What Housing Crisis? (article by Richard Florida, NY Times) (names, money, cost)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Two of many problems with his idea, which any half-educated person can deduce right away even without help of academics, are:
1) The definitional problem of "Creative Class," which is neither rigorous nor discrete. That is, a common "class" requires certain measurable common identities, unique core beliefs or admission requirements etc. that makes them separate and distinct from others (e.g. the British landowing class c. 19th Century as opposed to the "professional class" made up of working doctors, barristers, etc.), and the "Creative Class" does not meet any of these.

LOL. You are complaining about his alliterative use of the word "class". If he had called it the Creative Cadré instead, his ideas would still be the same, but all these objections of yours would simply melt away. That's the sort of thing that any half-educated person ought to be able to deduce without the aid of academics.

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

2) The impact of this distinction is negligible. Hoyman and Faricy show that the number of Creative Class people had no correlations with economic growth in real life (as opposed to some imagined future, c. 2030)...

Hoyman and Faricy do exactly what they accuse Florida of doing -- using undifferentiated data. To define the Creative Class, Hoyman and Faricy simply add up the total number of people with job titles that Florida has suggested as containing significant numbers of creative people. Florida does claim that every engineer and accountant has a capacity for creativity, but not that it is even nearly always realized. H&F just test the entire profession.

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

...and Markusen shows that once you control Creative Class index with the simple high education factor, the claimed impact disappears.

Hmmm. Didn't read Markusen either, I see. She includes no analysis of a higher education factor at all. She is all about artists (and also what a jerk Florida is for not answering her question about the politics of the Creative Class). She presents a brief summary of what she takes to be the reasonable claims of others regarding the higher education factor. YMMV.

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

So, what we have here, at core, is that educated (and money-spending) people and businesses mutually reinforce each other and make an area become economically competitive. What an earthshaking discovery!

You've missed the point and are loathe to admit it. As even some among your collected critics state, Florida's theories have caused a bigger stir and had more influence in the profession than anything to come along in the past couple of decades or more. These ideas did not reach such a level by being the sort of pop- and pseudo-science that you want to claim them to be.

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

He should register this intellectual property (inside joke if you really read any of his work) right away and sell it in a bottle. Oh, wait, he did: Creative Class ®.

What is that, the fourth time you've mentioned it? Is it supposed to matter?

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

nah, its more like someone who comes up with a good theory about why balance sheet factor X should matter, but cant show regressions of stock prices that confirm it.

Fair enough. But the reasonable ones don't argue that it's "because the world has changed." Also fair enough?

There ARE scientifically reasonable things, theoretically logical thihngs, engineered things if you will, that dont pan out empirically, or at least cant find suitably specified data.

Sure, but that's like arguing against (borrwing from another thread you and I are on) "there is a high teen crime rate in DC" with "I know some good kids from DC." Like rolling the dice, larger sampling sizes tend to verify what's closer to truth.

And of course I understand testing proxies because some real things can't be directly measured (like "diversity" which is why the "Gay Index" came about). But that does not mean they are not subject to empirical testing. Furthermore, the onus is on the claim, then, to demonstrate the validity by other means. The problem with your definition of "reasonable" is that (apart from a specifically legal definition of "resonable" which is perhaps less disputed), reasonable can be a lot of different things. "Gay friendliness => creative peope => competitive economic advantage!" sounds very intuitive and "reasonable" to lots of people with certain ideologies, but not to others. You need an objective arbiter. I'd say falsification by regression is a pretty good one.

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

the article i looked at seemed unbalanaced and unfair. Then I dont usually read The American Prospect - do you vouch for them?

I don't think it was unfair given the cult-like following Florida has among some people. I thought the piece was a rather salutary warning to other gullible urban stakeholders who fall for fads. No, I do not "vouch" for that magazine, whatever that means.

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

have you ever read any critiques of popper? like natural scientists saying thats not actually how they do science?

Of course! Although I like some of Popper's work, I disagree that observationalist and justificationist methodologies should be completely repudiated. When I was younger, I tended to be more positivist. Now I am becoming more Aristotelian in both philosophy and ethics, perhaps even Thomist, though not commpletely. But that's really for another day, time and place, no? I don't want this thread to be about me.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by saganista

LOL. You are complaining about his alliterative use of the word "class". If he had called it the Creative Cadré instead, his ideas would still be the same, but all these objections of yours would simply melt away.

Wrong again. Anytime you put up a discrete group of people for the purpose of a scentific discourse, a class, an income group, speakers of a common language (e.g. proto-Indo-European speakers), a lobby, a revolutionary Leninist cadre, you have to identify what makes that group distinct and discrete (that's one of Markusen's prime criticisms). Can YOU do that for "Creative Class"?

Let me quote Markusen (whom apparently I never read):

In this piece, I have critiqued the creative class concept, arguing against the metric used to define it, the lumping together of many disparate occupations, and the causal urban growth differentials attributed to it. I have used a key group – artists – to examine its strengths and failings and to suggest that occupations included in the “creative class” have very different urban preferences, politics, and impacts on urban form and community life.

And

In this paper I critique the notion of ‘the creative class’ and the fuzzy causal logic about its relationship to urban growth. I argue that in the creative class, occupations that exhibit distinctive spatial and political proclivities are bunched together, purely on the basis of educational attainment, and with little demonstrable relationship to creativity.

In other words, you take out (control for) high education, they have little in common, not enough to form a class or whatever discrete group name you care to put up. That begs the question: why not just say "educated people" instead of "Creative Class." Answer: Florida can't sell that.

Hoyman and Faricy do exactly what they accuse Florida of doing -- using undifferentiated data. To define the Creative Class, Hoyman and Faricy simply add up the total number of people with job titles that Florida has suggested as containing significant numbers of creative people.

What other method should they use to measure what Florida defined?

You've missed the point and are loathe to admit it. As even some among your collected critics state, Florida's theories have caused a bigger stir and had more influence in the profession than anything to come along in the past couple of decades or more. These ideas did not reach such a level by being the sort of pop- and pseudo-science that you want to claim them to be.

Bahahahaha! "Stir" and even popular acclaim mean jack to the actual veracity of ideas! Is that really your defense now? That Florida's work could not have been so popular with policymakers and self-anointed elites among the masses unless it was true? Why don't you march yourself to the nearest urban studies department at a university and find out what the actual experts on the topic think about the level of academic rigor of Florida's work, if common sense and logic aren't enough for you.

What is that, the fourth time you've mentioned it? Is it supposed to matter?

It's an inside joke, because Florida himself uses registration of intellectual property (patents or "patents density," specifically) in his work and then he himself trademarks the term "Creative Class." You didn't get it obviously.

[FindingZen]

While this is an interesting discussion, it has obviously become to broad to "contain" in Northern Virginia. Therefore, I agree with others' suggestions that this thread be moved to the Urban Planning forum.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Fair enough. But the reasonable ones don't argue that it's "because the world has changed." Also fair enough?
Sure, but that's like arguing against (borrwing from another thread you and I are on) "there is a high teen crime rate in DC" with "I know some good kids from DC." Like rolling the dice, larger sampling sizes tend to verify what's closer to truth.

Sometimes data is simply not available. Sometimes the mismatch between the way the data is specified in the data collection effort, and the specification requirements of the model, make the data used to "test" a model more misleading than anecdotes (it does not prevent such tests from getting published in peer reviewed journals, of course)

And yes, sometimes the relationships among factors underlying data DO change. Using weather data to understand growth rates in a heavily agricultural economy makes sense. Using established parameters from such an analysis to predict the behavior of an economy that has shifted away from agriculture would be likely to give very incorrect results. To take a model that emphasizes factors relevant to an industrial economy, and to claim its junk because it fails to accord with earlier data for an agricultural economy, is a profoundly misleading critique.

IF we are at a point there are major changes in sectoral make up and in drivers or regional economies, it seems unlikely that ANY modeling of past relationships would provide anything but misleading results for policy makers. We can either leave policy makers to flip a coin (in that case they are likely to go with the heaviest political pressures, with newspaper headlines, etc and invest in things like sports stadiums) OR we can try to give them analysis, INCLUDING analysis that does not yet have empirical verification.

Of course some of the time that analysis will be wrong. Thats not the fault of the analyst, but the inevitable result of change.


As for knowing some good kids from DC. A. I didnt actually say I knew any. I mentioned NY and Baltimore and Alex. B. I was NOT contesting a hypothesis that most DC kids (Or baltimore kids, or NY kids were bad) It may be that most DC kids are bad. It may be that most Loudoun County kids are bad. The crime data for DC is data about - well crime in DC. Its NOT data that could determine what the MAJORITY of teens are like in DC. For any hypothesis about the moral quality of ALL or the MAJORITY of DC teens, its merely anecdotal itself. It was thus fair to respond with anecdotes about "inner city" teens that contradicts the IMPRESSION left by the crime data.

If you choose to use teen crime data as an indication of the moral quality of teens by jurisdiction, I dont think I can help you.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Sometimes data is simply not available. Sometimes the mismatch between the way the data is specified in the data collection effort, and the specification requirements of the model, make the data used to "test" a model more misleading than anecdotes (it does not prevent such tests from getting published in peer reviewed journals, of course)

And yes, sometimes the relationships among factors underlying data DO change. Using weather data to understand growth rates in a heavily agricultural economy makes sense. Using established parameters from such an analysis to predict the behavior of an economy that has shifted away from agriculture would be likely to give very incorrect results. To take a model that emphasizes factors relevant to an industrial economy, and to claim its junk because it fails to accord with earlier data for an agricultural economy, is a profoundly misleading critique.

IF we are at a point there are major changes in sectoral make up and in drivers or regional economies, it seems unlikely that ANY modeling of past relationships would provide anything but misleading results for policy makers. We can either leave policy makers to flip a coin (in that case they are likely to go with the heaviest political pressures, with newspaper headlines, etc and invest in things like sports stadiums) OR we can try to give them analysis, INCLUDING analysis that does not yet have empirical verification.

Of course some of the time that analysis will be wrong. Thats not the fault of the analyst, but the inevitable result of change.

Of course, there is a big IF in the above statement from you: "IF we are at a point there are major change..." et al. In this particular instance, Hoyman and Faricy used data up to 2004. Are you now suggesting, as Saganista seem to do, that data up to this rather recent period is "meaningless" given that the economy has (allegedly) so dramatically changed? If so, whence did Florida's "data" come? His first book was published in 2002.

The problem with your argument is that you present no criteria upon which to make an objective evaluation of the soundness of a given, unproven proposition (that happens to conflict with established wisdom and data for that matter), other than to present a false choice of "flipping a coin" or accepting "analysis that does not yet have empirical verification." Unless, of course, that criterion is simply "sound[ing] interesting" to you or seeming reasonable to people who have particular ideologies.

Furthermore, even major changes in the make-up of economic output (which takes a rather long period to accomplish, mind you) do not simply negate past findings. The methodology and data are still valid, but researchers will have to adjust coefficients assigned to different factors, at which task they will arrive by examining the latest data that show directionality (e.g. agro was 60%, now is 55% and is expected to be 40% in a given number of years, etc.). That is most certainly NOT what Florida does.

As for knowing some good kids from DC. A. I didnt actually say I knew any. I mentioned NY and Baltimore and Alex. B. I was NOT contesting a hypothesis that most DC kids (Or baltimore kids, or NY kids were bad) It may be that most DC kids are bad. It may be that most Loudoun County kids are bad. The crime data for DC is data about - well crime in DC. Its NOT data that could determine what the MAJORITY of teens are like in DC. For any hypothesis about the moral quality of ALL or the MAJORITY of DC teens, its merely anecdotal itself. It was thus fair to respond with anecdotes about "inner city" teens that contradicts the IMPRESSION left by the crime data.

If you choose to use teen crime data as an indication of the moral quality of teens by jurisdiction, I dont think I can help you.

I don't think anyone was talking about "moral quality." I wasn't. I don't know where you got that. But "behavioral problems" can be quantified fairly well. Talking about average number of behavioral problem per capita among students or minors is a legitimate topic that can be discussed and analyzed, including by relating it to a proxy such as teen crime data. It seems by above tautological statement "crime data for DC is.. about - well crime in DC" that now you don't believe in proxies for testing. Ironic.

By the way, without in any way being snarky, I note that you have taken a far more scrupulous and rigorous examination (which I welcome) of my responses (which have been provided to you earnestly) than of Saganista's at times generic, vague and faddish statements. Since I hesitate to speculate that it's because you share his ideology or cultural affinity (which, of course, may or may not be true), I'd like to leave it up to you to ponder about and respond, if you'd like. If not, that's fine too, so long as we continue to take each other's responses seriously and provide intellectually honest and rational responses in turn. It'd be certainly more than what some others have done in this thread.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

Of course, there is a big IF in the above statement from you: "IF we are at a point there are major change..." et al. In this particular instance, Hoyman and Faricy used data up to 2004. Are you now suggesting, as Saganista seem to do, that data up to this rather recent period is "meaningless" given that the economy has (allegedly) so dramatically changed? If so, whence did Florida's "data" come? His first book was published in 2002.

The problem with your argument is that you present no criteria upon which to make an objective evaluation of the soundness of a given, unproven proposition (that happens to conflict with established wisdom and data for that matter), other than to present a false choice of "flipping a coin" or accepting "analysis that does not yet have empirical verification." Unless, of course, that criterion is simply "sound[ing] interesting" to you or seeming reasonable to people who have particular ideologies.

Furthermore, even major changes in the make-up of economic output (which takes a rather long period to accomplish, mind you) do not simply negate past findings. The methodology and data are still valid, but researchers will have to adjust coefficients assigned to different factors, at which task they will arrive by examining the latest data that show directionality (e.g. agro was 60%, now is 55% and is expected to be 40% in a given number of years, etc.). That is most certainly NOT what Florida does.
I don't think anyone was talking about "moral quality." I wasn't. I don't know where you got that. But "behavioral problems" can be quantified fairly well. Talking about average number of behavioral problem per capita among students or minors is a legitimate topic that can be discussed and analyzed, including by relating it to a proxy such as teen crime data. It seems by above tautological statement "crime data for DC is.. about - well crime in DC" that now you don't believe in proxies for testing. Ironic.

By the way, without in any way being snarky, I note that you have taken a far more scrupulous and rigorous examination (which I welcome) of my responses (which have been provided to you earnestly) than of Saganista's at times generic, vague and faddish statements. Since I hesitate to speculate that it's because you share his ideology or cultural affinity (which, of course, may or may not be true), I'd like to leave it up to you to ponder about and respond, if you'd like. If not, that's fine too, so long as we continue to take each other's responses seriously and provide intellectually honest and rational responses in turn. It'd be certainly more than what some others have done in this thread.

I could not be more precise about what you are using crime as a proxy for, since I was not at the time looking at the earlier thread - YOU chose to bring a comment of mine from an earlier thread, a comment that was a casual point and NOT intended as part of an analytic discussion, into a discussion of social science points. I have attempted in my response to be fair and scrupulous - do NOT take that as my thinking that your inclusion of my comment in this thread was a reasonable or friendly thing. IOW - because context matters, taking statements out of context can be an inherently unfriendly act.

I again think its quite possible to look at how a change is taking place, and what possible responses there are to that change, in ways that are based on reasonableness to all who look at the driving factors. Empirical data should have a place alongside a full, qualitative analysis of the situation - and IIUC (i have NOT read his books) that is how Florida uses empirical data. Assuming that qualitative analysis CANNOT be objective, and cannot provide valuable information, seems to me to be at the heart of the McNamara fallacy.

my impression is that Saganista is being quite reasonable in her(?) arguments, is not shrill or ideological, and her statement that we will need more years of data to test Florida's thesis is reasonable. Your constant claims that her argument is purely ideological sounds very ad hominem like to me, and undermines your claim to be objective.

So far I have seen ONE empirical academic paper cited by you that is claimed to contradict Florida. I do NOT have the time to analyze that paper or the arguments about it in detail. However her discussion of that paper seemed quite reasonable and insightful to me. Certainly I dont see enough in that paper to justify the anger against defenders of Florida that you have expressed, which I can only conclude has much to do with your own dislike of Floridas policy positions on other grounds.

Personally, as a citizen, based on what I conclude thus far, I would hope my local officials would support the development of areas friendly to the kinds of people Florida is discussing - as long as they can do so at minimal cost - I wouldnt bet all economic development on it. I probably also wouldnt want them to spend money on the consulting fees - (note that would apply to many other consultants of different approaches - I have been in that business as well - I am aware of how a firm on contingency (with a private sector client) can show major "tangible results" by making certain questionable assumptions about base cases. )

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I could not be more precise about what you are using crime as a proxy for, since I was not at the time looking at the earlier thread - YOU chose to bring a comment of mine from an earlier thread, a comment that was a casual point and NOT intended as part of an analytic discussion, into a discussion of social science points. I have attempted in my response to be fair and scrupulous - do NOT take that as my thinking that your inclusion of my comment in this thread was a reasonable or friendly thing. IOW - because context matters, taking statements out of context can be an inherently unfriendly act.

It can be. But it wasn't. Certainly not on my part. I was being partly jokey on that particular score. If you don't appreciate that, fine. Noted. Won't repeat. But still doesn't answer why you assumed "moral quality" -- which seems rather groundless.

I again think its quite possible to look at how a change is taking place, and what possible responses there are to that change, in ways that are based on reasonableness to all who look at the driving factors.

Again, how do you define "reasonable"?

Empirical data should have a place alongside a full, qualitative analysis of the situation - and IIUC (i have NOT read his books) that is how Florida uses empirical data. Assuming that qualitative analysis CANNOT be objective, and cannot provide valuable information, seems to me to be at the heart of the McNamara fallacy.

I never stated that qualitative analysis cannot be objective. That's a straw man, plain and simple. To rephrase, I wrote that a quantitative analysis is a powerful falsifying tool. And Flordia has been falsified.

You and Saganista provided neither robust examples of "objective qualitative analyses" nor evidence that such methods validate Florida's work. You two keep saying things like "things have changed" and "there may be something reasonble there" neither of which thinking persons can accept as evidence for committing major resources to alter the course of public policy.

my impression is that Saganista is being quite reasonable in her(?) arguments, is not shrill or ideological,

Right. The fact that his/her constant ideological cheapshots and one-liners and personal insults don't register with you as long as they are directed at someone you dislike (or with whom you had cantankerous debate earlier) says a lot.

and her statement that we will need more years of data to test Florida's thesis is reasonable.

First, past data have falsified Florida. Nice of you to completely forget my responses above, including the fact that the critical data are up to 2004, that distant past when dinosaurs walked the earth. But even if we conveniently ignore that, his statement of needing future data can be applied to virtually ALL fads and unproven ideas. Do you not attempt to separate the chaff from the kernel with the information at hand? Base on what criteria? I know, whatever is "reasonable and insightful" to YOU, right?

I think most can see that Saganista's claims were a bit more than "we just need more data in the future." I really love the acribing of wild straw man to my actual statements and the utter minimization of Saganista's lengthy diatribes into one very "reasonable" sentence of minimal force.

Your constant claims that her argument is purely ideological sounds very ad hominem like to me, and undermines your claim to be objective.

Another straw man. First, I never claimed that Saganista's arguments were "purely" ideological. Others can judge what extent to which his arguments have been influenced based on frequency of ideological remarks, unwillingness to accept falsifying data/analyses, broadbrush stroke of dismissal of any criticism as "being published by (conservative leaning) Regnery" and so on. In any case, notice that I provided plenty of non-ideological answers to punch holes in his various arguments.

Second, I never claim to be objective. What I have claimed to have done, however, is to provide answers in order to have an intellectually honest discussion, which include providing citations from journals which are not run by or written by (or to) a group of people known for their conservatism, political or otherwise.

So far I have seen ONE empirical academic paper cited by you that is claimed to contradict Florida.

Four. Why do you take Saganista's word that it's only one?

I do NOT have the time to analyze that paper or the arguments about it in detail.

But enough time to write long responses to my posts. Please.

However her discussion of that paper seemed quite reasonable and insightful to me.

Again with the "reasonable" and "insightful." Based on what? Are you now the arbiter of what is reasonable and insightful? There are crazy people who think Sean Hannity is "reasonable and insightful," you know. I am not one of them, I'm sure you are not either. But that's based on empirical evidence, not one person's say-so.

Certainly I dont see enough in that paper to justify the anger against defenders of Florida that you have expressed, which I can only conclude has much to do with your own dislike of Floridas policy positions on other grounds.

And what evidence do you have to draw the conclusion? Seems to be same type of fallacy you attribute to me ("only conclude... on other grounds" -- and what grounds are these, oh, mysterious one?). My MAIN objection to Florida -- in common with all my objections to other fads, including "novel" measures of estimating a stock's value -- is that he is pitching an unproven, frankly falsified, theory to get fame and money all the while harming urban areas that can use the resources (material or opportunity) better in other ways (and it's clear he doesn't have satisfied customers, for whatever that's worth). Simply put, I don't care for hucksters whether they have Ph.D. or not. I will come down like a ton of bricks on hucksters who appeal to "conservatives" with the same kind of shoddy pop-science. In this particular case, do I think Florida now is a huckster who plays on the liberal sensibilities of a particular segment of the population (whatever he was earlier in his admittedly more solid academic career)? Yes, I do. But that's not the main reason.

Frankly, I like areas that are diverse (truly diverse, not like, say, urban Seattle where diversity is Democrats vs. socialists and the same type of politicians get elected again and again no matter what the result). I don't like political monopolies (not even by my "home team").

I am gay-sensitive (know some very closely and pray for them constantly that God would lift their pain and the harder crosses they bear than the rest of us), I like ethnic restaurants and all that good, urbane stuff. I am all for policy makers attempting to attract well-educated, affluent people who bring economic advantages to a given area.

But that does not mean I endorse giving fame and money to charlatans. Or to those who buy into such charlatans because they appeal to the ideological vanity of whatever stripe.

I wouldnt bet all economic development on it. I probably also wouldnt want them to spend money on the consulting fees - (note that would apply to many other consultants of different approaches - I have been in that business as well - I am aware of how a firm on contingency (with a private sector client) can show major "tangible results" by making certain questionable assumptions about base cases. )

On that we finally agree.

[brooklynborndad]

I do NOT have the time to analyze that paper or the arguments about it in detail. But enough time to write long responses to my posts. Please.



yes. as a matter of fact I can write these pretty quickly, and detailed quantitative analysis is much more time consuming. Readers can judge my take on Saganistas tone on their own, and your take on it on their own. I stand behind my sense of them.

I do not find this exchange illuminating any more. I hope one of the urban planning regulars will chime in, or Saganista (who is much more familiar with these issues than I am) will return.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I do not find this exchange illuminating any more.

(ILD calls his mother, asks her to fetch him as his sandbox mate for the day is done playing with him.)