Showing posts with label millionaires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label millionaires. Show all posts

Sunday, 24 April 2016

Millionaire migration...

****

When we think of people moving, we tend to focus on the traditional sort of economic migration or the terrible consequences of war, oppression and terror. There's another collection of mobile people who don't get talked about - millionaires.

In a fascinating article for New Geography, Joel Kotkin looks at where there millionaires are moving to and from. And he starts by reminding us how important the spending power of the rich people is to many urban economies:

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested that today a successful city must be primarily “a luxury product,” a place that focuses on the very wealthy whose surplus can underwrite the rest of the population. “If we can find a bunch of billionaires around the world to move here, that would be a godsend,” Bloomberg, himself a multi-billionaire, said toward the end of his final term. “Because that’s where the revenue comes to take care of everybody else.”

You don't have to be comfortable with this dependency on the very rich to understand the realpolitik of Bloomberg's observation. And Mayor Mike knew it is an issue because the very rich aren't moving to places like New York, nor are they moving to London:

The biggest winners are not the elite global cities, like New York or London, but ones that are comfortable, and boast pretty settings and world-class amenities. The leading millionaire magnets in 2015 were Sydney and Melbourne, gaining 4,000 and 3,000 millionaires, respectively, many from China. In third place is Tel Aviv, a burgeoning high-tech center which is attracting Jews fleeing Europe, notably from France.

Dubai ranks fourth, luring many Middle Easterners seeking a safer, cleaner business locale. Then comes a series of some of the most attractive cities on the planet, including Seattle (seventh) and Perth (eighth). In many cases these cities are gaining from “flight capital” from Asia and the Middle East.

Kotkin observes that the migration of millionaires seems driven by two factors - the safety of money and the safety of the millionaire. As a result millionaires leave Russia and China where property rights are weak and leave France because they don't feel safe (the big French exodus is of Jews and it's striking that they feel safer in Tel Aviv than they do in Paris).

Countries and cities need to worry about the exodus of millionaires - here's the impact of just one individual switching US states:

The movement for example of one billionaire — hedge fund manager David Tepper — from New Jersey to Florida could leave the Garden State with a $140 million hole just from his change of address. Overall New Jersey depends for 40 percent of its revenue of income taxes, one-third of which is paid by the top 1 percent of the population.

And the two top destinations for millionaires? The USA and Australia.

.....

Saturday, 15 February 2014

Why football is better for its millionaire players

****

Tom Finney was a great player. I have this on good authority - Stanley Matthews, Matt Busby, Bobby Charlton, Booby Moore all said so. Who am I to argue.

And it was a different age, the grounds were packed, crammed to the rafters with fans of all ages. But the players, for all that we described them as heroes, were treated like corporate chattels:

On a pre-War summer tour with England against Italy, Austria and Switzerland, he was made an astonishing offer by Prince Roberto Lanza di Trabia, millionaire president of Palermo in Sicily, a then astonishing £130 a month, a villa by the shore, a Ferrari, flights for his family whenever wished, and a £10,000 signing-on fee.

With the retain-and-transfer slavery employment of the Football League, by which a player could never leave without his club’s approval, Finney could do no more than quietly make his way home. To the end of his days, he would smile quietly about the memory. 

Because Preston North End wouldn't let Tom Finney go his wages - the maximum wage - were just £20 a week. And there was nothing he, or any other player, could do about this, the clubs - private businesses - were profitable, taking the money from millions through the turnstiles but living under the football league's rules meant they could keep that money. The people who brought the fans in their thousands every Saturday afternoon - Finney, Mortenson, Matthews and so on - they didn't get to see that cash.

Today the biggest chunk of the money the fans pay to watch football goes to pay the wages of the players not the dividends of the clubs' owners. "They're not worth it", we say. "Whatever happened to the working class game" we exclaim. And we are wrong. The game is better for player power, better for so much of the money going to the men who make the product, who provide such glorious entertainment for us and who are the focus of childhood dreams and adult passion.

Football is a better game for its millionaire players.

....

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Subsidising millionaires - another reason regeneration fails to make change

****

...and yes it's Detroit again. Learning the lessons that ruined the city, ignoring them and returning to the same old model and the same old mess:

Just a week after the city declared bankruptcy, a state board approved a $450 million bond issue for a new Red Wings hockey arena near downtown. To help finance it, Detroit would pay $284.5 million in subsidies and an additional $12.8 million annually on bond interest. In return, Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch, who also owns the Detroit Tigers, MotorCity Casino Hotel, and Little Caeser’s pizza, would chip in $365.5 million for the arena and several mixed-use projects. The new complex would represent an upgrade from the dated Joe Louis Arena, where the Red Wings play now, and—boosters say—would potentially revitalize the Midtown area, which is already gentrifying somewhat. The Detroit Development Authority would fund and operate the arena with downtown property taxes. In other words, revenue traditionally used for schools and basic services would instead subsidize a billionaire.

As ever with these projects - and regeneration is riddled with them - the initial impact seems good. A new grand shiny stadium, theatre or concert arena springs up amidst the dereliction promising a new world of prosperity, wealth and success.

But then nothing happens, nothing changes. Except we've subsidised the grand project of a millionaire, provided contract opportunities for than millionaire's friends and raised false hopes in the hearts of suffering local people. And - even if the millionaires haven't stuffed their pockets - we've thrown a load of tax money at another grand and failing project.

In Detroit's case we know the story (as Scott Beyer describes):

The publicly operated Cobo Convention Center opened in 1960 and began losing money immediately, running annual deficits reaching tens of millions. In 1977, the Ford Motor Company financed the gargantuan, $350 million Renaissance Center; two decades later, Ford sold the complex for just $76 million to rival GM. The city connected the two facilities in 1987 with a much-ridiculed, $200 million People Mover. The monorail never came close to covering its upfront costs and still operates with annual losses around $10 million, while doing basically nothing to address transportation needs. Detroit continued to wield its eminent domain power, with attempted or successful takings to accommodate the city’s two remaining auto plants, a private bridge, a business park, a major housing complex, a waterfront casino district, and two relatively new stadiums—Comerica Park and Ford Field.

And did it work? Does shiny regeneration ever work? I don't think so. But we persist (and not just in Detroit) with vast schemes and programmes, subsidising large organisations and wealthy men to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.

....
Now the government is seriously underway with the £1bn HCA Build to Rent Fund: we in UKR are proud to be at the final stages of Round One of this programme, together with 44 other organisations, all pioneers in their own way: some house builders, some RPs (registered providers or, in English, Housing Associations) and some new entrants to the market (UKR included). - See more at: http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/jackie-sadek/2013/08/the-prs-debate-finally-gathers-momentum/#sthash.qz8tpW5j.dpuf
Now the government is seriously underway with the £1bn HCA Build to Rent Fund: we in UKR are proud to be at the final stages of Round One of this programme, together with 44 other organisations, all pioneers in their own way: some house builders, some RPs (registered providers or, in English, Housing Associations) and some new entrants to the market (UKR included). - See more at: http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/jackie-sadek/2013/08/the-prs-debate-finally-gathers-momentum/#sthash.qz8tpW5j.dpuf
Now the government is seriously underway with the £1bn HCA Build to Rent Fund: we in UKR are proud to be at the final stages of Round One of this programme, together with 44 other organisations, all pioneers in their own way: some house builders, some RPs (registered providers or, in English, Housing Associations) and some new entrants to the market (UKR included). - See more at: http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/jackie-sadek/2013/08/the-prs-debate-finally-gathers-momentum/#sthash.qz8tpW5j.dpuf

Now the government is seriously underway with the £1bn HCA Build to Rent Fund: we in UKR are proud to be at the final stages of Round One of this programme, together with 44 other organisations, all pioneers in their own way: some house builders, some RPs (registered providers or, in English, Housing Associations) and some new entrants to the market (UKR included). - See more at: http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/jackie-sadek/2013/08/the-prs-debate-finally-gathers-momentum/#sthash.qz8tpW5j.dpuf