U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-17-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,917,166 times
Reputation: 10536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
First of all, Atlantic Cities is hardly an unbiased source.
It's a logical fallacy to discredit evidence based upon the source. Even when someone links to working papers from the Heritage Foundation, I try to discredit them based upon the merits, rather than the source.

Regardless, I only linked to the top google result. If you want further academic arguments, you can find them here, here, here and here.

Here's a skeptic punching a few holes into the argument. Mind you, this just is a quick critique of the latest paper, which is U.S. focused. The argument falls apart when you look at global data, which generally fits what the 2013 study has shown. No study anywhere in the developed world, to the contrary has shown lower unemployment associated with homeownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I can understand#1 to a point. However, having known many people who moved out of town, usually out of state, who were homeowners, I'm not so sure it's a major issue. I do know people in their 50s and 60s who say they won't move again, but that's a slightly different issue.
In bad real estate markets, many people are underwater. Their only options if they want to move for work are to declare bankruptcy to get out from under a house, or to rent their house out long distance. Neither one is particularly appealing.

One might presume that some of it is age-related. Older people, as you said, might not just want to start over, and those with school-age children may not want to force their kids to start over somewhere new. But at least one of the studies I linked you to corrected for age differences between renters and homeowners, and still found a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2014, 01:56 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
It's a logical fallacy to discredit evidence based upon the source. Even when someone links to working papers from the Heritage Foundation, I try to discredit them based upon the merits, rather than the source.

Regardless, I only linked to the top google result. If you want further academic arguments, you can find them here, here, here and here.

Here's a skeptic punching a few holes into the argument. Mind you, this just is a quick critique of the latest paper, which is U.S. focused. The argument falls apart when you look at global data, which generally fits what the 2013 study has shown. No study anywhere in the developed world, to the contrary has shown lower unemployment associated with homeownership.



In bad real estate markets, many people are underwater. Their only options if they want to move for work are to declare bankruptcy to get out from under a house, or to rent their house out long distance. Neither one is particularly appealing.

One might presume that some of it is age-related. Older people, as you said, might not just want to start over, and those with school-age children may not want to force their kids to start over somewhere new. But at least one of the studies I linked you to corrected for age differences between renters and homeowners, and still found a difference.
Good for Wiki. In my field, we do look at the source. Do you have any idea how many quackery websites are out there?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...59568121,d.aWc
Internet Research - Reliable Sources
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...59568121,d.aWc
(Atlantic Cities is an example of a "popular journal".)
Identifying Reliable Sources and Citing Them | Scholastic.com
Evaluating Health Information: MedlinePlus
Finding Reliable Health Information on the Internet | Allina Health
Health Information on the Web: Finding Reliable Information -- FamilyDoctor.org

These all say about the same things.

We weren't talking about people whose mortgages are underwater. We were talking about home ownership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 03:54 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Good for Wiki. In my field, we do look at the source. Do you have any idea how many quackery websites are out there?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...59568121,d.aWc
Internet Research - Reliable Sources
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...59568121,d.aWc
(Atlantic Cities is an example of a "popular journal".)
Identifying Reliable Sources and Citing Them | Scholastic.com
Evaluating Health Information: MedlinePlus
Finding Reliable Health Information on the Internet | Allina Health
Health Information on the Web: Finding Reliable Information -- FamilyDoctor.org

These all say about the same things.

We weren't talking about people whose mortgages are underwater. We were talking about home ownership.
To edit-the Wiki source said nothing about discrediting the evidence based on the source. It talked about appeals to motive, something entirely different. Any good argument should consider the source of its points. Popular press journals do not carry the same weight as academic journals. Their writers do not always understand the studies they're referencing. I see that a lot in health care, even on NPR, maybe especially on NPR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

The conclusion "In doing so, we have found evidence that high
home-ownership in a US state is associated with
lower labor mobility,
longer commutes, and
fewer new firms and establishments."
I think there are a few patterns (here in the US). The places with the patterns of "hot job growth in high paying jobs" seems to correspond very closely with places with a high cost of living. Some of these jobs also have high turnover. Obviously, if you own a home that is only close to one job center, and the job centers with the big growth are far, then you either suck it up and drive far or stay put in a crappy job.

This wasn't an issue before, when jobs/employers valued keeping their employees around longer, but these days people have a lot more job transitions than they used to, and being tied to a mortgage can limit job mobility. Especially for those in a region without a lot of work available.

It was assumed for a while, with the rise of the intent, jobs could be anywhere. But in reality, the "knowledge capital" is pretty concentrated in some metro areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 04:38 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,193,406 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I think there are a few patterns (here in the US). The places with the patterns of "hot job growth in high paying jobs" seems to correspond very closely with places with a high cost of living. Some of these jobs also have high turnover. Obviously, if you own a home that is only close to one job center, and the job centers with the big growth are far, then you either suck it up and drive far or stay put in a crappy job.

This wasn't an issue before, when jobs/employers valued keeping their employees around longer, but these days people have a lot more job transitions than they used to, and being tied to a mortgage can limit job mobility. Especially for those in a region without a lot of work available.

It was assumed for a while, with the rise of the intent, jobs could be anywhere. But in reality, the "knowledge capital" is pretty concentrated in some metro areas.
I have certainly seen this in the 20 & 30 year olds that I know. Few own homes, most have changed jobs several times and often moved across town rather than stay in place and commute. They saw the damage the recession did to RE and also have seen the rental areas are more walkable than owner occupied areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 07:10 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
I have certainly seen this in the 20 & 30 year olds that I know. Few own homes, most have changed jobs several times and often moved across town rather than stay in place and commute. They saw the damage the recession did to RE and also have seen the rental areas are more walkable than owner occupied areas.
You must know a different subset of these people than I do. Looking at my kids (ages 26 and 29), their spouse/fiance, the other kids of that age group in my extended family, my kids' friends, and my friends' kids, the above is not happening. The oldest of them are mostly married, virtually ALL settled in jobs they've either had for a while, or maybe on their second job out of school after several years in a previous one. The older ones, again, are buying houses and having babies. The younger ones may be renting, and some are still in grad school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You must know a different subset of these people than I do. Looking at my kids (ages 26 and 29), their spouse/fiance, the other kids of that age group in my extended family, my kids' friends, and my friends' kids, the above is not happening. The oldest of them are mostly married, virtually ALL settled in jobs they've either had for a while, or maybe on their second job out of school after several years in a previous one. The older ones, again, are buying houses and having babies. The younger ones may be renting, and some are still in grad school.
Not where I live. I'm 35. Some of my friends are married with kids. Others are married. Of my circle, one couple owns rental property in a nearby metro, but they rent. Even though they are fairly settled at work. One couple (with the highest household income in our circle), they were the first to buy, their place list 40% in the downturn o try waited for it to appreciate and so,d a couple months ago at a profit. They are now renting too and they make well over the average income in the area.

One other friend has a condo she purchased a few years ago, she is single in a long term relationship with no plans for kids. She is late 30s and purchased in her mid 30s.

A few neighbors my age with kids, in my building, are recent homeowners, and they bought condos. I know one single woman my age, she bought a small house in an up and coming area. My former boss, a single 45 year old became a condo owner at 43.

My recently engaged and recently married friends plan to have kids, and not buy. Each places walk ability high in their lists and rent in walkable areas.

I know a 38 year old who bought a condo a year ago in an up and coming area, and one more 32 year old single female who did the same. Everyone else I know rents. My extended circles are pretty large.

As for the schools? Well the friends that live close to me are also pondering saving up for private school. The ones in a different part of our metro with better school districts are less concerned. But the life styles in the other area are very different than the one where I live. As are the demographics.

So based on people I know, there is a bit less job hopping, lots of renting, and lots of desire for walkable areas (and schools matter to the parents but they all want walkable areas close to work. Unfortunately for some there is no such thing within 30 miles of their jobs).

Most people I know have well paying jobs, many making over $100k individually. Still mostly renters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 11:37 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,790,623 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Unfortunately, you forgot to include the higher cost of transit.

Breaking down the economics of bus vs MAX - Portland Transport

For MAX, it costs the tax payer 64 cents per boarding in operating costs plus another 67 cents per boarding in infrastructure costs. This is cheaper than the bus which costs $1.96 per boarding for the tax payer in operating costs plus whatever the infrastructure costs are (buses don't pay anything for road maintenance, fuel taxes for govt vehicles is rebated).

Assuming the average person gets on transit only four times per day, including transfers, and only takes rail, that means they cost $1,650 per year. If the roads got $1,650 per year in funding per routine user we wouldn't even know what to spend on it all. In total, we spend about $80 billion a year on highways and streets per year. Assuming only 200,000,000 people are regular road users (absurdly low), that works out to about $400 per year. And that's total spending. According to Streetblogs, gas taxes and user fees cover only 50% of road costs, so that's now $200 a year.

$200 a year or $1,650 a year. One really has to be bad at math to state that $200 per year is not less than $1,650 per year. So how do you get people to want to spend 800% more subsidizing transit? Well, you make the benefit worth the cost. If it's not, people aren't going to be real excited about it. The most obvious, direct method is because you'd have to drive less. The marginal cost to the user of driving a mile is maybe 20-30 cents. If you can make transit good enough that people drive 6,000 - 8,000 fewer miles a year then they higher additional taxation might make sense. Alternatively, if you can cut one car from a household, the $1,650 looks attractive very quickly. No surprise NYC supports the very high levels of taxation necessary to pay for transit there. Lots of people don't have cars at all or only one car per household. Overhead cost on cars is quite a lot offsetting the higher taxation. Then you have your other advantages. Say parking is $300/month downtown and you can take BART from Dublin to San Francisco (1,600 miles per month plus $300 in parking plus $120 in tolls). Small wonder commuter service into urban areas is popular. Slightly exaggerated since BART, due to its distance, has much higher subsidies per boarding (~$7.50 operating subsidy average). Still the $300 subsidy per month is equal to the parking costs making high taxes an attractive alternative to driving expenses.
I think you're looking at it too narrowly.

Eliminating car usage or relegating it to a per-use paid service should be the goal for cities.

You're ignoring the effects of maintenance on a car, loan payments, gas, in addition to the environmental X-factor.

But, in the end, I agree that it is a process to reduce the number of miles driven per year. And part of it will be cars, always will. For instance, it is not like the suburbs will wilter and rot. Plenty of companies exist in the suburbs and more and more workers are moving closer to work. What works best, then, is well-funded subruban roads that have technology in the pavement and the car to increase gas mileage, as well as better funding for mass transit into the cities. Portland and Seattle are excellent examples where mass transit can work (and Seattle desperately needs better options for folks living on the Eastside).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 08:26 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You must know a different subset of these people than I do. Looking at my kids (ages 26 and 29), their spouse/fiance, the other kids of that age group in my extended family, my kids' friends, and my friends' kids, the above is not happening. The oldest of them are mostly married, virtually ALL settled in jobs they've either had for a while, or maybe on their second job out of school after several years in a previous one. The older ones, again, are buying houses and having babies. The younger ones may be renting, and some are still in grad school.
Well, it's a big elephant and there's a lot of different parts to it. I see some patterns in the subset of 20-30 year olds I know, but I think people who work for one particular tech company in Manhattan aren't particularly representative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 08:29 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Well, it's a big elephant and there's a lot of different parts to it. I see some patterns in the subset of 20-30 year olds I know, but I think people who work for one particular tech company in Manhattan aren't particularly representative.
I agree with that. That's why we shouldn't stereotype on this board, e.g. "Millenials have the Holy Grail; they're going to be DIFFERENT from their swine Boomer parents", etc.

My examples work for all kinds of companies, mostly in engineering and health care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top