Robert David Sullivan

Lively debate on Boston nightlife typically takes place on Sunday afternoon

The debate over Boston's dull nightlife, and the possibility of improving it, has flared up again in recent weeks. The spark was the launch of the Future Boston Alliance, a group that advocates for a "loosened-up" city; it was unsurprisingly brushed off by the 19-year-old Menino adminstration. (Note to blog followers primarily interested in my Top 100 Sitcom Episodes countdown: This is not off-topic, as the depiction of community-building is one thing that interests me about sitcoms.)

This morning, on the Sunday of a long weekend when just about everyone with the means has fled Boston, the Globe's Dante Ramos weighed with an indictment of the "Boston bar buzz-kill":

Nightlife — the bars, clubs, and restaurants where people hang out after hours — is a major part of the image a city presents to the world, or at least to a crucial sliver of entrepreneurial, highly mobile workers who are prone to comparison-shopping among cities. Yet Boston’s anti-fun image isn’t just bad publicity; it’s written into the law. Happy-hour drink promotions are banned statewide under a Dukakis-era state measure meant to curb drunk driving. Another state law requires bars to obtain a specific license before they allow patrons to dance. Boston’s entertainment license application asks venues to quantify their dartboards and wide-screen TVs. The rules are enforced. At a February concert at the House of Blues, Boston police broke up a mosh pit they deemed insufficiently supervised.

Retail: The Sick Man of Downtown Boston

Matthew Yglesias uses today's new job numbers to further his "end of retail" theme:

According to the BLS, about 2 million more people were working last month than were working a year ago. But we have 10,000 fewer people working in general merchandise stores. We have 20,000 fewer people working in electronics and appliance stores. We have 17,000 fewer people working in "sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores."

In particular, note the loss of 21,000 people working in "department stores," in contrast to a gain of 5,900 working in "health and personal care stores."

I recently wrote about the decline of the downtown department store, as well as the trend of food-and-drink places replacing retail stores in downtown Boston.

Since then, it's been announced that a huge Walgreens drugstore will replace the defunct Borders Books in Downtown Crossing ("health and personal care" padding its lead), and people are salivating over the possibility of a Wegmans supermarket replacing the Filene's Pit (shown at right). You might recall that when Filene's closed in 2006, we were hoping for a Bloomingdale's, Nordstrom, or Target store to breathe life into the area.

If it weren't for cellphone stores, the breadth of new spending opportunities downtown would range all way from hamburgers to antacid.

The Noshing Economy continues to grow

Matthew Yglesias crunches the latest employment numbers and returns to a theme that he and I are fascinated with:

General Merchandise Stores stores got killed with 35,400 job losses while Food Services and Drinking Places added a stellar 40,800 jobs. That's the future of the retail environment if you ask me. Fewer stores, more eating and boozing. Health care (as ever) adds lots of jobs.

I've noted this trend in downtown Boston, both in terms of the growth in eateries and in the disappearance of department stores.

What is Christmas without the department store?

My new article on the downtown department store, and its inevitable decline, is in the Ideas section of the Boston Globe. Here's a taste:

It’s looking like Christmas in Boston’s Downtown Crossing, thanks to the wreaths, the colored lights, and the 60-foot tree at Macy’s, but the holiday decorations can’t hide a ghost at the center of it all: the cheerless facade and huge hole in the ground that used to be Filene’s.

Today, Christmas shopping for most of us means going online or driving out to a mall. But not too long ago, it was a different kind of experience. In Boston, it meant a trip downtown to Filene’s or Jordan Marsh, the department stores that would try to outdo each other in winter-themed window displays and oversized wreaths. It meant riding escalators up and down as you tried to decide between a scarf and a punch bowl for your sister or between a sweater and a camera for your dad.

For a century, department stores — real department stores, the ones built by local families, that dominated city centers and could take up entire blocks — ruled downtowns the way they ruled the holiday season. They felt like part of a city’s infrastructure, as much a part of the urban fabric as the parks and the libraries.

If you're a present or former resident of the Hub, check out Shopping Days in Retro Boston for a fantastic gallery of photos and ads from the Golden Age of department stores (mostly the 1950s).

 

"Progressives" use Tea Party rhetoric against Obama

Nope, I'm not signing this petition:

President Obama: If you cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits for me, my family, or families like mine, don't ask for a penny of my money or an hour of my time in 2012. I'm going to focus on electing bold progressive candidates who will fight to protect our Democratic legacy.

It's from the "Progressive Change Campaign Committee" and it does nothing to challenge the basic premise of the Tea Party, which is that we need to shrink the government to grow the economy. All the petition demands is for Obama to lay off "benefits for me, my family, or families like mine," which is exactly the attitude of the average "keep your government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party. 

The biggest threat to the economy is not potential cuts to entitlement programs for the elderly (still the most powerful demographic group in American politics), it is continued high employment and the fact that about that there are about 500,000 fewer jobs in government than there were when Obama took office. (Chart below from Matthew Yglesias.)

In June, total employment went up by 18,000, but public-sector employment continued to fall, by 39,000.

The worst thing to happen to liberalism/progressivism during the Obama administration has been the rejection of Keynesian economics by the same NPR/MSNBC fans who mock conservatives for refusing to believe in global warming. I'm talking about self-described "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" voters who will speak up against every bit of misinformation about gay marriage, abortion, and anti-obesity programs but will let slide nonsense about the meager Obama stimulus package making the recession worse.

A referesher course from James Fallows:

when tens of millions of people cannot find work because of an overall "failure of demand" -- not enough paychecks going to not enough people who can not make enough payments to create jobs for enough other people -- the main problem facing the nation is not "runaway government spending." Any more than it was when Herbert Hoover tightened up on spending as markets crashed, in the wave of folly that Keynes and Ahamed in their different ways chronicled. A lot has changed since the 1930s, and the 1970s. But not this basic principle.

I'll gladly sign a petition calling for more government spending to save jobs, or one condemning Obama for spreading recession-enabling balderdash like "Government has to start living within its means, just like families do."

But I'm not signing anything that pleads for Medicare, Social Security, public broadcasting, or Planned Parenthood to get sacred cow status while implicitly endorsing the Tea Party position that government spending has to be slashed elsewhere. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is, sadly, just as weak and timid as the Democratic Party.

 

Save Downtown Crossing by turning it into a tourism district with a Fedora Trail

Borders Books is closing its downtown Boston branch (where I've done almost all my Christmas shopping over the past decade), which means more debate over why a growing, prosperous city has such a crummy central shopping district. The Filene's Pit debacle is one reason, of course, but there must be ways to improve the neighborhood around that giant hole on Washington Street, just as Boston should be able to fix up the Government Center area instead of being distracted by the unlikely prospect of tearing down City Hall. (Both places were in my "10 Worst Things About Boston" post.)

Tuesday's Boston Herald has some suggestions from its business writers for turning things around. But I can't imagine a casino being a good thng, despite Frank Quaratiello's argument that it would bring "foot traffic" and fill in storefronts. Don't gambling establishments offer cheap food and drink and do all they can to stop people from leaving? Are people really going to play the slots and then drop $80 for a meal at BIna Osteria or Petit Robert?

Besides, a lack of foot traffic isn't really the problem. There are plenty of pedestrians at all hours of the day, thanks in part to all the workers in the area. Nighttime is a different story, and other Herald writers are correct to urge more housing and round-the-clock activities, though I think the city has already been aiming for that.

My suggestion is cut back on the glitz (which is proliferating nicely in other parts of the city) and turn Downtown Crossing into an historic district.

Libertarian group says Mass. doesn't have big government (but cut it anyway)

The libertarian Mercatus Center says that Massachusetts ranks 46th in "freedom," thanks to such oppressive measures as motorcycle helmet laws and high cigarette taxes, but it doesn't exactly buy into the "Taxachusetts" slur: "Tax rates remain about average, and the government payroll is remarkably small."

So what's so bad about the Bay State? "The biggest fiscal problem for Massachusetts is debt, which equals more than a quarter of personal income."

Hmm. If the state's debt is our biggest problem and our tax rates aren't unusually high, why not raise taxes (perhaps on gasoline) to help retire our debt? That's unthinkable for a libertarian, so Mercatus has an alternative solution: "Reduce state grants to local school districts to encourage better use of funds. Use savings to retire state debt."

Of course, state aid to local school districts is targeted to poorer cities that don't have much of a tax base, so Mercatus is essentially saying we should reduce the state debt by firing teachers in Lawrence and Springfield.

Why not say that any school district that depends on money from the state must lower its legal dropout age to 12? Think of all the savings — and freedom! — to be gained!

When going into debt is common sense

Matt is frustrated by the "common sense" idea of cutting back government spending precisely when we need the government to stimulate the economy:

If it defies common sense to borrow money, then what’s the deal with all these mortgages people have on their homes? Why are young people encouraged to take out student loans and attend college instead of working at Taco Bell? And when you’re in a thrifty frame of mind and accumulating net savings, what’s that for? Presumably it’s because you think there are moments (bad luck, hard times, promising investment opportunity) when a bit of dissaving is the right strategy. New business startups are commonly financed with credit card debt.

He's right, but common sense enthusiasts can always justify their own debt on the basis of fairness. It's not fair that I can't live in a house as nice as my brother-in-law's just because my parents couldn't afford to give me one. It's not fair that I can't start my own business just because I didn't win the lottery. And it's not fair that I can't go to college just because that teacher who hates me for no reason didn't recommend me for a scholarship. People never see their own debt as risky or as the result of wasteful spending, but they often dismiss government debt as unnecessary. (Or even threatening. If I'm taking out loans to avoid a career at Taco Bell, why should the government help other people avoid careers at Taco Bell?)

It doesn't help that few politicians are able or willing to articulate the long-range benefits of deficit spending. Or that the media reinforces the popular view that individuals going into debt (not you, the people on the other side of town) caused the Great Recession.

"Big spending" and the deficit, cellphone cancer, and The Rockford Files

•Ezra Klein makes a good point about how difficult it is to dissuade voters of the ridiculous notion that the government should be run like a household, which leads to cutting back spending precisely when the economy needs it the most: "People ... have looked at the increase in the deficit and assumed it was the product primarily of new spending, as most people’s incomes don’t fluctuate very much and so big debts tend to imply big expenses."

That's true. In Massachusetts, a huge deficit opened up a few years ago because of a sudden drop in taxable capital gains income. But it was pretty much futile to explain that to most people, who thought the budget mess had to be because of a huge increase in state spending.

•Sunday's New York Times Magazine has a long piece by Columbia University professor Siddhartha Mukherjee, who gently and patiently tries to debunk the idea that cellphones cause brain cancer. (For one thing, the incidence of brain cancer hasn't risen with cellphone use.) But it's unlikely that anyone with a strong opinion on the subject will change his or her mind. Boing Boing's Glenn Fleishman explains why:

Mukherjee's article is intended to make a larger point: that there is a reasonable desire to want to find a true cause for an inexplicable illness or impairment, whether it's autism in your child or cancer in your partner's brain. We reach out for what we think are causative effects, whether or not the research ultimately backs this up.

•The AV Club's "Very Special Episode" feature has a nice appreciation of one of my favorite shows from childhood, The Rockford Files, though it concentrates on a rather atypical installment of the series. In retrospect, it's almost unbelievable that star James Garner didn't go insane during the production of Rockford; he's in almost every scene (no CSI-type team of sleuths), he gets beat up regularly, and he gives a nuanced performance at a time when most crime dramas had lead-weight leads. (Barnaby Jones, anyone?)

•Boing Boing reports that "shrooms" work by restricting blood flow to your brain. Caffeine also restricts blood flow, but I think it was a lack of caffeine that caused me to misread the headline as "Sitcoms limit brain blood flow and connections." If that were true, of course, I would have been dead at age 12.

•Andrew Sullivan hears from readers who find it difficult to accept Fung Wah buses as an acceptable substitute for high-speed trains.

Does this mean I shouldn't wear a ski mask in my FOXNews.com ad?

On the Big Think, Marina Adshade gives some economic advice to aspiring rentboys. Don't hide behind your dick:

Male sex workers signal that they are not misrepresenting themselves by including face pictures in online advertisements. The premium paid to a worker with a face picture compared to one with no face pictures, and perhaps only nude body shots, is 20%. At an average price of $200 per customer, this premium is approximate $40, so that a worker with face pictures who sees an average of 20 clients a month will earn $10,000 more per year than one without  face pictures. ...

How do face pictures solve the adverse selection problem? When a client first meets a sex worker who has posted face pictures he can immediately tell if the worker has accurately represented himself. [If not,] this gives the client the opportunity to reduce his losses since it would be obvious that worker is not honest.

Duly noted! As for you clients out there, remember the words of Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify.

Don't trust small businesses

The Atlantic's Daniel Akst, inspired by new safety regulations on children's toys, finds a variant of winner-take-all economic theory:

People are horrified to discover the dangers of some sensitive product--say, milk--and government reacts with legislation. But that legislation requires new equipment, testing and procedures. The result, often, is rapid consolidation into a handful of much bigger providers. It's just very difficult to bear the burden of expensive new requirements unless you happen to be doing a great deal of business. 

Hyper-cautious laws do seem to be a serious burden on small business, not to mention students trying to raise a little cash. From the New York Times last year:

The old-fashioned school bake sale, once as American as apple pie, is fast becoming obsolete in California, a result of strict new state nutrition standards for public schools that regulate the types of food that can be sold to students. The guidelines were passed by lawmakers in 2005 and took effect in July 2007. They require that snacks sold during the school day contain no more than 35 percent sugar by weight and derive no more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and no more than 10 percent of their calories from saturated fat.

Even a big-government liberal like me would like to see the pendulum swing back on this stuff.

Spend shift: Shelter has replaced food as our biggest household budget buster

In the new issue of CommonWealth, I look at how spending habits have changed over the past century. The full article is here. Below is an excerpt:

A long line at JP Licks is an inconvenience, but it may also signal a turning point in Boston’s spending habits. While the rest of the country spends less and less on food, we’ve started a reverse trend, devoting more of our paychecks to eating in and dining out—which may explain the recent proliferation of high-end restaurants, Whole Foods supermarkets, and premium ice-cream shops in the area.

But across America, and even in Boston until quite recently, the percentage of an average household’s income spent on food has steadily declined. This trend reflects “improved living standards,” according to the authors of a recent report from the US Department of Labor, titled 100 Years of US Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City, and Boston. The report is generally as dry as toast, but it is full of tidbits that demonstrate how much the Hub has changed over the years, and how it was, and is, different than the rest of the nation.

Take, for example, my favorite sentence in the 71-page report, referring to present-day spending habits: “In buying groceries, New Yorkers allocated more for meat, poultry, fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables, cereal, and baked goods than did Bostonians, who spent more on…dairy products.” (Ellipses added because the US Department of Labor would never pause for comic effect.) In other words, we’re pigs when it comes to ice cream. We even insist on turning clam chowder into a dairy product.