
As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind - aaronarduino
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-nashville-insight/as-superstar-cities-thrive-poorer-ones-get-left-behind-idUSKCN1UE13B
======
throwaway5752
Don't forget cities that have influxes of young population so have increasing
tax receipts but much lower legacy costs (retirees, infrastructure
maintenance, stable growth rate education costs per capita). Most of those
cities will mismanage the growth and 20-40 years from now you'll be reading
about Nashville and how it was gutted when the software jobs dried up. These
come in cycles and cities that have some sort of reason to exist (natural
ports/harbors, river confluences, trade points, etc) will continue to exist
and most of the rest will not.

~~~
nostrademons
A lot of those geographic reasons to exist will probably cease to exist in the
next 50 years, as global warming opens up new shipping lines, makes previously
verdant areas uninhabitable, makes uninhabitable deserts verdant, changes
ocean currents, remakes national borders, and prompts large & powerful cities
to divert rivers away from weaker and wetter ones. Containerization already
led to large shifts in the fortunes of some port cities, and that was just a
technological development that encouraged deepwater ports. Imagine if the sea
lanes themselves change.

I can see Northern Canada becoming an enormous boom area in 50 years, with the
opening of the Northwest Passage for Asia <=> Europe trade, the need for
resupply cities along that sea route, and the melting of the permafrost
opening up parts of the tundra to agriculture or tar sands mining. Meanwhile,
Florida and New Orleans may be underwater.

~~~
futureastronaut
> makes uninhabitable deserts verdant

Is that likely? I wasn't aware of any predicted reversal of desertification.
It may render some tundra provinces verdant however.

~~~
nostrademons
The Sahara's greening:

[https://www.independent.com/2019/01/10/greening-
sahara/](https://www.independent.com/2019/01/10/greening-sahara/)

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170608073356.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170608073356.htm)

[https://www.thedailybeast.com/climate-change-is-making-
deser...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/climate-change-is-making-deserts-
greener?ref=home)

Apparently the Kalahari is too.

~~~
futureastronaut
That's cherry-picking though. The Gobi desert is expanding very quickly, as is
the Sahara into Sudan. The Chihuaha desert also is expanding in Texas, I'm
sure there are many other examples. Maybe deserts will in general become
greener, but for human aspirations they still seem to be deserts. The greening
is problematic because it raises dew points and makes theses areas less
habitable for humans.

------
nostrademons
Perez's _Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital_ makes the point that
when a technological revolution occurs, gains are frequently concentrated in a
small number of locales that are the first to adopt the new technology and
adapt their local industries to the new structure of the economy. This results
in significant economic (short term), military (medium term), and geopolitical
(long term) power. The changing power balance usually sparks a war and a
realignment of the global order.

In the industrial revolutions of the 19th and early 20th centuries, though,
nation states usually adopted the new technologies en masse, with the whole
nation sharing in the gains. So you had rising nations like Britain, America,
Prussia, and Japan which could challenge declining empires like Austria-
Hungary, Russia, China, and the Ottomans.

This technological revolution is different, because you have specific _parts_
of nations that are adapting to the new technologies and thriving, while other
parts get left behind and see the power they had wilt away. There's relatively
little historical precedent for this; the only ones I can think of might be
the decline of the Roman empire (where the Eastern Mediterranean remained up-
to-date and civilized, while the Northern European hinterlands disintegrated
and broke up) and the American Civil War (where the industrial North conquered
the agrarian South). And this pattern isn't just U.S-based: China also has a
dramatic disparity in wealth & power between coastal cities and the inland
hinterland, as well as one between the high-tech South (centered around
Shenzhen and the Pearl River Delta) and more politically powerful North
(around Beijing).

I don't know exactly what it means, but I don't think it bodes well for either
of the major global superpowers.

~~~
meesles
Fundamentally, fragmentation. I think the Civil War is a relevant example,
honestly. What happens when the disparity between the Silicon Valley elite and
the Iowa cattle farmers becomes too much for one side to bear? What's weird
this time is the technocrats are pretty spread out on the coasts, and then you
have cities like Denver right in the middle. It will be a bit more nuanced
than "North vs. South" next time.

Personally, I'd keep an eye out for easy scapegoats like immigration and other
cultural issues to spark conflict. I'd also pay attention to economic churn
rather than physical conflict. I have a hard time imagining our apathetic
population going to war with each other in our day and age, but I can easily
picture technology folks blacklisting 'undesirable' customers and blocking
access to services, and rural folks putting obstacles in place for access to
natural resources they largely control.

~~~
hash872
>I have a hard time imagining our apathetic population going to war with each
other in our day and age

I don't think our population is that apathetic, and I don't think a return to
60s & 70s levels of political violence is really that farfetched. It's what
was normal just one generation ago! Small scale groups could conduct random
bombings, lone wolf types can carry out assassinations, etc.- this was my
parents' generation in a nutshell.

The US has political radicalism (including but not limited to religious
fanatics), a violent population relative to other developed countries,
obviously lots of weapons (over 300 million firearms!), a very high level of
military training/combat experience/institutional military knowledge from 80+
years of wars, loosely organized 'militia' groups, tons and tons of rural
areas to hide in, a sympathetic population in those rural areas, etc. We
literally check every single box that countries with insurgencies check. I
expect a return to small-scale political violence in my lifetime (with gun
control, not immigrants, as the flashpoint). Look at a group like Oath Keepers
as a great example of who's potentially the most dangerous.

Honestly, my biggest fear are not insurgents but far right-leaning police &
military personnel. That's how countries move from insurgencies into coups

------
hpoe
So if I understand the article correctly the cities that succeeded were the
ones that allowed for new industries and businesses to flourish whereas the
ones lagging are ones that were built on traditional manufacturing industries
that have since dried up in the face of foreign competition and automation.

Am I missing something? That seems pretty obvious to me that the industries
that wouldn't recover jobs from a recession are the ones already on their way
out and the ones that would thrive are the ones that were starting to emerge
during the same time period.

------
RosanaAnaDana
This probably gonna get me killed but I've got to put it out there.

I was _so_ disappointed by the food and music scene in Nashville. Literally
every restaurant was some trendy clone of some vaguely hipster cracker barrel
(one exception). The music I could find (with one exception) was just sad
cover bands doing the same Counting Crows covers over and over again.

Redeeming restaurant: Princes hot chicken. Got that shit at a XXX and it
melted my face. Wonderful.

Redeeming venue: High Watt/ Mercy lounge. I don't remember who I saw but it
was great.

If you know better places to eat/ find good up-and-coming music in Nashville,
please let me know. I want it to live up to what I think it could be.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
Culture counts.

This is probably gonna get me killed, but I would have qualms with starting or
moving a business to a city where reproductive rights are under continual
attack. The situation is inhumane.

~~~
moate
Part of the problem with places like Alabama getting left in the dust is
opinions voiced by elected officials in Alabama.

There's literally nothing that would motivate me to move to a place like that
despite extremely low cost of living.

~~~
mud_dauber
I second this opinion.

------
fintechpwmMEdev
It would be interesting to find out how much debt these "superstar" cities
have taken on and the structure of their "portfolio"s. Almost all revenue
generation done by local municipalities is through property taxes so it's very
important to evaluate these places by some sort of Sharpe Ratio or else you're
just encouraging these places to be the next Detroit.

~~~
bilbo0s
True, but not all of them will fail. A New York, or Boston, or San Fran for
instance are in a much different position than, say, a Nashville.

But you're right, it's more than just what you see on the surface. No question
about that.

------
raiyu
Basically a summary:

1\. Focuses mostly on Nashville

1\. Cities that have a young urban population with job creation that isn't
tied to old industries are thriving.

2\. Nashville has no State Income tax, and most cities and states that have no
State Income tax are doing well as remote work takes over and tech workers
relocate to take advantage.

3\. Mention building a convention center for $600MM but no real numbers on
what that had to do with the cities expansion. Uncorrelated at best.

4\. One major change was the overhaul in zoning regulations that allowed
developers to build vertically to accommodate a growing population. Perhaps an
parallel to what is happening in San Francisco.

\----

Summary: The economic turnaround from the recession has unevenly favored
cities that are tied to non failing industries in decline. Seems pretty
obvious.

~~~
cwp
Alas, an overhaul in zoning regulations is decidedly not happening in San
Francisco.

------
futureastronaut
That map is confusing, regions are colored grey that are clearly in the top 20
MSA, like the entire urbanized northeast. Also the article's mostly about
Nashville, not its title.

~~~
jefftk
_> regions are colored grey that are clearly in the top 20 MSA, like the
entire urbanized northeast_

It's not the 20 MSAs with the most jobs, it's the 20 MSAs with the most job
growth, as a percentage, since 1990.

~~~
moate
This seems to be the problem people have with the thesis. If you're defining
"superstars" as "cities that got highest% bigger since date X" and not "The
Biggest Cities" your point and overall concept seem weaker.

From the article>>"...40% of the new jobs generated during that time went to
the top 20 places, along with a similar share of the additional wages. Those
cities represent only about a quarter of the country’s population and are
concentrated in the fast-growing southern and coastal states. None were in the
northeast, and only two were in the “rust belt” interior - Grand Rapids,
Michigan, and a rebounding Detroit."

New York City is the capital of Norther American commerce and because of that
it really can't expand the way that <mid-tier former manufacturing city
anywhere else in the country> can, which weakens the overall point about "slow
growth" or "getting left behind". Growth doesn't mean the same thing
everywhere.

------
taiwanboy
There are a few dynamics at play here

1.) even with some declining cities, US cities are still some of the most
powerful in the world. According to [https://howmuch.net/articles/the-
economic-size-of-metro-area...](https://howmuch.net/articles/the-economic-
size-of-metro-areas-compared-to-countries) (2017) Bay Area economy is as large
as the entire country of Nigeria, NY area is as largest as Canada, LA is as
big as turkey! Even Portland is as big as Qatar! And with the global slowdown
in 2018 and 2019, while US is the sole bright spot, the dominance will only be
magnified.

2.) demographics is now shifting to where gen z is the biggest generation now.
In 5-10 years they will be establishing families and moving to less crowded
suburbs and smaller cities. Which means the mega cities will lose some growth
and the secondary cities will gain.

------
maximente
odd title, the word 'superstar' is used once outside of the title by an MIT
economist proposing federal subsidies for cities/towns with research
universities.

no mention of NYC, Boston, nor do they appear on the infographic.

so it seems so called superstar cities aren't really defined as i would expect
them to be.

~~~
mbell
> no mention of NYC, Boston, nor do they appear on the infographic.

Yea, the metric used here is rather convoluted, it's ranking cities by how
much their share of total national employment increased. This is going to
favor cities that experienced population growth and discount cities that are
long since 'at capacity' like NY / Boston.

------
fzeroracer
This ties nicely with another HN post just a few days ago [1] where a person
heavily involved in civil engineering talks about why he moved away from the
free market view of city growth.

You have a bunch of struggling cities without any funding for basic services,
that spend massive amounts in attempt to attract businesses without a way to
recoup losses. Which causes a sort of nasty cycle where people move towards
cities which have more resources.

Since the word 'taxes' is essentially a forbidden word, the only option is for
these cities to receive federal assistance. Or else get left behind even
further.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20460509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20460509)

------
baybal2
I don't see anything special to US in that phenomenon. I'd even say that US is
notably better than most of the world in keeping its 2nd tier cities alive
economically.

Most of Asia had that problem for decades, where only 1st tier cities had
market for jobs above the "better than nothing" level.

It is either USA becoming more like Asia here, after few decades lag, or it is
American second tier cities actually sliding back.

~~~
dredmorbius
The mechanism isn't US-specific.

The analysis is.

------
sbierwagen
>But interviews with entrepreneurs and officials in Nashville point to a mix
of factors behind its success, including some that were out of the city’s
control, such as the state’s lack of an income tax, and others associated with
its unique local assets.

NYC and SF, both big tech hubs, both have income taxes.

~~~
jmastrangelo
NYC and SF both have tremendous advantages that Nashville doesn't, Nashville
needs to compete.

I don't know if NYC and SF are examples of good governance, or examples that
show great cities can support lots of poor governance as long as they retain
the things that make them great.

------
digitaltrees
Nashville advert!

