The Perils of Equality

[Matt]

I'd say the reason DC's ultra-high end dining scene doesn't hold up to some of the country's other major cities isn't only that our area isn't as big as a New York or a Chicago, but also that its economic structure is too egalitarian. Despite DC's high poverty rate, the metropolitan area is one of the wealthiest in the country. But it's wealthy in the sense of having lots of moderately well-off folks who get puzzled at the idea that $200,000 a year is a lot of money. What it doesn't have are many movie stars or hedge fund wizards or executives of huge companies.

If you go down one ratchet from the places like Per Se that David Park is wondering about, DC is full of excellent options (I like Zengo, Capital Grille, Ten Penh, Jaleo, DC Coast) but these are places that a decent swathe of Washingtonians can afford to go to now and again for a special occasion. I find the hyper-inequality on display in centers of financial services, entertainment, and technology is responsible for many things I find annoying, but it does create some positive externalities in terms of supporting the existence of institutions that wouldn't otherwise exist. At the end of the day, I don't think the fact that Pharaoh was able to build the pyramids makes the unjust political system of Ancient Egypt a good idea, but inequality is good for restaurants both in terms of driving demand for high-end food and creating a supply of restaurant labor.

Comments

I don't think the fact that Pharaoh was able to build the pyramids makes the unjust political system of Ancient Egypt a good idea

It would be mistaken to model the Ancient Egyptian economy as one where the Pharoah was the only rich guy who could buy pyramids. The Pharoah was the state.

Carry on.

Posted by Marshall | May 29, 2008 12:08 PM

Matt you are so wrong about this its amazing. There aren't really rich people in the DC area? You really think that? Aside from the lobbyist/lawyering firms, you have heard of AOL right?

Posted by Rob | May 29, 2008 12:24 PM

Technology centers don't really have hyper inequality.

Or rather, there are a very very small number of unbelievably loaded people, who joined Microsoft or Google or Sun on the ground floor. But of course those companies have grown 100x in the last decade, and a lot of people since just have very nice upper middle class obs.

But the number of loaded people is smaller than in New York or Beverly Hills, which, lets not forget, has lots of people who are loaded for reasons other than technology.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 29, 2008 12:27 PM

The really high-end DC area restaurants exist, but are mostly popluated by defense contractors (or anyone else on an expense account). The only way I'd go to one of those places is if someone else was paying.

Posted by peej | May 29, 2008 12:28 PM

@Rob
There aren't really rich people in the DC area?

He didn't say that. He said: What it doesn't have are many movie stars or hedge fund wizards or executives of huge companies.

Bit of a difference between "not many" and "none".

Posted by wiredog | May 29, 2008 12:29 PM

Yes DC doesn't have a bunch of $20 millon per year people, but it has huge amount of 7 figure salaries walking around. And the AOL-TW merger made lots of people unbelievably wealthy.

And as much as he may look it, Dan Snyder wasn't a troll who climbed out of the earth carrying gold nuggets.

Posted by Rob | May 29, 2008 12:37 PM

Don't confuse "ultra-high-cost" with "ultra-high-end." Even the costly-but-not-ludicrously-priced restaurants in this town pale in comparison to much more affordable equivalents in great restaurant cities like NY, LA, Montreal and Seattle.

Posted by Angry Sam | May 29, 2008 1:10 PM

Fine. DC may get the snub from trust-fund scumbags and the Gossip Girl set! But if you're looking for lunch that you can pay by the pound, DC is PARADISE!

And Zengo and Ten Penh? We're talking GS-14 kind of money, now!

Posted by LIJ | May 29, 2008 1:23 PM

Matt, if you "go down one ratchet" in price from places like Per Se, you get every other excellent restaurant in NY except for Masa--all of which are better than almost anything in DC. (Certainly better than Jaleo much less Capital Grille, which it will apparently surprise you to learn is a giant chain initially out of Rhode Island.) If you'd actually read the post you linked to you'd see that *these* are the restaurants David Park is talking about: not the Per Ses of the world, but places that cost 20-50% as much.

The reason DC has such mediocrity at that level is not because of money but because of culture. NY is filled with people who came from all over the country (and all over the world) in order to assimilate into NY's cosmopolitan culture; DC is filled with people who came from all over the country in order to affect policy or gain political power. NY takes its cues from money and culture where DC takes its cues from power. And for the past 8 years, and to a lesser degree the past 14 years--years in which gourmet food has become the new hobby and status symbol for a huge swathe of upper-income America--the power in DC has been controlled by a group of proudly retrograde populist old white dudes from the South and western states whose self-image, much less their political image, would never let them be caught dead in any place fancier than a steakhouse.

It's just like what happened to K Street, except restaurants have longer lead times. Maybe DC will get some decent restaurants in the Obama administration.

BTW: even at $275pp the folks supporting Per Se are not the hedge fund billionaires but the people several rungs below them--or even the people many rungs below *that* who just prioritize good food, like me or David Park. (Also, tourists.) The ultra-rich have private chefs.

Posted by Dave H | May 29, 2008 1:31 PM

Angry Sam, care to give a few "costly-but-not-ludicrously-priced" examples from DC?

Posted by eriks | May 29, 2008 1:35 PM

Could population density be another contributing factor here? Because of the height limitation among other things, there aren't too many areas of DC proper that have a very high population density, certainly nothing to compare to Manhattan, or even many areas of Chicago.

Without the population density, you don't have the local walking traffic to support as many neighborhood places. And with DC's sprawl and mediocre transit, it's tough for many of the folks who live out in the suburbs to get back into the city for dinner. It's a real trek if you want to do it. I know when I was living even fairly close in in Alexandria, I rarely went to DC at night because it just wasn't convenient.

Put all that together, and there might not be the clientele to support any really high end establishments. There might be enough people in the whole metro area to support several, but they are split up between Georgetown and NW and Bethesda and Arlington and..., instead of having enough folks concentrated to regularly go to a real top-shelf place.

Posted by Doug T | May 29, 2008 1:59 PM

I've always assumed that DC's expensive restaurants were funded more by expense accounts than their counterparts in other cities, and that this made them somewhat less interesting, since whoever is picking them may be more likely to go with the safe choice.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | May 29, 2008 2:00 PM

I don't know that I'd consider anyone who gets puzzled at the idea that $200,000 a year is a lot of money to be just "moderately well-off." I'm not exactly living in poverty myself, at about $20K a year, and I honestly have no clue how I'd be able to spend even $100,000 each year. I have everything I need and most of what I want as it stands. I know that families, etc. change the equation... but $200K should be a lot of money to just about anyone, I'd think.

Posted by Zach | May 29, 2008 2:12 PM

"I don't know that I'd consider anyone who gets puzzled at the idea that $200,000 a year is a lot of money to be just "moderately well-off." I'm not exactly living in poverty myself, at about $20K a year, and I honestly have no clue how I'd be able to spend even $100,000 each year. I have everything I need and most of what I want as it stands. I know that families, etc. change the equation... but $200K should be a lot of money to just about anyone, I'd think.

on one level, you're right. I would have said the same thing when I was in grad school.

on the other hand, taxes can take 45% of that (or much less...depending upon what deductions are available for that taxpayer's individual circumstances). so you're at 110K. rent or a mortgage can easily be 4K-5K a month (or more) in some places. so now you're at 50-60K. a couple one week vacations can easily take 15K...down to 35-45K. if you're saving/investing anything...that really doesn't leave much disposable income if you're in an expensive city.

this is why, say, NY big-law associates get so pissed at salary parity....a fellow associate in Houston has the same salary and twice the buying power.

Posted by Nathan | May 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Tyrone,

On my trips to DC I've noted that the food and wine at mid-range restaurants is often superior to their far more expensive counterparts. The "safe choice" dynamic for the expense-account crowd may be the culprit.

It's as if they're going out of their way to be inoffensive to the most bland and aged of palates.

Posted by west coast | May 29, 2008 2:35 PM

If you'd actually read the post you linked to you'd see that *these* are the restaurants David Park is talking about: not the Per Ses of the world, but places that cost 20-50% as much.

Uhm, what are you talking about? He specifically mentions Per Se as the standard of comparison!

...if you "go down one ratchet" in price from places like Per Se, you get every other excellent restaurant in NY except for Masa--all of which are better than almost anything in DC.

According to star ratings, CityZen, Citronelle, and Palena should be competitive with anything but the very top end of New York food... granted, New York has more than 5x as many of those high quality but not $275 a person restaurants, but there is a similar disparity in comparison between any other city in the US (including Chicago and San Fransisco)... so I'm not sure that DC really deserves the food scorn I'm seeing here.

New York is one of the best cities in the entire world to dine in. Not everywhere can be New York City.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | May 29, 2008 2:52 PM

For Zach, I am one of those people who as a single, childless person working for a non-profit used to get by on less than $25k a year in DC and thought anyone making more than $50k was rich.

Now that I am in a dual income family with three kids I will be the first one to say that $200k is not a lot of money in the DC metro area. Obviously, people making $200k a year can live comfortably, but there are few luxuries at this income if you have children.

I also think that families with one wage earner earning $200k are in a different category than dual income families earning $200k because of all the costs associated with working (day care, commuting costs, dry cleaning). If one parent is home you don't need to pay for day care, of course, and there are hidden costs for working women (for example, a SAHM can probably get away with Hair Cuttery haircuts but professional working moms need to look more pulled together, if only to distract from the spit-up stains on our suits.)

Good day care in the DC area is very expensive and hard to come by. Care for an infant at a NAYCE-accredited center is usually $1500/month or more, with long waiting list at the few accredited centers, and a legal, live-out nanny is easily twice that. We used to share a nanny with our neighbors and even sharing the cost was more than $1600/month (and that was a few years ago, I am sure it is higher now).

I have not even mentioned housing, food, doctors' bills (between well child and sick appts young kids probably go to the pediatrician 6-10 times a year, more if they are in day care, and even with insurance the copays add up), diapers, carseats, clothes, swimming lessons, etc. Kids are just amazingly expensive and you need to make A LOT of money to be able to offer them a middle class lifestyle in a decent school district. I make nearly $100k a year and I can tell you that the first paycheck of the month goes to day care and the second goes to the mortgage (and we live in an old house in a close-in DC suburb, with only one full bathroom for 5 people and no dishwasher.) My spouse's salary has to cover everything else (grad school loans, food, gas, car insurance, metro fare, utilities, life insurance).

There is certainly no room for fancy restaurants (not when babysitters cost at least $12/hour). You would be amazed how many "upper-middle class" families in Montgomery County buy their kids' clothes at Target and even Value Village.

Posted by KCN | May 29, 2008 3:01 PM

Ever been to San Francisco? Pop. 750,000, and enough good restaurants to put your liver in traction.
All that the Washington foodie scene proves is that Republicans have no taste, but we knew that already.

Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | May 29, 2008 3:32 PM

J.W. Hamner-

Reread the post. He's not asking why DC doesn't have the equivalent of Per Se--even NY can only support two restaurants at that price point, and they're both very small. (Per Se has 54 seats, Masa has only 26.) He's asking why DC doesn't have the equivalents of "Nobu, WD-50, Bouley, etc."--and he could have named another 40 restaurants at that general level of cost and quality.

Posted by Dave H | May 29, 2008 3:37 PM

DC's just a fake city.

It tries to have all the ameninities of other places but never quite gets it right.

I do miss Colorado Kitchen though.

Posted by cbc | May 29, 2008 3:45 PM

I've never been to Per Se, and I've lived a few blocks away since it opened. But even excluding this and Masa, in the same building and equally extravagant, and stepping down a tier, there are dozens of restaurants in New York, Chicago and San Francisco better than anything I've heard of or been to in DC. Places like Craft, or Dovetail, or Aquavit, or Babbo, that DC doesn't have.

I think the guy that said it's because Republicans have no taste is part right. But moreso, I think it's because the people with money in DC tend to be older and have kids. It's not the number of people making $200k+ that matters, it's the number of young single people who go out a lot making that much. Twenty-somethings working in finance in New York go to at least one $100+/person dinner a week, Capitol Hill interns and legal clerks do not.

Posted by TH | May 29, 2008 3:50 PM

DC is full of excellent options (I like Zengo, Capital Grille, Ten Penh, Jaleo, DC Coast) but [unfortunately] these are places that a decent swathe of Washingtonians can afford to go to now and again for a special occasion.

Or in other words, I'm an egalitarian except when egalitarianism leads to fewer restaurants that are only affordable for trust fund babies like myself.

Posted by Asher | May 29, 2008 3:51 PM

If you look at NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, etc. you will find that the rich and powerful are often one and the same.

In DC, if you look at the powerful: senior civil servants, fed officials, judges, generals, admirals, congresman and senators, you will find that many of them are living paycheck to paycheck. Yes, their are many ways to convert your power into cash after you leave office - (see Clinton, Bill) But, while in office, your means are somewhat limited. I think this changes the culture of a place.

Posted by jmo | May 29, 2008 4:06 PM

Well, Nathan and KCN certainly make good points, in that there are cost of living disparities to take into account, and in that I've certainly never raised a child. That being said, my parents never made even close to $200K/year in 2008 dollars when I was growing up, and I always figured we were doing pretty darn well. I do question the notion that very many people are even paying a 45% marginal tax rate at the very top -- are there really states with 12 percent income taxes? Honest question. I'd be absolutely shocked to find anyone with a $200K annual income who is actually paying $90K in taxes. Even so, say you sock away $15K a year and spend $15K on vacations -- that still leaves, at a minimum, $20K a year in walking-around money. Not exactly pocket change, in my estimation.

I know that health care and child care are expensive (although I'm rather surprised that you can't stick a kid in day care for less than $1500/month), and I suspect that I'll have a different perspective on all of this once I've got a career and a family. But right now I'm looking at a median family income in D.C. of about $46,000; even if you look out in Fairfax County, where I imagine a lot of the young professionals with families live, $200K is easily double the median household income. I think anytime you're doubling the median household income in one of the wealthiest counties in the area, you're doing a little better than just "moderately well off."

Posted by Zach | May 29, 2008 4:09 PM

Actually, I just reread that comment, and it looks like I'm really going on the offensive there against Nathan and KCN -- that wasn't my intent. I'm just surprised, and a little discouraged given the state of salaries in my field, to read that $100K/year doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Guess I'll have to abandon the science and go into finance or lobbying.

Posted by zach | May 29, 2008 4:13 PM

Zach,

here in New York, I pay federal, state and city income taxes (yes, city). I do indeed pay over 40% and when I was paying SE that was even more.

furthermore, I don't get to deduct my student loans. and low six figures isn't enough to buy an apartment here...so no mortgage deduction.

not complaining, just saying. the actual takehome is nowhere as much as you think.

furthermore, when you're in certain professions....your expenses are higher. cheap haircuts don't fly. neither does the Men's Wearhouse or whatever. that whole bit about not dressing for the job you have but rather for the job you want? it's true.
if your boss is getting his suits tailored at Seiz et Vignt...that might be a little dear...but you should be at least thinking about Paul smith. etc.
people expect you to look successful. your dates too. that's just the way it is. the married childless couples (lots of them here, they get dogs instead) have it easy. but I wouldn't think of raising a kid here without a combined income of at least 300...

Posted by Nathan | May 29, 2008 4:21 PM

Zach, actually look at it this way.

if you're in a profession paying say 60K (say a young NYC teacher with an M.Ed.) and where clothes/networking aren't expensive..and where you live in Jersey City or something...your actual disposable income might be pretty similar to someone making 140K a year here.

seriously.

Posted by Nathan | May 29, 2008 4:25 PM

Zach,

Just out of curiosity - without googleing it: what do you think the property taxes are on a average home in Fairfax county?

Also, how old are you?

Posted by jmo | May 29, 2008 4:29 PM

Well, jmo, I'd have to say I have no idea. The fact remains that if you're making double the median family income in what is, according to Wiki, the county with the highest median income anywhere in the US, you're probably doing pretty well. Maybe Wiki is wrong about that -- wouldn't be the first time. Let me take a wild-ass guess. Let's say you have a $500,000 house, and the annual tax rate is 2-3 percent of assessed value. That leaves you with a property tax bill on the order of $10-15K. I don't know whether that's in line with the values and assessments in Fairfax County or not; nor do I know whether prices around there are as far out of line with rents as they seem to be in most other major metropolitan areas. I'm just speculating. The fact remains that if you're making double the median family income in what is, according to Wiki, the county with the highest median income anywhere in the US, you're probably doing pretty well. Maybe Wiki is wrong about that -- wouldn't be the first time. Maybe, too, the median income in the county is dragged down by further outlying areas, and the true median in, say, Falls Church, is significantly higher. I don't know; I am emphatically Not an Expert in this area.

I'm not sure what my age has to do with all this, given that I've already stated that I'm single, in grad school, and have no children, but I'm 27. Far from the wisdom and responsibilities of middle age, but not exactly a spring chicken, either.

Posted by Zach | May 29, 2008 4:44 PM

To respond to Zach's comments, you can certainly put a baby in day care for less than $1500 a month in DC, but it won't be a nationally accredited day care. Home day cares tend to be quite a bit cheaper and while I am sure there are some good ones many of them are of poor quality, with a bunch of kids basically watching TV all day. I ruled out home day cares after reading a peer-reviewed article which found that child fatalities are 7 times higher in home day cares than in day care centers. While many people living in the DC area are not able to afford quality day care and have no choice but to put their kids in a questionable day care, educated professionals are not going to scrimp on child care costs, even if it stretches the family budget.

Zach is right on taxes. As much as I hate the Bush tax cut, it did help my family. Our federal income taxes are not nearly as high as they could be, and our state income tax is 5%.

I too am amazed that the average income in Fairfax and Montgomery counties is "only" about $85 or $90k per year if I have my figures right. I can't help but think that this figure includes a lot of older/retired couples who bought their home 30+ years ago for a fraction of what it is now worth and are able to afford to stay in the area largely because their home is now paid off (or their mortage is tiny compared to what younger couples/families are paying for housing). Most of the housing stock in our neighborhood is from the late 1940s/early 1950s and there are still a fair number of original or second owners, who presumably don't have any housing costs other than property taxes. It definitely makes for some weird vibes in the neighborhood since many of the older couples/families were more middle class (mid-level federal workers, teachers, etc) whereas most of the couples/families who have bought in the last few years contain two attorneys.

Posted by KCN | May 29, 2008 4:46 PM

Zach,

LOL - I remember in college I got a part time job that paid $15 an hour and I thought I was rich. Cut to me at 28 making many times that thinking, wow, it doesn't go nearly as far as one would think.

The other question I have - I've always found that median income figures ridiculously low. For example, the median household income in Zip-Code 10028 (Central Park NYC) is $77,565. The famous 90210 - median household income $112,572.

Can one really afford to raise a family in Beverly Hills on 112k? Keep in mind that median means that 1/2 the population makes less than that? Really, I just can't believe it.

Posted by jmo | May 29, 2008 5:06 PM

I feel your disappointment, Zach, about how little a $100k salary will actually cover. As I am approaching that benchmark I also feel sort of rueful that I am not living the high life that I would have thought I would be living as a $100k earner.

To be honest I am glad that we went ahead and had our kids before fully realizing just how expensive they are. Our goal is basically just to stay solvent until they are out of day care and in public school (although of course then we will have after school care and summer camps to pay for, sigh).

Seriously though, kids are the greatest joy you can ever imagine and totally worth every dime you spend on diapers, carseats, ER visits and all the birthday presents for the 15 or so birthday parties you will attend per kid each year. We also have dogs (more expensive than you might imagine, but not nearly as costly as kids) and while I sometimes envy the "dogs only couples" who have the time and money to go to the movies and out to dinner, hearing your child say mama or daddy is worth missing out on several years of going out to dinner or the movies.

Posted by KCN | May 29, 2008 5:14 PM

JMO, right.

median figures within Manhattan are always like that.

what they miss is that there still are some projects in many affluent zip codes. then there's any number of retired people (some wealthy, some not but with rent-controlled or stabilized or owned apartments), then there's students, and then there's the entry level 23 year olds living with a zillion roommates and with parental support.

the reality is that among young (or older professionals) here, you really know very few people who aren't making significantly above the official median.

Posted by Nathan | May 29, 2008 5:25 PM

Yeah, life is expensive, and I certainly can't blame anyone for wanting to provide for their children. I actually do wonder how families of 4 or 5 get by on something like $60K in pretty much any major city -- I mean, I'm no stranger to ramen, dried beans, rice, and such, but sometimes I just want a good bottle of wine and a steak, or a nice rack of lamb. Guess that makes me one of those latte-sipping, pantywaist, out-of-touch liberal elitists.

So it goes.

I will note that I've realized substantial monthly savings by switching to brewing my own beer...

Posted by Zach | May 29, 2008 5:27 PM

I wonder how many of the people decrying the DC food scene (let alone other culture) actually live here, and make a regular effort to get out and find the good food. Some of the suggestions of where to eat are laughable -- Jaleo and Capital Grille? Really?

There is a *lot* of good food here. I'd put up Komi with anything I've ever eaten in NY or Chicago (though I have admittedly not been to Per Se). I'll put Roberto Donna's tasting room experience next to Mario Battali any day (for that matter, most "celebrity chef" restaurants I have eaten in have been roundly dissapointing). I suspect the "DC-lacks" food attitude is, frankly, outdated.

As for other culture: this past weekend, I was up in NY and saw the well-reviewed play 'Adding Machine', which was outpaced by about half a dozen shows that I've seen in the last two years at Studio or Woolly.

DC has come a far, far way in the past ten years. But if you let outdated perceptions keep you from enjoying the city... well, more for me. Cheers!

Posted by Brad L | May 29, 2008 5:51 PM

Brad L is living the dream.

Posted by lemmy caution | May 29, 2008 7:03 PM

Nathan,

Check out http://zipskinny.com/

Enter in any wealthy town you can think of: Greenwich, Atherton, Beverly Hills, etc.

Now ask yourself do half the households in that town earn less than the median?

For example - try 06807 - the Cos Cob neighborhood in Greenwhich Ct. Half the families make less than 94k. No, not possible.

Their must be something to the statistical methodology that is causing erroneous results.

Posted by jmo | May 29, 2008 7:34 PM

$200k is not a lot of money in the DC metro area

Any time income is discussed at MY the alums of Hotchkiss and Cate appear to impart their wisdom.

Posted by move to Gaithersburg | May 30, 2008 8:25 AM