael Bloomberg, New York City, Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    Thomas Patterson / Statesman-Journal / AP

    The Bleak Unemployment Report: Is Europe to Blame?

    For the first time in almost a year, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% in May as the economic recovery appeared to not only slow but almost completely stall. And it gets worse.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    Getty Images

    Smartphones of the Future: 6 Predictions

    Future mobile devices will change the way you do business–in ways you probably can’t even imagine. Here are a few predictions.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, Barbara. NYC is huge in architecture too. Is new construction (both residential and commercial) picking up? Given past financial mischief, are accountants – esp. forensic accts. – hiring more to clean up the mess? Since you briefly mentioned fashion… while still at CNBC in 2008, Margaret Brennan wrote about trying to get fashion model P-4 visas –
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/25138927/New_York_Suffering_A_Foreign_Fashion_Model_Shortage
    …so naturally I checked the uscis site. There’s no P-4 but there is an H-1B3 Fashion Model visa for “a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.”
    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
    .
    …of course finance firms could choose to pay lower employees more and senior ones less, but I digress.

  • volkerh

    I think Robert Lieber is wrong.
    The fact that traders have less to spend simply means that investors have more to spend or invest, making everyone richer. So it’s not a loss but a redistribution from traders to customers.

    No one normally complains if a service becomes cheaper. The same should be true of trading.

  • Barbara Kiviat

    Well put.

  • Barbara Kiviat

    Hm. A fashion model of distinguished merit and ability. I think I’ll stick to using the example of an engineer to make this point. Great find, though.

  • http://senekaross.wordpress.com senekaross

    New York City wouldn’t be hurt too much if we wouldn’t allow the deals which France is doing for RF:

    http://docstoc.com/docs/35305003

    when life gives you lemons…throw them over your shoulder and look for an orange !

  • jimc1004

    The finance folks, including Wall Street, did not always absorb 40% of the profits of the S&P 500 – and do not have any god given right to do so.

    In those former days both the country and the city of New York were doing far better than they have recently.

    Cut back on the mostly parasitic financial activity and maybe NYC will once again become a place where teachers and artists and police officers who work there, for example, will be able to live there.

    An insular oligarchy is a danger in a democracy.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    In essence, Michael Bloomberg is using the tobacco company’s rationale. Tobacco growing helps the farmers of North Carolina. A restrictions on cigarette sales hurt these farmers.

    I always find it disgusting when a politician justifies a harmful practice on the basis of money for his own fiefdom. Mr. Bloomberg, is your motto, “Money at any cost”?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • Barbara Kiviat
  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Thanks Barbara, for pointing out Mr. Haberman’s excellent article. The “I-don’t-care-if-it’s-bad-for-the-nation” attitude is a first cousin to events here in Illinois:

    The local unions helped destroy the business of McCormick Place (Chicago’s convention Center), by forcing unneeded labor and outrageous fees on exhibitors. The unions had an “I-don’t-care-if-it’s-bad-for-Chicago” attitude until the their jobs disappeared.

    Yesterday, the unions held a “Raise my taxes” rally, asking Illinois to raise taxes so it wouldn’t have to cut spending and fire union workers. Of course, “Raise my taxes” really meant: “Raise everyone’s taxes and give the money to me” — bad for the citizens of Illinois.

    And industry always asks the government to raise import duties to “save American jobs” (aka “eliminate my competition”), despite this raising prices for all Americans.

    Lest you think this is a new phenomenon, the Luddites destroyed machinery, because the machines were more efficient, and produced better, cheaper products, benefiting the entire country.

    There should be a name for the common desire to save a few jobs at the expense of the larger population. Any ideas?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • Barbara Kiviat

    Lack of leadership?

blog comments powered by Disqus