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

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I didn't claim to be quoting it verbatim, which is why I didn't use quotes. It says 34% of residents are considering moving due to housing, which seems extremely high. And it mentions housing specifically multiple times, including in the summary about ways to thwart the negative migration.

Ah, so you just made up your assertion. Got it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Ah, so you just made it up. Got it.

I knew you weren't conversing in good faith. There are more options than "verbatim quote" and "made it up."

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I knew you weren't conversing in good faith. There are more options than "verbatim quote" and "made it up."

You make a conclusive assertion like that without any real evidence and then talk about conversing in good faith? lmao

34 percent of people considering moving because of high housing costs does not begin to support your blanket statement.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

You make a conclusive assertion like that without any real evidence and then talk about conversing in good faith? lmao

Except I didn't. The report frequently cites housing costs as a main driver of outflow migration, and in the recommendations portion, the only factor addressed regarding outflow migration is housing costs.

"Good faith" means you are actually interested in a productive discussion, which you pretended to be in the beginning.

Does anyone here honestly believe that if California's housing costs were cut by 40% that there would still be negative net migration? Anyone?

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Except I didn't. The report frequently cites housing costs as a main driver of outflow migration, and in the recommendations portion, the only factor addressed regarding outflow migration is housing costs.

"Good faith" means you are actually interested in a productive discussion, which you pretended to be in the beginning.

Does anyone here honestly believe that if California's housing costs were cut by 40% that there would still be negative net migration? Anyone?

It also says an increasing number of higher income Californians are leaving the state. Is that because they find it desirable?

BTW: What specific factors do you attribute to desirability?

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

It also says an increasing number of higher income Californians are leaving the state. Is that because they find is desirable?

You're dodging the question.

And I don't see where the report goes into the reason for why an increasing number of high-income Californians are leaving the state, but my guess is that "high income" in California doesn't always mean "high enough income."

But back to the question I just posed: If California's housing costs were suddenly cut by 40%, do you honestly believe they'd still have negative net migration?

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I didn't say anything about MA, so I have no idea how I made it seem like anything.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I have no idea how you gathered that from anything I said. I didn't even mention MA, and at no point did I imply that everyone would want to live any specific place if money were no object. This is such a wild interpretation of my comment that I'm questioning the usefulness of this conversation.

You are posting in the MA forum. Others are going to presume your comments relate to MA somehow when posting here.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

You're dodging the question.

And I don't see where the report goes into the reason for why an increasing number of high-income Californians are leaving the state, but my guess is that "high income" in California doesn't always mean "high enough income."

But back to the question I just posed: If California's housing costs were suddenly cut by 40%, do you honestly believe they'd still have negative net migration?

In a vacuum? Where the costs just magically drop by your arbitrary 40 percent mark absent other variables and confounders? It's not a realistic scenario or question so why would I speak to it? None of these issues exist independently.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

You are posting in the MA forum. Others are going to presume your comments relate to MA somehow when posting here.

Not when my discussion with the other user is clearly about California.

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

In a vacuum? Where the costs just magically drop by your arbitrary 40 percent mark absent other variables and confounders? It's not a realistic scenario or question so why would I speak to it? None of these issues exist independently.

Where people would choose to live if they could afford to live anywhere says a ton about desirability. If more people would move to California if housing costs drop, that implies housing costs are a major driver of the current negative net migration.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Not when my discussion with the other user is clearly about California.




Where people would choose to live if they could afford to live anywhere says a ton about desirability. If more people would move to California if housing costs drop, that implies housing costs are a major driver of the current negative net migration.

Well that would also be dependent on where they're coming from and how much it costs to live there....along with other variables. Do you think migrants from Mexico and South America move there because of the housing costs? I thought people moved to these states because of the desirability. what exactly are those factors anyway?