Is Boston having the same problems with "crime" as many blue cities like SF, LA, NYC, Portland, Chicago, etc.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Nope. Hawaii is vacation land. MA is not. Two completely different places. MA is mainly 'desirable' because it provides jobs which is security. People are then forced to pay for an overpriced home here to be near their jobs

I didn't say anything about MA.

You've been pushing back against the idea that some places, like California and Hawaii, are more desirable than others since the discussion started. Yet you just said yourself that Hawaii is the sort of place that people just want to experience and are willing to pay more to do it. That's desirability.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I mean...isn't Hawaii simply so expensive because so much (food, clothing, building materials) has to be imported or brought in from the mainland?

Yes. I remember in 2002 milk was $6 a gallon there

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

At no point did I claim it did. I only referred to the marginal changes in migration in response to marginal changes in housing costs. I never claimed housing costs are solely attributable to desirability, yet you keep saying this.

You claimed that costs in general in these cities is reflective of desirability. I don't see evidence of that claim and if there were such evidence, it certainly wouldn't be absent an operational definition for desirability. Your other general claim that homelessness in big blue cities is primarily driven by housing costs is also on shaky ground.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

You claimed that costs in general in these cities is reflective of desirability.

Yes, but that is not the same thing as saying housing prices are solely reflective of desirability. Ceteris paribus, as desirability increases, housing costs will increase. But ceteris paribus scenarios give us points about the margins.

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I don't see evidence of that claim and if there were such evidence, it certainly wouldn't be absent an operational definition for desirability. Your other claim that homelessness in big blue cities is primarily driven by housing costs is also on shaky ground.

The affordability index figures are evidence. And desirability is the preference for one place over another when all other things are equal. If the cost of living relative to my income is the same in two places, which do I prefer?

You're wanting me to list beaches and weather, etc., but we don't even need to get into that. We can see which places people are willing to spend more on, relative to their income, and know what places they prefer.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Yes, but that is not the same thing as saying housing prices are solely reflective of desirability. Ceteris paribus, as desirability increases, housing costs will increase. But ceteris paribus scenarios give us points about the margins.



The affordability index figures are evidence. And desirability is the preference for one place over another when all other things are equal. If the cost of living relative to my income is the same in two places, which do I prefer?

You're wanting me to list beaches and weather, etc., but we don't even need to get into that. We can see which places people are willing to spend more on, relative to their income, and know what places they prefer.

Are you claiming that CA, MA and Alabama are equal comparisons? And the affordability indexes don't prove anything in that regard. Your arguments are geared to the small percentage of people with the disposable income to make such choices based on their own finances. Not the vast majority without.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Are you claiming that CA, MA and Alabama are equal?

Where on earth did I claim that? Are you referring to the affordability index comparing them? If so, adjustments are made for things like cost of living, income and housing.

Honestly, this conversation isn't really productive. Somehow the arguments that I think are quite clear are getting muddied on your end.

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

And the affordability indexes don't prove anything in that regard.

Yes, they do.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Where on earth did I claim that? Are you referring to the affordability index comparing them? If so, adjustments are made for things like cost of living, income and housing.

Honestly, this conversation isn't really productive. Somehow the arguments that I think are quite clear are getting muddied on your end.



Yes, they do.

That could be your problem.

[PureBoston]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Where on earth did I claim that? Are you referring to the affordability index comparing them? If so, adjustments are made for things like cost of living, income and housing.

Honestly, this conversation isn't really productive. Somehow the arguments that I think are quite clear are getting muddied on your end.



Yes, they do.

You're entire argument assumes that the guy eating a Big Mac in Pittsburgh would rather be having a steak in Marin County if only he could afford it. More a function of your own bias than reality.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by PureBoston

You're entire argument assumes that the guy eating a Big Mac in Pittsburgh would rather be having a steak in Marin County if only he could afford it. Partisan blindness prevents you from understanding just how subjective desirability is.

Most people would. I never claimed that personal desirability wasn't subjective or that some people would rather have a Big Mac in Pittsburgh. But we're talking about the totality of the US population's preferences, not individuals. And desirability as an economic concept isn't subjective, and we can get a pretty good look at it just by seeing preferences. If people are willing to spend more of their income to be in one location than another, they probably prefer that location. That's another way of saying, in aggregate, it's more desirable.

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

That could be your problem.

No, they're quite clear. You're just missing their import.

[msRB311]

I do think you're missing the point too...if people could choose anywhere in the world to live, job situation doesn't matter, i think it's safe to say most would not choose MA. The reason so many choose it is for jobs....which they NEED. If they just needed a house the world would be their oyster.