http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/wall-street-s-share-of-new-york-jobs-hits-low-chart-of-the-day.html

Its better to have a diverse workforce, so a downturn in one sector does not adversely affect RE. That's the bull case.

Bear case: Wall Street jobs pay so much better than any other sector, on average, including the recently touted tech area.

there's still a lot of money in finance so looks like the pie is being divided by less people. so there are more super rich and less rich. bullish for 10+mm bearish under.

"Its better to have a diverse workforce, so a downturn in one sector does not adversely affect RE. That's the bull case."

So, let's trade in half the wall street jobs for burger king jobs, so we'll be diverse.

The diversity is not a positive when it comes from...
trading higher paying jobs for lower paying jobs
simply getting rid of jobs (the ratios look better, but you have fewer jobs)

Wall Street is what drove prices higher... this will only reverse that.

Has there been a spike in Burger King hirings in New York? I must have missed that.

somewhereelse, your post is utterly redundant because I SAY THE EXACT SAME THING in my post.

> somewhereelse, your post is utterly redundant because I SAY THE EXACT SAME THING in my post.

actually, you said the opposite.

"Its better to have a diverse workforce, so a downturn in one sector does not adversely affect RE. "

And it is actually worse now that I read it again.

We have a downturn in a sector, and now that is a POSITIVE because that sector, being down considerably, can't have as much of an impact now?

Follow that logic... would it be great if ALL our big sectors fell, so then we would have more diversification.

Or let's go for an analogy.

I have 75% of my assets invested in RE. 25% in stocks.

RE loses 2/3 of its value.

Yay, I just benefitted from "diversification"! Woo hoo!

Diversification on its own is helpful. When it comes as the offshoot of major losses, it is not a positive.

the finance sector is still bloated wrt the size of the economy. expect more shrinking ahead, it's gonna take years ...

Nope. Here is what the article said:

"The city’s economy has become less dependent on Wall Street and is “doing quite well,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William C. Dudley said May 30. Other industries including tourism have helped boost the city’s economy, he said at the district bank’s regional economic briefing in New York.....

...While the share of finance jobs has continued to diminish since the credit crisis began in 2007, New York’s private workforce has recovered faster than the nation’s. Since the end of the recession, private employment in New York City has increased by 5.6 percent, while the national level of employment has climbed by 2.3 percent."

Not all sectors are going down at once, and there have been all sorts of other articles about tech taking up a lot of slack. Hence the diversification is not happening ALL because WS jobs are going down.

See for example "What’s The Deal: Tech on a Tear...

...According to the report, the tech sector fueled 159 real-estate deals in 2011, compared with just 74 in 2008. Companies that have embarked on well-known expansions in New York City include Google, Facebook, eBay, Apple and Twitter. Apple Inc. has nearly quintupled its foothold since 2008 to 55,000 square feet today, and Facebook has tripled in size to 40,000 square feet, according to the report..."

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/06/25/whats-the-deal-tech-on-a-tear/?KEYWORDS=technology+real+estate+new+york

If what I were saying was the same as what somewhere says I am saying, I would be wrong. But s/he read way more into my offhand comment than was actually present.

The bull case remains - and this is the bull case analysts and economists (and politicians) make about NYC real estate, both residential and commercial, is it depends on a more diverse workforce than it did in the past.

Since I presented both a bear and a bull case, I was not making a stand one way or another.

Here is the same article but with different headline: "New York is relying less and less on Wall Street."

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/wall-street-s-share-of-new-york-jobs-hits-low-chart-of-the-day?category=

Hmmmm. Sounds suspiciously like what I actually said.

Here is someone else making the same bull case WHICH I MERELY POINTED OUT EXISTS, not that I agree with:

"Once again, I seem to be the most optimistic. In fact, I completely agree with New York Federal Reserve Board President William Dudley, who told the Times that the city’s economy is far more diversified that it used to be. I would add that the economists continue to underestimate how diversified New York has become.

http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/blogs/greg-david-on-ny/2011/08/the-case-for-nys-diversified-economy/#ixzz1yvUZW8io

Here is another: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-30/dudley-says-fiscal-shock-could-cause-another-u-dot-s-dot-recession

So clearly, I did not make up such a bull case. I merely pointed out what the bull case is.

Yikes, AGAIN, my post merely stated what the bull and bear cases were. Or two of them anyway.

I think the high pay of WS makes the bear case more compelling, I agree. But clearly you have even a Fed member and of course Mayor Bloomberg touting the bull case so its not like I pulled it out of the air.

"in this case, on both fronts, logic and hissiness, i see elsewhere as the clear winner"

woo-hoo!

thanks somewhereelse for all these comments. now back in the hole and we'll hear from you in a week.