Showing posts with label New York City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York City. Show all posts

Sunday, September 6, 2015

[COMMENTARY] What Will They Vote Themselves?

There seemed no end to the teeming tide of Irish that washed ashore in New York City when the famine compelled a mass exodus out of the isle. By the early 1850s, the city and the country faced its first immigration crisis. At a time in which there were no social services – indeed, the very concept of a social safety net did not yet exist – the first wave of unskilled, unlearned Irish immigrants soon became a plague upon the city’s slums. “You have no idea what an immense vat of misery and crime and filth this great city is,” wrote the Protestant missionary and philanthropist Charles Loring Brace. “Think of ten thousand children growing up almost sure to be prostitutes and rogues.”
Brace was one of many charitable souls who took it upon themselves to descend upon lower Manhattan and to house and educate the destitute (Brace’s Children’s Aid Society endures to this day). These works, while undertaken out of a sense of altruistic obligation, were in part a project of self-preservation. These children were a great humanitarian tragedy in 1853, but by 1873 they would become the vanguard of a violent criminal epidemic. By the 1850s, more than half of the arrests in the city were of Irish-born immigrants. Seven in 10 foreign-born prisoners by 1858 were Irish. Nearly three-quarters of those arrested for drunken and disorderly conduct by the final year of the decade came for the Emerald Isle. The future seemed bleak.
Still worse to some was the prospect that the products of this privation who eventually emerged from the shadows would participate ill-equipped in the democratic process. “In 20 years’ time, they will have grown up, and they will vote, and what will they vote themselves?” the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, summarizing Brace’s thinking, wondered. These foreign masses needed to be assimilated into American society, and soon. The alternative was too terrible to contemplate.
“The great duty,” Brace wrote, “is to get utterly out of their surroundings and to send them away to kind Christian homes in the country.” And that is precisely what he did. Over the next 75 years, 100,000 destitute children were uprooted, put onto trains, and absorbed into rural America. The blight Irish of criminality foretold in the middle of the 19th century never materialized.
Today, a new generation of children is in jeopardy, and the future they will inherit is in peril. “An estimated 13.7 million school age children from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Sudan aren’t in school, out of a total of 34 million, the United Nations Children’s Fund, or Unicef, said,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. That’s 40 percent of the children in five Middle Eastern nations marred by war and civil conflict. UNICEF officials believe that rate could rise to 50 percent or more in the coming years as the conflicts roiling these countries intensify.
Some of these children are taken from this world too early, as was illustrated so traumatically this week when a three-year-old Syrian boy clad in playful shorts and a bright red t-shirt washed ashore on a Turkish beach. He and his older brother drowned when their makeshift boat capsized on the way toward Western Europe and what they surely hoped would be peace. These children never made it to relative safety in Europe, but tens of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants have.
Europe is now gripped by a refugee crisis of proportions unknown since the Second World War. Great columns of migrants are startling observers as they make their way down Hungarian highways and Bulgarian rail lines toward Austria, Germany, France, Great Britain, and, ultimately for some, toward the Atlantic and North America. So far in 2015, more than 300,000 migrants from the Middle East and North Africa have crossed the Mediterranean and into Europe – more than the sum total of refugees who crossed the Mare Nostrum in 2014, which totaled over 219,000. The bulk of them are Syrians who are fleeing a horrible conflict characterized by authoritarianism, radical Islamism, and chemical warfare. A substantial number are, however, of Eritrean origins – a nation struggling with abject poverty and ruled by an oppressive, dictatorial regime. The crises in these two nations are distinct but equally inextricable.
The practical effects of this wave of migrants on Europe are dramatic. The rise of Europe’s far-right elements has been catalyzed by the migrant crisis. The Schengen Agreement, which permits passport-free travel in between European Union nations, is coming unglued. Borders are being tightly controlled again in places like Italy, and the outlying EU member states of Hungary and Bulgaria are exploring the possibility of constructing steel security fences along their borders to keep out the tide of humanity escaping death at home. The Czech Republic has called for NATO aid to help enforce the borders on the periphery of the Schengen zone.
The political impact of this crisis is equally unnerving. “There is a clear difference between the new member states and the old member states,” Slovakia’s foreign minister said of the “scary” invasion of migrants from the East. He noted that, while Old Europe is “multi-racial” and “multi-religious,” the former Warsaw Pact does not have this same experience. In Hungary, where the far-right Jobbik party is already in control of the government, migrants are being shuttled off into makeshift camps or toward their western border with Austria. The government has asked the refugees to avoid entering into Hungary, but there is little they can do to stop the tide. Images of anti-immigrant activists attacking and beating unfortunate refugees are already beginning to surface.
But while xenophobic activists in Europe surely expect that the thousands of refugees will one day return to the homes they left, which in many cases no longer exist, that is an unrealistic hope. Germany is preparing to take in a staggering 800,000 asylum-seekers this year. The image of a dead toddler on a Turkish beach so shocked the conscience Europe’s elite that even recalcitrant governments in places like Britain softened their stance toward refugee admittance. So far, the UK has accepted only 216 people into the country from war-torn regions. Thousands will soon be allowed to resettle in Great Britain. The EU is working on a quota system that would force Western Europe to take in a portion of the hundreds of thousands of migrants straining Greek, Hungarian, and Italian services.
These migrants are unlikely to leave – where would they go? The West has displayed no spine to impose a resolution on the conflicts raging in their native lands. These refugees will settle into their new countries; some will assimilate, but many more will not. Unlike the America into which the Irish migrants of the 19th Century settled, Western Europe does not fetish and facilitate the assimilation of the foreign-born. One cannot help but think of Moynihan’s warning when one considers the children of these wars both in the refugees’ adopted countries and in those war-torn lands in which they remain trapped. What will they vote themselves? Literally, in the case of Europe where they will one day grow up to take advantage of the franchise, and figuratively in the ravaged and authoritarian Middle Eastern and North African provinces they will be bequeathed by their brutish forbearers. What kind of future will they make? There are too few Charles Loring Braces today to take the hands of these children and show them a better way. Many are truly on their own. What kind of world will they build for themselves and for us?

Saturday, September 5, 2015

[VIDEO] EXCLUSIVE: New York 2015 - FOUR THOUSAND sleeping on the streets, 80 homeless encampments in the city and beggars making $75 a day as arrests for panhandling and street drinking plunge

They are sleeping in front of the Empire State building, sprawled in front of the doors of Macy's, and panhandling outside Grand Central.

New York is in the grip of a homeless epidemic so bad that it has raised fears of the city slipping back into the disorder of the 1970s and 1980s.

The city's police chief this week said that as many as 4,000 people are now sleeping rough in the city, in a crisis which even the city's ultra-liberal mayor has finally acknowledged after months of denials.

Police officers have identified 80 separate homeless encampments in the city, 20 of which are so entrenched that they have their own furniture, while its former mayor Rudolph Giuliani has spoken scathingly of how his successor is failing to keep order. 

This week New York governor Andrew Cuomo said bluntly that 'it's hard not to conclude that we have a major homeless problem in the city of New York' while the city's police chief Bill Bratton described the scale of it as 'a tipping point'.

And even Bill de Blasio, who has spent months refusing to acknowledge that the growing scale of rough sleeping was anything other than a 'perception problem' finally said there was 'a reality problem'.

Now Daily Mail Online can reveal how a toxic combination of cheap drugs and softly-softly policing are fueling the epidemic - and that beggars are making as much money as someone on the city's minimum wage in cash each day.

Homeless people spoken to by Daily Mail Online said that they were making $70 dollars every day from panhandling.

The amount is the same as working an eight-hour day in a minimum wage job in New York, where the state-mandated minimum wage is $8.75.

One homeless man - a former professional who had become a drug addict and ended up one the streets - said: 'People... are very kind and and give me food and on a good day I can get about 70-80 dollars which shows you the kindness of New Yorkers.'

And Patrick Kolher, who begs outside the Trump International Hotel at Central Park West, said he regularly saw donations of $70 a day into his collection tin.

If the amount of money they can make is encouraging people on to the streets there is little policing to drive them off.

Daily Mail Online has established figures which show how little police action has been taken against the problem.

Arrests for offenses normally associated with the homeless and street dwellers and assessed under the quality of life bracket, have dropped drastically since the election of Bill de Blasio as mayor.

The self-proclaimed champion of 'the progressive agenda' came into office after a campaign in which he was critical of the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk tactics.

He set himself as a reformer who would move away from the aggressive policing championed by former mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his successor Michael Bloomberg, which was credited with dramatically cutting crime in the city, which went from being one of the most dangerous in the US, to one of the safest.

But figures provided by the NYPD suggest that their 35,000 officers - of whom around 20,000 are on regular, uniformed patrol duties - are making far fewer arrests for the sort of quality of life crimes which blight streets.

The department provided figures for previous years, but only those for the first three months of this year. 

They show that in 2007, for the consumption of alcohol on streets, 129,073 people received criminal charges. Over the years the numbers went up or remained steady until de Blasio was elected.

This year, during the first three months, police summonsed only 12,477 which means at that rate, less than half of those arrested in Bloomberg's last year of 2013 will have faced charges.

In crimes such as littering, urinating, exposure, spitting and pan handling, the number of arrests have also dropped.

In 2013, there were 8372 charges for littering. In 2014 when de Blasio took office the number dropped to 7886. For the first three months of 2015, there were 1227 arrests.

People who were accused of urinating in public faced courts 29,579 times in 2013. This figure fell to 28,609 last year when the current mayor took power and the first three months of 2015 saw 4,547 summonsed.

Arrests for exposure in 2013 were 723. In 2014 the number stood at 619 and for the first quarter of this year, the figure was 108.

Police held for spitting numbered 2230 in 2013.Last year it was down to 1827 and until March of this year the figure stood at 324.

In 2013 there were 56,103 arrests for disorderly conduct. Yet between January 1 2015 and the end of March there were 7005, which is again heading for a 50 per cent reduction.

A New York Police Department spokesman told Daily Mail Online: 'If someone is stopped for aggressive panhandling and they have no ID they will be arrested.'

But only 50 people were arrested for the offense up until March this year, while in 2013 there were 310 and last year 201 in the same period.

A police spokesman declined to answer a question of whether police under de Blasio have been instructed to have a softer approach to street crime.

This week, however, Bratton said that his officers would be tackling the problem - with the department's chief of patrol describing how they would be asking the homeless 'why are you out here? Where are you from?', the New York Times reported.

Bratton provided the first official estimate of the scale of the problem, saying there were as many as 4,000 sleeping on the New York streets, compared to 56,000 in homeless shelters.

'Chase them': Rudolph Giuliani has been severely critical of the response to the homelessness crisis, saying that police have to act to get people off the streets
'Chase them': Rudolph Giuliani has been severely critical of the response to the homelessness crisis, saying that police have to act to get people off the streets
The city's laws mean that anyone who is homeless is entitled to a place in a shelter.

Of the 3,000 to 4,000 on the streets, Bratton said: 'It's a number that's been growing over a period of time,
'It's reached a tipping point, however, I think, to use that term, that it did become more visible this summer.'

Officers are now moving through a total of 80 homeless 'encampments' which they have identified.

One was removed this week in Harlem, an increasingly trendy area which has seen complaints of aggressive beggars around its busiest stations.

But the action only goes some way towards meeting vocal criticism made by Giuliani of the current state of policing.

He revealed last month how he had complained at his local police precinct about a homeless man who was urinating near his Upper East Side home.

He told NBC 4 New York that his message was: 'You chase 'em and you chase 'em and you chase 'em and you chase 'em, and they either get the treatment that they need or you chase 'em out of the city.

'I had a rule. You don't get to live on the streets.'

That put him at odds with de Blasio's administration, who say that street homelessness is related to a growth in the number of homeless people overall - which they say is because of Giuliani and Bloomberg.

They claim that increasingly expensive rents are making it impossible for the poorest to live in New York, leading them to move into shelters.

However another factor appears to be leading to the increasing dysfunction on the streets - a wave of cheap drugs, especially heroin, which can be bought in New York for just $10 a fix.

A leading expert charged with treating heroin addicts in New York has described the drug problem as an 'epidemic'.

Monika Taylor, who runs drug treatment at a hospital in Syracuse, NY, and who has been tasked by New York state to look at the problem, told Daily Mail Online the crisis is being fueled by the cheap price of the drug on the streets.






Saturday, August 29, 2015

Uber Shows How To Break Crony Capitalism

The taxi medallion scam is one of the worst examples of crony capitalism.  Uber (and some other app-driven services) are in the process of defeating the scam in New York and, apparently, in many other places as well.  It's about time.
The scam is simple.  A city issues a limited number of so-called "medallions," which convey exclusive rights to pick up passengers on the streets, and often at airports as well.  I have never heard anybody articulate a good rationale for why the number of medallions should be limited.  Fake rationales include preventing "destructive" competition (don't we have that in every industry?) and so-called environmental concerns (always articulated by those holding medallions whose only value lies in artificial scarcity). 
I have a long-time friend, call him R, who is head of one of those lenders that specialize in loans for the purchase of taxi medallions.  Twenty or so years ago I went for the first time to a fundraising event for a candidate for City office, and there was R.  Since then, I haven't been to many fundraising events for candidates for local offices, but at the few I have attended, somehow R was always there.  I can't say I was surprised when Bloomberg News reported last month that the medallion taxi industry had contributed over $500,000 to the campaign of Bill de Blasio for Mayor.  Probably, they contributed that amount or close to it to other candidates as well.  Other than the City employee unions and real estate interests, the taxi medallion guys have been right at the top of the political contribution heap.
Back when I first found out from R what business he was in (I think this was in the 90s), I expressed some very severe skepticism.  From there, the conversation went something like this:
R:  It's literally the best industry to lend in.  We have not had a single default in decades.
Me:  That will be true until the day that all the value suddenly disappears.  Basically, all the value comes from the artificial scarcity.  One day that will disappear, and the medallions will suddenly be worthless all at once.
R:  They've been saying that for decades.  Meanwhile we are diversifying to some degree.  
Since this was before this blog recorded all my thoughts, I don't have an official record of my prediction.  However, it is now rapidly coming true.
For the past few years, New York City taxi medallions have been trading for over $1 million each.  With over 13,000 medallions issued, this has represented a value of over $13 billion --a good measure also of the value of the inconvenience inflicted on people in neighborhoods where taxis have been systematically unavailable for decades due to the corrupt crony system.  But with the advent of Uber, the value of the medallions has suddenly plummeted. This article from CNN Money in July reports that the value of a medallion is off by some 40% from its peak just last year.
And that's if you can sell a medallion at all.  Many reports indicate that the market has gone dead as lenders have been spooked and refuse to lend. 
When the medallion market first started to plummet, de Blasio and his friends on the City Council (all takers of industry cash) floated several proposals to put the reins on Uber, including, for example, a limit on Uber licenses.  But when the reports started to come out about the unbelievable amounts of political contributions they had received from the medallion taxi industry, suddenly they were in a tough spot.  Turns out that our "progressive" Mayor and City Council would happily sell their outer-borough constituents down the river, inflicting them with $13 billion of inconvenience, and handing the $13 billion to a handful of cronies, in return for a paltry few million of political contributions.
The latest news is that de Blasio and the Council are refusing to help out their medallion-owning friends, so the medallion owners are now pinning their hopes on a litigation contending that existing law restricting non-medallion owners to only "pre-arranged travel" effectively outlaws the Uber model.  Good luck with that.  Of course de Blasio and the Council will gladly help out their medallion-owning friends as soon as nobody is looking; but it seems that people are going to be looking at this one, at least for a while.  Now, will anybody start to pay attention to, for example, the "green energy" scam?

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Top de Blasio backer mulling run against ‘anti-business, anti-cop socialist’

One of the nation’s wealthiest black business leaders is considering mounting a self-financed campaign to topple Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2017 — saying he has lost faith in the candidate he once supported.
“I’m giving serious thought to running for mayor of New York City . . . I was a political supporter of Bill de Blasio,” real estate mogul Don Peebles told The Post on Tuesday.
Peebles and wife Katrina contributed $9,675 to de Blasio’s 2013 campaign and inaugural committees, records show.
But during an extensive interview, the lifelong Democrat — who is reportedly worth $700 million — delivered a withering attack on the mayor’s handling of taxes, charter schools, stewardship of the NYPD and chilly relations with Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
“I’ve lost confidence in him. It would be irresponsible of me to do nothing,” said Peebles, 55, who owns the largest African-American-run real estate company in the United States.
“He’s anti-business, he’s anti-wealth, he’s anti-accomplishment. His performance has not been up to par. He’s failed.”
Top de Blasio backer mulling run against ‘anti-business, anti-cop socialist’
Top de Blasio backer Don Peebles (right) says the mayor has failed the people of New York City, and that he would consider running against the candidate he once supported.

Peebles’ mulling of a mayoral run comes amid reports that some disaffected Democrats are looking for an alternative to the mayor in the next election.
Among the names being mentioned are city Comptroller Scott Stringer, Brooklyn Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.
Peebles said that if he runs, there’s a “90 percent chance” he would challenge de Blasio in a Democratic primary.
He added that he would self-finance a campaign and spend “whatever it takes” to win.
Describing himself as a “pro-business” Democrat, Peebles described de Blasio as a divisive “socialist” who wants to punish wealthy people with higher taxes.
“My approach is to expand opportunity by increasing the size of the pie, not taking away from others. The mayor is supposed to be the mayor of all the people, not be the mayor of the Socialist Party.”
He slammed de Blasio on numerous fronts, from his management skills to his chat with his son, Dante, about how to act if approached by cops.
“That was disrespectful,” Peebles said. “What he should have been saying is that the NYPD is the best police department in the country.”
Peebles argued that the mayor hurt himself by continuing to press for an income tax hike on the rich to fund his pre-K program even after Cuomo offered state money for it.
“It’s very frightening. His basic view is that all businesses and wealthy people are not paying their fair share. That’s not true. It’s wrong,” he said.
Peebles also took issue with the mayor’s handling of education, saying he’s siding with the teachers union instead of standing up for kids and charter schools.
Peebles said he and his wife have supported faith-based and alternative schools in Florida and his native Washington, DC.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

[VIDEO] Rents are rising, but there are ways to stretch your dollar

If you're paying more for rent this year, you're not alone. Rents climbed an average of 15 percent across the country between 2009 and 2014, according to a recent analysis by the National Association of Realtors, and the cost to rent in some markets like New York, Seattle and San Francisco has jumped more than 20 percent.
Renters nationwide can now expect to spend 30 percent of their income on rent, according to a new report from the real estate data firm Zillow, which noted that rental affordability worsened year over year in 28 of the 35 largest metro areas covered by the company.
Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR, attributes rising rents to "supply constraints" in housing and rentals: fewer rentals means higher prices. And millennial renters have been particularly hard hit, as rents are rising faster than income levels in many markets. "It's very demoralizing," he said.
But that doesn't mean you can't get a good deal—even in high-rent cities. Here's how to get the most for your money no matter where you live.
Expand your search. Rent is often highest in the hottest areas of a city. Even moving a couple subway stops or highway exits away can make a big difference in what you'll pay, said Paul Magyar of Mirador Real Estate in New York City.
For example, the average price of a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan was nearly $3,200 (in a nondoorman building) in July, according to the latest rental market report from real estate group MNS. But the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Harlem, an area that is rapidly gentrifying, was $2,145—far less than the city's overall average rent and $700 less per month than the average one-bedroom rent in the neighboring Upper West Side neighborhood. And Harlem is only one or two stops away from midtown Manhattan on an express subway line.
Moving a little further outside a city can also save money. But it's worth factoring in the cost of owning a car and paying for gas if you're considering a suburban rental versus living in a city with good public transportation.
Decide your budget and stick to it. Before you start looking, figure out what you can afford to pay each month. Experts suggest spending no more than 25 to 33 percent of your income on rent. "It's not an investment," said Catherine Seeber, a senior financial advisor at Wescott Financial Advisory Group in Philadelphia. And you want to make sure you have enough money set aside for emergencies and other expenses. (A new Zillow analysis found renters with a high burden—those who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent—have a median savings rate of zero.)
Don't forget incidentals. Be sure to find out what's included in the rent and what's not (like water, heat and laundry). Seeber also recommends making sure your landlord, building superintendent or management company will be easily accessible. Otherwise, if you need an emergency repair, it could end up costing you time—and money, if you pay out of pocket with no guarantee of reimbursement.
Consider a roommate. Splitting the rent with a roommate means you can often afford a nicer apartment than you could on your own. Not only will you save money on rent, but you can split the cost of utilities, Wi-Fi and other bills.
Check the out clause. Find out what's entailed if you or your landlord wants to end the lease early. Not only do you want to know what you might be responsible for if you need to move before your lease ends, but you want to know what to expect if an owner decides to sell the unit or move into it. If that happens, you could end up looking for a new place and paying moving fees before you planned on it, said Brian Morgan a realtor for Citi Habitats in New York City (where you may be on the hook for another broker's fee as well).
You could also consider living in a more reasonably priced city like Detroit, Memphis, Tennessee, or Lexington, Kentucky, where the NAR noted incomes have risen faster than rents. Although the same rules apply there too, of course.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

De Blasio is padding City Hall with jobs for all of his friends

Mayor de Blasio’s patronage mill is churning out junk jobs funded with taxpayer money for longtime pals, campaign grunts and acolytes.
In addition to creating a $150,000 post for Stephanie Yazgi — the longtime girlfriend of his top strategist, Emma Wolfe — de Blasio has created positions to amp up his progressive agenda and national profile and spread propaganda touting his “transcendent” accomplishments.
The city’s television station — led by de Blasio buddy Janet Choi — devotes much of its taxpayer-funded $5.7 million budget to broadcasting his ribbon-cuttings, announcements and features about his friends, including his wedding singer.
His $105,000 digital director, Jessica Singleton, shapes his social-media image while his $69,000 media analyst, Mahen Gunaratna, measures the influence of his messages.
But the bulk of his buddies land jobs at City Hall in the mayor’s Community Affairs Unit.
The CAU traditionally had staffers represent the mayor at community-board and civic-group meetings across the city, reporting back to the administration on neighborhood concerns.
“The CAU has now turned into a four-year organizing arm of the de Blasio campaign,” said a former liaison with the unit.
Stephanie Yazgi, Emma Wolfe, Janet Choi and Jessica Singleton
Photo: Facebook ; Rob Bennett for the Office of Mayor Bill de Blasio (2) ; Assoc. Commissioner at New York City Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment
The unit now employs Pinny Ringel, a $65,000-a-year liaison to the Jewish community and a former Public Advocate’s Office staffer under de Blasio.
Sarah Sayeed is a liaison who specializes in the Muslim community. And Jonathan Soto is senior community liaison to the Clergy Advisory Council, another de Blasio creation.
Kicy Motley, a de Blasio campaign worker who tweeted “F- -k. The. Police.” in 2012, found a home in the CAU office as $55,000-a-year Brooklyn borough director.
And Rebecca Lynch, a Teamsters union lobbyist who backed de Blasio’s campaign, landed a gig as an $85,000-a-year special assistant in the CAU before taking a leave of absence to launch a bid for City Council in Queens.
De Blasio’s politicized CAU failed him in the Legionnaire’s disease outbreak, when there was a disconnect between City Hall and South Bronx community leaders.
“The CAU is supposed to know everything happening in the boroughs in every community,” said political consultant George Arzt. “There should have been briefings on what is going on and what they hear on the ground.”

Monday, August 10, 2015

A Minimum-Wage Bungle in New York

A rally to raise the minimum wage in New York City, July 22.
New York's Fast Food Wage Board, a panel appointed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has recommended increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour from $8.75 for quick-service restaurant businesses with 30 or more locations. The target, according to Mr. Cuomo, is “large, national companies which have been making extraordinary profits” while “underpaying their workers,” who are supported by public-welfare programs such as Medicaid.
But the higher labor costs that the New York state labor commissioner is expected to approve will not hit large companies. That’s because small business owners own and operate all of New York’s Burger King restaurants, and about 95% of its McDonald’srestaurants, as franchisees. These business owners set the compensation for the workers they employ. Burger King and McDonald’s, on the other hand, are paid a percentage (generally a 3% to 5% royalty fee) of the restaurant’s gross sales, regardless of the franchisees’ profits.
There are 7,303 franchised restaurants in New York operating under agreements with 116 brands, and like other restaurant owners, many pay some of their employees the starting wage of $8.75 an hour. Yet the owner of even a single franchised restaurant would automatically have to pay a minimum $15 an hour, simply because of his affiliation with a brand that has more than 30 restaurants nationwide. That’s not fair.
Could these restaurant owners cope with such a huge increase in operating costs by reducing their profits? Quick-service restaurant franchises operate on slim profit margins—on average 2 to 4 cents on the dollar according to an Employment Policies Institute study. And to the extent they make lower profits, these business owners will be less likely to open new restaurants. Restaurateurs who own more than 30 non-franchise quick-service establishments also will be put at a disadvantage with competitors not subject to the higher minimum wage.
To manage increased costs, franchisees instead may be forced to reduce their current staff or reduce their hours. They might even seek to automate some of their processes by implementing kiosks or mobile platforms for ordering food. The result would be fewer job opportunities for unskilled young men and women, who rely on these entry-level jobs to learn important work and life skills and to move up the employment ladder.
What about increasing prices? Certainly, consumers’ willingness to pay more for fast food would help offset the franchisees’ increased labor costs. However, increasing prices may result in losing customers who will seek lower-priced options. Two levels—one for franchises and another for other restaurant owners—will force some franchises to close.
State or local governments that raise the minimum wage across the board will help the lowest-wage workers who manage to keep their jobs. But the solution to the lack of quality jobs is not a massive minimum-wage increase for a subset of one industry, in an attempt to turn low-skilled entry-level jobs into middle-income jobs. The real culprit is six years of ineffective progressive economic policies. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 8.3 million Americans still unemployed and another seven million “marginally” employed, often working two or three part-time jobs to make ends meet. There are more than 550,000 fewer full-time jobs today than there were in December 2007, before the recession began.
The answer to the current drought in jobs with a good salary isn’t another well-intended but misguided government fix. Instead, it is economic growth that will create the kind of jobs that will permanently lift people out of poverty. A vibrant free-enterprise system is the only way to generate that kind of economic growth, not blatantly discriminatory social experiments conceived by union bosses.
Mr. Caldeira is the president and CEO of the International Franchise Association in Washington, D.C.

Bratton is done with this amateur administration

Bratton is done with this amateur administration
Is Bill Bratton eyeing an exit? If so, who can blame him.
Forty-five years a cop, a motive force in Rudy Giuliani’s reclamation of New York City’s streets 20 years ago and a public-safety intellectual with a stellar international reputation, Bratton has been swimming with the minnows for 18 months now — and the exasperation is peeking through.
“I will not be commissioner for [another] six-and-a-half years — that’s the reality,” announced Bratton last month. Clearly, departure is on his mind.
“You can’t arrest your way out of this problem. It requires coordinated effort,” the commissioner said a week ago of disruptive street vagrancy — an obvious fact that seems only recently to have dawned on the folks who inhabit City Hall.
“There are people in our society — criminals . . . bad people. We need to work very hard to put them in jail and keep them there for a long time,” he declared on Thursday — delivering an explicit rebuke to an administration that came to office preaching an unadorned anti-police gospel.
Frustrated much? So it would seem.
After all, murder is up, some city police precincts have become virtual free-fire zones for gang-bangers, aggressive vagrants plague city streets and parks — all of it combining to tarnish the reputation of one of America’s leading public-safety professionals.
Certainly none of Bratton’s thoughts can be endearing him to the Lilliputians now running government in New York City — most notably First Frequent Flier Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.
They may not be saying much — but they wouldn’t be human if they weren’t seething inside.
But never mind them. It’s Bratton who matters.
What’s obvious — and critical — is that the past 18 months has frayed his tolerance for fools. And his exasperation at having to revisit a debate that he — and most New Yorkers — thought had been settled two-plus decades ago is palpable.
It’s all about the social contract.
Outside the administration, hardly anybody disputes that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
So, why is it so hard to understand that your right to an empty bladder gives you no claim on my front stoop?
Or that there is no proper space on public sidewalks and in the parks for the disruptive mentally ill — to say nothing of snake-bite-nasty panhandlers in the game only for the easy cash?
And that, yes indeed, criminals belong behind bars. Period.
So why must New York City even have this discussion? Because some people never learn.
It may be lost on de Blasio, Mark-Viverito and her clown-council colleagues, but New York City solved street disorder a generation ago — and Bratton was present at the creation.
“[We] involved the Health Department, the police, the [public] hospitals and a bunch of others. [We] had a plan to maintain [order],” says a ranking veteran of the era.
Or, again in Bratton’s words: “You can’t arrest your way out of this problem. It requires coordinated effort.”
De Blasio & Co. seem only recently to have tumbled to this, hyperbolically announcing on Thursday a $22 million plan to coordinate mental health services for street people.
“What we are talking about is unprecedented, a culture shift in the way we think about and treat people who suffer from serious mental illness, who are also violent,” said first lady Chirlane McCray — the poet, artist and former speech writer who has pretty much been put in charge of the administration’s mental-health policy.
Maybe that’ll work. Maybe it won’t.
But coordination of services definitely isn’t unprecedented — and success will demand attention to detail and perseverance of a sort that so far has eluded the de Blasio administration.
Amazingly, Mark-Viverito is pulling in the opposite direction, pushing to decriminalize the so-called quality-of-life offenses — public urination, aggressive panhandling, fare-beating — that gives cops the tenuous hold they now have on the streets.
The fact is that de Blasio paid no heed whatsoever to the reemergence of street disorder in the city until this newspaper rubbed his nose in it. And, even now, there is no reason to believe he can or will do anything about it.
But ordinary New Yorkers have noticed — and they have no confidence in the mayor. That much is evidenced by an extraordinary Quinnipiac University poll that last week awarded de Blasio the lowest approval numbers of his mayoralty.
The mayor’s numbers, to put it bluntly, recall the fall from electoral grace of David Dinkins — a one-term mayor who was damned by his perceived indifference to crime and street chaos.
Nobody’s suggesting that things are that bad, not by a long shot.
But New Yorkers are hypersensitive to the issue — and, clearly, they have no appetite for another oblivious mayor.
So far, Bratton’s reputation is more or less intact. Certainly he got a strong thumbs-up in that Q-poll.
But he never has been much of a team player — his departure from the Giuliani administration followed a titanic clash of egos — and there is no reason to believe he’ll willingly take the rap for a feckless Bill de Blasio. Nor should he be expected to.
Who knows whether the mayor understands any of this. But if Bratton does take a hike, nobody who’s been paying attention will be surprised.

Popular Posts