BULLISH IN NEW YORK CITY

            New York City transcends as the essence of capitalism; manifesting free-markets and privatization, this city has encompassed the business ideology that our nation shares and many envy. Despite the appeal and success of capitalism, New York City has also the greatest wealth disparity in the country. Does this imply success is only feasible to some? Or is it inherent in the structure of capitalism? Whatever the case, the New York City economy has flourished in privatization and has exampled how the wealthy cannot exist without the poor.

When people think of the opportunities for success in the United States they might think of one place in particular. Historically, New York City has attracted the larger portion of those who seek the American dream. With a dense population and a seeming abundance of jobs, many immigrants have sought to become New Yorkers to seek economic prosperity and thus fulfill American Dream. Nevertheless, prosperity is never easily achieved, and like in any capitalist economy, it entails the division of classes. Karl Marx might argue that the lower class is arbitrarily disadvantaged. However, success can result out of many things and in New York City, ambitious individuals often transcend the disadvantages that are inherent to capitalism, while others do not.

New York City’s legacy as a source of economic opportunity began with an establishment that sought to serve as the gateway for immigration into the country. Located in New York Harbor, Ellis Island served, during it’s time in operation, as the entryway for twelve million immigrants coming from all regions of the world. This immediately set the stage for New York City’s rich cultural history those who entered through Ellis Island sought to become a part of the flourishing United States economy. However, the city is not immune to the arbitrary laws of capitalism, which requires the division of class and therefore induces the overall wealth disparity.
            The inherent flaws of capitalism are greatly evident in New York City, where the wealth disparity is the greatest in the country. Approximately, 1.5 million New Yorkers live below the poverty line, one-fifth of the entire city’s population (Blodget). This drastic spread between the rich and the poor is inherent to the function of capitalism. If everyone were either rich or poor society wouldn’t function. Therefore, looking into how New York City has functioned, there is evidently a large number of lower class individuals and a select number of wealthy folks, the divide between them drastic. One New York billionaire, David Koch, is worth more, in terms of monetary wealth, than all 1.5 million New Yorkers living below the poverty line combined (Blodget). Given this disparity, many have become resentful of the American Dream and have shared Marxist views that capitalism requires the exploitation of the lower class for the benefit of the rich. However, this extremist view implies that there is no possibility of upward or economic mobility. Conversely, New York City has been the setting of an abundance of rags-to-riches stories that hint of the existence and feasibility of the American Dream.

Individual ambition has played an important role in New York City’s economic mobility. Ideally, those who live in New York are by default ambitious individuals despite what end of the economic spectrum they might belong to. This reinforces the idea that whether you are on the lower end of the income level there is always a chance of upward mobility. This could also justify that, as Henry Blodget from New York Magazine puts it, “wealthy New Yorkers [are] just inspiring examples of the ongoing American Dream.” Quite possibly those on the lower end might draw their ambitions from New York City’s wealth, something that might justify the city’s overall upward mobility during the past years as New Yorkers accept higher standards of living.

The story of Robert Gonzalez, as presented by Jennifer Gonnerman from New York Magazine, helps put into perspective how individual’s lives are often contextualized by our economic system in New York City. A security guard, immigrant, and ambitious individual, Robert sought to come into New York City for greater life chances at success. Getting the best job that was available to him, he worked as a security guard on an insufficient salary that was barely enough to support his two daughters and not enough to move out of his parent’s apartment in the Bronx. Gonnerman tells the story of this individual very well and one commonality exists among the many stories of this kind that New York City exhibits; despite how hard earned an individual’s life may be, they always have hope for prosperity. Although, Robert “wasn’t sure how many of [his] dreams he would be able to accomplish, he set his sights a little lower, on maybe a second job” (Gonnerman 57). Its stories like Robert’s which reveals how a strong ethic and hopes of an American dream drive capitalism specifically in New York City.

Poverty and wealth are two interdependent concepts that must coincide in society in order for capitalism to work. In New York City, someone can take a fifteen-minute train ride and go from one of the richest districts in the country to one of the poorest (Kozol 3). This divide is unavoidable and has become a distinct characteristic of New York City. Poverty seems to be built into the system. In a survey conducted by the Coalition Against Hunger, it is estimated that out of the 3.5 million working New Yorkers, 425 thousand do not have enough to eat. Is this just another one of capitalisms drawbacks or could it hint that our economy isn’t completely fair to all? Or maybe it’s like an obstacle that only the most ambitious overcome.

At the lowest end of poverty is homelessness, something every New Yorker probably witnesses on a daily basis. From walking the streets of even the richest districts to riding the trains, most people have at some point come across the homeless who occupy the city as remnants of broken dreams and those who willingly or unwillingly were unable to adapt to the economic system. Perhaps capitalism can also be arbitrarily bias since not all of us may have the opportunity for economic mobility.

At the extreme of wealth is greed. New York City, as a leading business district, has shed light on the overly ambitious wealthy during the current economic collapse. Although, wealthy New Yorkers could serve as symbols of inspiration they have recently demonstrated how ambitions often outweigh ethics. Recently, Bernie Madoff might come to mind when thinking about capitalistic greed. The mastermind of a $50 billion ponzi scheme has created a dent in the perception of a capitalistic economy. Someone who unethically amounted such great wealth makes those at the complete opposite end of the economic spectrum question their chances at the American Dream. Madoff is among the several figures that have tainted the New York City economy and thus impacted the public view of the country as a whole; one in which the wealthy sometimes find any means to become wealthier even at the expense of their more humble counterparts.

“Economic and cultural evolution has been a constant in the city’s history” (Blodget), and it will be interesting to see how recent events will impact public sentiments regarding our economy and whether the American Dream, one similar to Robert Gonzalez’s, is still feasible in New York City.

Works Cited

“Ellis Island History.” The Statue of Liberty – Ellis Island Foundation Inc.

17 April 2009. <http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island_history.asp>

Blodget, Henry. “The have-lots and the have-nots.” New York Magazine 6                                   

Nov. 2006: 39-42. 

Kozol, Jonathan. Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. New York: Crown, 1995.

Gagnier, Monica. “The Rise and Fall of Bernard L. Madoff.” BusinessWeek.

(6 Dec. 2008). 17 April 2009.
<http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/recession_in_america/archives/2008/12/the_rise_and_fa.html >

Gonnerman, Jennifer. “A Hard Earned Life.” New York Magazine 6                                             

Nov. 2006: 52-57.