Slashdot Mirror
Empty Times Square Building Generates $23 Million a Year From Digital Ads
dryriver writes "Advertising things at the right place is proving to be a cash cow, as electronic ads earn about $23mn each year for an empty building at One Times Square – the iconic tourist destination in the New York City. A 25-story Manhattan office building that has long been empty keeps on bringing in millions to its owner as a billboard. Michael Phillips, CEO of Atlanta-based Jamestown Properties, bought One Times Square through a fund in 1997 for $117 million, as the Wall Street Journal reports. More than 100mn pedestrians pass through the square each year, which is 90% more than 16 years ago, says the Times Square Alliance, a non-profit business improvement organization. And this is what makes a price tag for having a company's name placed on the building the highest in the world, even above such crowded tourist destinations as Piccadilly Circus in London. Dunkin' Brands Group Inc. pays $3.6mn a year for a Dunkin' Donuts digital sign on the One Times Square building, with Anheuser-Busch InBev paying another $3.4mn a year for its advertisement. Sony and News America pay $4mn a year for a shared sign."
I don't know why you were modded "funny". You're spot on. Times Square and Vegas were fantastic before they were nerfed and Disneyfied for boomers and their stupid kids.
Interesting take on a country that just re-elected the most income-distributing president of all time.
What, did they dig FDR and re-elect him?
Tax rates are a record low in the past two decades, and Obama has so far done little to change that.
We know he didn't win on his economic record. He won on the same kind of class warfare talk that you're giving right now.
No, he won on the "I'm not those guys" record. By which I mean that he's not a loony who spouts bullshit about how raped women don't conceive unless they "really wanted it" and so don't need abortions, or how gays are icky abominations that should be glad to not be in jail and just shut up about that whole marriage thing, or how Hispanics are a "culture of losers". This election wasn't really a victory for Obama - it was a loss for the bigots on extreme social conservative right. Good riddance, too. Next time try running some guy who actually focuses on the economy. Having a fiscal plan which does not involve money conjured from thin air to balance the budget helps there (or, at least, don't claim that it'll balance!).
How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.
A "decent wage" should not be lower than some reasonable factor relative to the highest wage in the company (note, I'm talking wages here, not dividends). "Reasonable" in this case is debatable and varies depending on who you ask, but vast majority of us agree that the 200x-500x rates that we see today are unreasonable. Personally, I think anything beyond 20x is unhealthy.
Please describe your moral code with respect to who should be giving what to whom in what situations, and who should be allowed to be on the receiving end.
Muslims has this nice term, "fard al-kifaya". This is a duty which is imposed on community as a whole - in other words, it is fulfilled when there are enough people that make it happen by whatever means necessary (and moral), and there is no personal individual obligation for every member of said community to participate. But if it is not fulfilled, then everyone should do what they reasonably can to contribute.
Same reasoning would seem to apply here - Americans as a society are certainly wealthy enough to eradicate poverty and homelessness, and it is therefore morally binding on them to do so. If, as fiscal conservatives and libertarians keep telling us, this is something that can be achieved entirely through private charity, then that's absolutely fine and government needs not be involved, but so far it hasn't happened.