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

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Affordability indexes take into account income. Even when adjusted for the job market, those places are cheap. And, even when adjusted for the job market, California and Hawaii are expensive.

my point is there are no jobs bringing people to Alabama or Mississippi.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Some people are willing to stretch further. Others are not or unable to. Still others move to some of these areas because the state is willing to sacrifice its own so others may take their places.

So your thesis is that California and Hawaii just coincidentally happen to have more people willing to stretch further? It isn't that they are more desirable than Mississippi and Alabama?

You honestly don't think there's a major difference in desirability between places like Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, Iowa and Oklahoma (the most affordable places) and places like California, Hawaii, Washington, Florida and Colorado (a few of the least affordable)?

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Why? My opinion of what would make California desirable to me is completely irrelevant. We can look at the data and see that the market as a whole thinks California is desirable because they're willing to stretch further to live there.

Places like Alabama and Mississippi have the best affordability in the country. California and Hawaii are dead last. The market is, ostensibly, willing to be relatively poorer to live in California and Hawaii than Alabama and Mississippi. That's desirability, regardless of factors.

If you're going to claim that housing is based solely on desirability as opposed to need or other factors, then I think defining it is important.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

If you're going to claim that housing is based solely on desirability as opposed to need or other factors, then I think defining it is important.

Except I never once made that claim.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

So your thesis is that California and Hawaii just coincidentally happen to have more people willing to stretch further? It isn't that they are more desirable than Mississippi and Alabama?

Never made such an implication.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Never made such an implication.

When I presented you with the fact that California has the worst affordability in the nation because people are willing to stretch further, you responded by saying that "some people are willing to stretch further than others." If that wasn't a response to my point about California's poor affordability, what was it?

Let's just be clear and get on the same page here: Are you denying that places with worse affordability are generally more desirable places?

[msRB311]

People have to go where the jobs are !

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

When I presented you with the fact that California has the worst affordability in the nation because people are willing to stretch further, you responded by saying that "some people are willing to stretch further than others." If that wasn't a response to my point about California's poor affordability, what was it?

Let's just be clear and get on the same page here: Are you denying that places with worse affordability are generally more desirable places?

No, I said some people are willing to stretch further. Others are not. Others stay there for other reasons. People are not flocking to CA and there isn't a lot of housing being built. You want to make this a comparison between Alabama and CA but that's just a false dilemma. You're claiming CA is expensive because it's that much more desirable. It's desirable to some and for many different reasons. But there's no evidence that its outrageous housing costs are simply because it's outrageously more desirable than anywhere that isn't as costly. There are many factors involved in why the housing is so high and many people stay there for reasons that don't correspond to how much they desire living there. Just like MA. You're oversimplifying the issue. There's a marked difference between desiring to be someplace and needing to be someplace for other reasons completely. Define desirability.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

When I presented you with the fact that California has the worst affordability in the nation because people are willing to stretch further, you responded by saying that "some people are willing to stretch further than others." If that wasn't a response to my point about California's poor affordability, what was it?

Let's just be clear and get on the same page here: Are you denying that places with worse affordability are generally more desirable places?

Prices generally go with supply & demand. Because of the specialized skills required and high tech companies, the expensive areas stay and even get more expensive. Just look at what's happening to Austin, TX if anyone has doubts. But it's undeniable that the "normal" person in the trades / service / public sector will definitely feel the squeeze in such areas, and would be better off moving to a lower cost of living area.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by msRB311

People have to go where the jobs are !

I don't think Hawaii is known for jobs.