Economic and political characteristics of cities
| Seattle | Los Angeles | New York | |
|---|---|---|---|
| City population (2019 ACS) | 753,655 | 3,979,537 | 8,336,817 |
| City population change (2010–2019) | 0.234 | 4.8% | 0.019 |
| Median household income (2019 ACS) | $102,486 | $67,418 | $69,407 |
| Median household income change (2010–2019) | 0.702 | 0.433 | 0.424 |
| Foreign-born share of population and workforce | Population: 17.6% (2018) Workforce: 17.9% (2015) |
Population: 36% (2020) Workforce: 44% (2020) |
Population: 37% (2020) Workforce: 45% (2020) |
| Size of city economy (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019) | 10th largest metro economy in US ($424.8 billion GDP) | 2nd largest metro economy in US ($1.09 trillion GDP) | Largest metro economy in US ($1.86 trillion GDP) |
| Change in GDP (2010–2019) | 0.77 | 0.49 | 0.45 |
| Economic trajectory of city (brief) | Regional hub of the Pacific Northwest, international trade port with Asia; significant downturns in manufacturing employment in the 60s/70s, severe economic recession in the 80s/90s, bursting of the tech bubble in the early 00s; now important hub of the knowledge economy in US | Formerly leading agricultural producer; now international hub for entertainment and tourism; America’s trade gateway to Pacific Rim through the Port of Los Angeles; an emerging center for the tech and advanced manufacturing sectors | Economic crisis in 1970s; now largest metropolitan economy in the US; a global center of finance, tourism, and entertainment; and home to largest port on the East Coast |
| Major industries | Technology; startups; manufacturing; trade; restaurants; health care; life sciences and global health; clean technology; creative economy | Tourism and hospitality; entertainment; manufacturing; technology; international trade; wholesale trade and logistics; professional and business services | Finance; entertainment and tourism; professional and business services; technology; retail trade; food service; health care; education; apparel manufacturing |
| Major companies headquartered in city | Amazon; Starbucks; Nordstrom; Expedia Group; Alaska Air Group; Expeditors Intl. of Washington; Weyerhaeuser | CBRE Group; AECOM; Reliance Steel & Aluminum | JPMorgan Chase; Verizon; Citigroup; Metlife; Goldman Sachs; Morgan Stanley; Pfizer; etc. |
| Type of city (Brookings/JPMorgan Chase) | Knowledge capital–highly productive innovation center with a talented workforce and elite research institutions | Global giants–Extremely large metro areas that “serve as key nodes in global capital and talent flows” | |
| Current campaign finance rules (summary) | -No person–including individuals and most organizations–may contribute more than $550 to any candidate; lower limit of $300 + $100 in democracy vouchers (DV) for city council/attorney candidates participating in DV program -Total primary/general election fundraising limit of $150,000 (city council district), $300,000 (city council at-large/city attorney), and $800,000 (mayor) for candidates participating in DV program -Few restrictions on independent expenditures |
-No person–including individuals and most organizations–may contribute more than $1,500 to mayor/city attorney/controller or $800 to city council candidates -For those participating in matching funds (MF) program, qualified contributions matched by the City at 6:1 rate (up to $114 for city council and $214 for citywide candidates matched per contributor); Total primary/general election expenditure limit of $1 million for city council, $2.3 million for city controller, $2.7 million for city attorney, and $6 million for mayoral candidates; Maximum personal funds of $148,100 for citywide, $37,000 for city council candidates -Few restrictions on independent expenditures |
For candidates participating in matching funds (MF) program, no individual may contribute more than $2,000 to mayor/public advocate/comptroller or $1,000 to city council candidates (higher limits for those not participating in MF program) -Lower contribution limits for individuals that have business dealings with the city -All candidates prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations/LLCs/partnerships -MF program matches each dollar from NYC residents at 8:1 rate (up to $175 for borough president/city council candidates and $250 for mayor/public advocate/comptroller candidates matched per contributor) -Total primary/general election spending limits of $380,000 for city council; $3.3 million for borough president; $9.1 million for public advocate/comptroller; and $14.6 million for mayoral candidates -No limits on independent spending |
| Dates of revision to campaign finance rules (select) | -Laws regulating campaign finance since as far back as 1971 -2015: Seattle voters pass citizen-led initiative known as the “Honest Elections Seattle Initiative” that, among other things: Reduces the individual contribution limit of $500 (with opportunities for later adjustments); limits contributions from city contractors and paid city lobbyists; and creates a democracy voucher program giving each participating Seattle voter $100 in vouchers to contribute to political campaigns each election year |
-Limits on campaign contributions in Los Angeles have been in place for almost four decades, and have been substantially strengthened over time -1990: Ethics Commission established/voluntary public matching funds program created -2012: Campaign Finance Ordinance ammendments limit per-person contributions to $700 for city council and $1,300 for citywide candidates, indexed to the regional CPI for subsequent election years |
-Individual campaign contributions have been limited since 1988, and are monitored by the New York city Campaign Finance Board (CFB) -1998: Contribution limits are reduced, ban placed on corporate contributions, matcing fund rate increased -2012: CFB mandates that all independent expenditures are disclosed with the city (expanded in 2014) 2018: Individual campaign contribution limits dropped to $1,000-$2,000 depending on race, matching rate increased from 6:1 to 8:1 |
| Amount of independent expenditures | 2013: $556,385 2017: $1.3 million 2019: $4.4 million (Includes mayor, city attorney, city council, ballot issue and independent expenditure campaigns) |
2013: $14.4 million 2017: $2.5 million (Includes mayor, city attorney, city controller, and city council elections) |
2013: $16 million 2017: $1.5 million (Includes mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council elections) |
| Comparison of independent expenditures from labor vs. business | Labor had an edge in independent expenditures in 2013 but business had an edge in both 2017 and 2019 | Labor clearly contributed more through independent spending than business in 2013, less clear for 2017 | Evenly split between labor and business |
| City revenues | All have per capita revenue above the median for US cities over time, which has more or less doubled over the forty-year period between 1977–2017. Revenue per capita for New York appears to be considerably higher than Seattle or Los Angeles every year with the exception of 2009. | ||
| Form of government | Mayor/city council | ||
| Mayoral power | Strong executive; proposes budget, signs legislation, appoints department directors, oversees day-to-day operations | Formally a strong mayor-council system, but mayor is relatively weak, has much less authority than most big city mayors; mayor’s office officially tasked with oversight of enforcement but some city council involvement | Strong; highly centralized structure similar to that of the federal government; mayor exerts strong control over enforcement |
| City council power | Strong; adopts city budget, approves mayoral appointees, levies taxes, makes and amends ordinances; 9 members (7 by district, 2 at large since 2015) | Strong, particularly council speaker; city council orders elections, levies taxes, authorizes public improvements, approves contracts, and adopts traffic regulations; 15 members from 15 council districts | Much larger than in other two cities with 51 council members; career bureaucrats who staff the city council exert control over the legislative process |
| Other important government institutions | Strong culture of stakeholder participation through advisory councils; tradition of establishing tripartite committees on controversial issues, where representatives are expected to work through their differences and put forward a unified proposal to the mayor and city council | City Attorney has provided very legally conservative advice to the enforcement office regarding Legally conservative and strongly involved City Attorneys; LA City Administrative Officer (during this period, Miguel Santana, widely respected and viewed as a highly effective and non-political technocrat, supported economic arguments for MW and supported their proposal around administration and enforcement)implementation | Recent NYC government reforms mean labor standards cases in need of an administrative hearing are sent to the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), which has proved a roadblock for effective enforcement because of legally conservative rulings |
| Other key facts | Most of key players on all sides are socially liberal, support the City’s antipoverty, environmental, LGBTQ and other non-profits |
Importance of compromise, working to accommodate “reasonable requests” in political culture | |