Credit: Flickr, Rubenstein
Even if you are not a New Yorker, I’m sure you’ve heard about New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s various initiatives. The one that made many headlines was his plan to ban the sale of soda over 16 ounces. Don’t worry all you big gulp soda lovers, this plan was blocked by the courts. Mayor Bloomberg’s most recent initiative is aimed at promoting the use of stairs. No, he won’t be banning elevators and escalators, but he wants to relax building codes which require doors leading to stairways to be locked and to encourage new building designs to have open stairways. Many people deride him as a Nanny mayor trying to control every part of people’s lifestyle. I can see it as being a bit overbearing, but I really have no problems with most of his proposals.
It would seems that many of Mayor Bloomberg’s proposals promote many of the attributes encouraged by many personal finance bloggers. Here are a few of the plans that he has proposed or implemented:
Take the stairs: The proposal encourages people to be more active and hopefully reduce obesity. I actually almost always take the stairs, and will use the elevator when I am carrying heavy bags. I live on the 4th floor. When I worked on the 10th floor of an office building, I used to take the stairs down…and once in awhile up. Trust me I was not in great shape and needed the workout after sitting most of my day.
16 ounce soda ban: I used to love soda as a kid, but I rarely drink it as an adult. There are no health benefits, but plenty of negatives associated with drinking soda. John of Frugal Rules posted on this topic about a month ago and had a different view, as did most people who commented. I’m not saying that I agree that the Mayor should try to control so many aspects of people’s lives, I’m just saying that the proposals don’t affect me. And yes, part of me does think that people need to saved from themselves. There I said it! I’m sure you’ve experienced that when you see people making horrible health and financial choices. Though it is entirely different to legislate rules to control people rather than just judge them as I do!
Bike Lanes: New York City is becoming more and more bike friendly. The Mayor has built more and more bike lanes, and has even taken over car lanes to build them. Driving into Manhattan is rarely necessary with the convenience of public transportation and the plentiful bike lanes. There is also a new bike share program which makes it even easier to bike.
Cigarette Display: The Mayor wants cigarettes to be taken off the shelves. He is not banning them though (He has banned smoking in public areas such as parks and beaches though). You would still be able to buy them, you just have to ask for it. The idea is “out of sight out of mind.” If you don’t see it, you won’t buy it. And children won’t see cigarette displays which will hopefully reduce another generation of smokers. I have no problem with this. Cigarettes are not only harmful to your health, it is harmful to your wallet.
Baby Formula: This one might be a little controversial and I don’t have first hand experience as to how this proposal was implemented. However, it tries to promote new mothers to breast feed their child rather than use formula. No, new mothers will not be refused baby formula with a hungry wailing baby as many opponents argued, mothers would have to request it, rather than it being dispensed. There are many health benefits to breast milk and baby formula is expensive. But ultimately, this initiative does not take away the choice of formula, it just encourages breast feeding.
Most people hate being told what to do. The opponents of the Mayor contend that he is infringing on the people’s personal freedom. Really? Your personal freedom to have a big gulp or to have cigarettes displayed for your viewing pleasure. I assure you our Forefathers did not fight for such freedoms, but rather for the freedom to free speech, religion, and the right to vote. As unfortunate as it may be, sometimes I think some people do need to be saved from themselves because left to their own devices, they make horrible decisions. Poor health decisions do have consequences on the general public in driving up healthcare costs. Moreover, while you may not think Coca-Cola/Pepsi are “controlling” the public, in a sense they are. They encourage drinking their products through advertisements. They pay money to be placed inside schools to encourage a new generation of consumers (some states have banned sale of soda in schools). As for baby formula, the companies give out free formula to attract new customers. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
While I was thinking about our “nanny state,” I also thought about frugality and savings. When I started working, you would have to sign up for the 401K plan, but nowadays you have to opt out as employees are automatically enrolled. This is somewhat of a “nanny” initiative to encourage people to save. As the savings rate in this country is very low, are there any other nanny type initiatives to promote savings? Do you think people need to be saved from their spendthrift ways and forced to save? What do you think about Mayor Bloomberg’s plans?
I think it’s a bunch of b.s. I can see the benefit of children not seeing cigarettes but a smoker is going to get them regardless. When you are addicted to nicotine it’s not “out of sight out of mind” it’s I am going to the store to get cigarettes. The baby formula thing pisses me off too. I tried to breast feed my first daughter and it didn’t work at well. I had to breast feed her 24/7, I got no sleep, and was so depressed that it wasn’t going well. When I switched to formula it was a total sense of relief. I think making new mothers ask for formula is demeaning. A lot of new mothers do want to breast feed, but it doesn’t always work out. Why make them feel bad about it?
Alexa recently posted…Quick Tricks: Creative Ways to Budget this Summer
Yea I agree that it won’t affect smokers if you hide them behind the shelves. It is to benefit the children, much like when cigarette ads were banned from television back in 1965. As with baby formula, I don’t really know how the voluntary policy is implemented so I can’t really say whether I agree or disagree with it. But based on the city’s website, it is not to demean women but to give them an option. It would seem that rather than assume the mother wanted the newborn to have formula, they would assume that the mother wanted to breastfeed, but if the mother chose not to or could not, then formula would be fine. I don’t think the hospital where my wife and newborn stayed was under this program, but with our experience the first night after the birth of my son, the nurse asked whether my wife wanted to breastfeed. My wife was too tired at that point and said she couldn’t nurse, though she would try the next morning…so the nurse gave the baby formula. The next morning a nurse mentioned the benefits of breastfeeding and offered assistance, but did not make her feel bad when it wasn’t going as well and formula was asked for. I’m hoping that the program is more similar to this: where mothers who want to breastfeed are asked first before giving formula and given support, and not a program putting obstacles on mothers needing or wanting to use infant formula. In your situation, you tried it, it didn’t work out, so you used formula. That’s fine and I think that the program would not have made a difference or put an obstacle to the use of formula. Back in the day when I was born, infant formula companies promoted formula saying that it was better than breastmilk and that 4 out 5 pediatricians recommended it. (There was a class action lawsuit for false advertising at some point). I mention this as a backdrop for one possible reason for the initiative. While corporations cannot set policy, they do in a way try to “control” people by making them think their product is the only way or the best way (I guess you can say the Mayor is doing the same thing). My mom fed us infant formula because it was felt at that time (probably based on propoganda of the companies) that it was better.
I think there’s a place for common sense regulation. The problem is that the definition of what that is will differ person by person. I don’t hear too many people voicing complaints about restrictions on cigarette sales to minors, but try to limit soda and the outcry is enormous. While the effects of those things might be different in degrees, the root concern is basically the same. With that said, in general I would be for initiatives that promote healthy behaviors without forcing them upon people, except in extreme circumstances. Making stairs and bike lanes more accessible is a good thing and doesn’t prevent anyone from using elevators or cars.
Matt Becker recently posted…How to Negotiate a Lower Bill
Hey Matt, that is an excellent distinction about promoting healthy behaviors rather than forcing them upon people. But sometimes, promoting one behavior and making it more accessible inevitably makes the other behavior less accessible. With the bike lanes, the mayor got rid of some lanes that were used for driving as well as parking lanes for his bike initiatives. I honestly think that he is being a little overbearing, it’s just that none of the proposals will adversely affect me and I don’t feel that they are so restrictive on people’s choices that I really oppose them. Actually with the stairs, I often want to take the stairs rather than waiting for an elevator, but it is difficult to access them.
None of these would affect me. I think taking the stairs is great most of the time, but for people who have health problems, it might not be as welcome. There’s always going to be a downside with things, as you mentioned. Making biking more accessible in the city is also awesome (though I don’t think I’d ever feel safe doing that). I agree with Alexa that smokers are going to be smokers no matter what. It is not simply a matter of making the cigarettes disappear. It’s a nice effort, but I don’t think it will work. It is good to promote healthier alternatives, but people don’t like feeling “forced” into anything, even if it’s just a suggestion of taking the stairs. I guess we will see how things turn out!
E.M. recently posted…The Pressure of Presents
You make a good point, people don’t like feeling “forced” into anything. That seems to be the main objection to his plans. It’s not like there are many people defending big gulp sodas and cigarette smoking. Well with cigarettes, I think that was aimed at discouraging children from seeing it. And as for the stairs…I have a pet peeve when healthy people wait and take the elevator one flight when the stairs are easily accessible. Maybe that’s just me!
The ideas of Libertarian Paternalism proposed in the excellent book, Nudge, would seem to apply here. Governments should gently nudge their citizens towards the kind of behavior the public seems to actually want (better health, better finances, healthier food, etc.) but must do so in a way that does not actually restrict individuals’ freedom to choose an alternative. Certain proposals of Bloomberg’s fit perfectly under the umbrella of libertarian paternalism (simply removing cigarettes from the eyeline of consumers) but others are a step beyond (the outright banning of certain soda sizes).
While there’s an obvious benefit from pushing consumers towards wise choices, the freedom to purchase a legal product is definitely one worth preserving.
Done by Forty recently posted…Thirty More Days, Thirty Fewer Things
That sounds like an interesting book and I’ll have to check it out. Thanks! I can see how it is probably better to “nudge” consumers towards wise choices rather than restrict bad choices, especially when they are legal products. However, there are already restrictions of legal products…especially when it comes to safety. Also, Mountain Dew and some other foods have been banned by certain European countries http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345564/Shocking-list-US-foods-BANNED-countries-containing-dangerous-chemicals.html
Maybe the FDA isn’t doing it’s job, or maybe those countries have a different standard.
I think these are awesome changes (especially bike lanes and taking the stairs) that are well grounded in behavioral economics research. He’s an easy target because some of this stuff sounds crazy, but I bet we’ll look back at him as a progressive who came before his time.
CashRebel recently posted…Bank Accounts And Keeping Busy
That’s very true. It is hard to judge a politician and how he did in the present…only in the future can we look back and see if he was truly progressive. In a way, I like that he is wealthy and self-made, he does not need the money for lobbyist (like the soda ones or others) and campaign contributions don’t make an impact on his decisions.
I think the fear here for those of us not on board is “What next?”. First, he’s telling people how big of a soda they can buy, what next? What kind of a mattress we can/cannot buy? The size of our cars? And history has proven this point to be true in the past. So, at least for me, it is a freedom issue. And the sad thing is, he’s really not going to save anybody anything. You can’t force people to buy less soda, they’ll just buy 4 16-ouncers and get themselves more into the poorhouse than they are now. Saving people from themselves is near impossible. Anyone with any kind of a bad habit, whether it’s smoking, drinking too much pop, or spending too much money, if they’re going to stop, they have to want to stop, period. No amount of coercing or changing the laws is going to do it, they’ll just find a way around the laws to get what they feel they want, need or deserve.
Laurie @thefrugalfarmer recently posted…How to Help Others When You’re on a Tight Budget
You’re right, the fear is “what next?” Some mentioned that it is a slippery slope to other restrictions. However, he has been the mayor for about 12 years and his term is up soon. In those 12 years, none of the restrictions were of things that I deem truly important to my freedom (usually unhealthy foods and unsafe products). You’re also right that it is hard to change the behavior of people with bad habits…much like parents telling a teenage child “no” which makes the child want to do it even more. I guess a lot of policies are aimed at changing behavior of the next generation so we may not see results yet.
Pingback: Freelance Jobs July 26, 2013
I think Bloomberg’s doing a fairly good job, considering the state that NY was in before he took the reigns. I can’t comment much, since I’ve only been to NY a few times – I don’t really like it that much. More of a medium-sized city kinda person myself.
Troy recently posted…Too Much Cash in a Rising Market
Yea I think he’s done a pretty good job. Not too excited about the prospective candidates. Mayor Anthony Weiner?? Need I say more.
Some of the ideas are good but you have to remember people in general just dont work that way. You will have more people pushing then normal just simply because they feel forced. I have not issues with the cig’s, bike lanes, and stairs. But lets just remember there are a lot more things I would rather a mayor focus on like crime, drugs, etc.
Thomas | Your Daily Finance recently posted…Lifestyle Changes That Can Improve Your Finances
True, people generally do not like feeling like they were forced to do something. That’s why there’s the big uproar over them. As for crimes, NYC’s crime rate is pretty low for a big city. And the Mayor’s crime prevention tactic of “stop and frisk” is pretty controversial too.
Although my life choices would likely not be changed by the proposals, I generally am not a fan of government protecting people from themselves. I am ok with incentives to do the right thing, like tax credits on efficient appliances, but not prohibiting people from doing certain things. Actually, I don’t even think wearing a seat belt should be a law because it is not hurting anyone else, only the person that chooses not to wear it.
Greg @ Thriftgenuity.com recently posted…Reflection Friday – July 26, 2013
I’m sure there are economic or societal costs from those who are injured or die due to not wearing a seat belt. Also without the law, younger people who aren’t knowledgeable may not wear them because their parents don’t wear them. I can see not saving people from themselves for something such as soda which has possible long term consequences but I’ll have to disagree when it comes to laws for seat belts.
Some of the ideas are good but you have to remember people in general just dont work that way. You will have more people pushing then normal just simply because they feel forced. I have not issues with the cig’s, bike lanes, and stairs. But lets just remember there are a lot more things I would rather a mayor focus on like crime, drugs, etc.
You’re definitely right. I think most people don’t want to be told what to do. But I understand his intentions. I mean many of the initiatives have great benefits, but it just seems like he’s overreaching on what the government can regulate. I think he did a pretty good job with crime/drugs, etc….NYC remains one of the safest big cities, so it wasn’t like he was spending time on secondary issues and not focusing on the more important ones.