3 ms·

>I'm not impressed by snark about being "stuck in STL for some odd reason." You shouldn't be either. It's not particularly clever. It wasn't meant to be "cleve

>I'm not impressed by snark about being "stuck in STL for some odd reason." You shouldn't be either. It's not particularly clever. It wasn't meant to be "clever". Maybe you think it's a great place, but if you're offended that not everyone thinks STL is some great place to live, that's your problem. STL does not have a reputation as a nice place to live. Proof: Ferguson. And Midwest weather is generally very bad (temperature extremes, tornados, etc.). And the crime rate there is known to be very high. If I was forced to live in some Midwest city, STL is probably the last place I'd choose. There's plenty of other Midwest cities that have boring but safe reputations. Yes, $500k can buy a luxurious house in the Midwest, but the salaries there are much lower so you're not going to be able to afford that house there anyway.

dionidium 10y ago
I'm not offended. I'm well aware of the perception and reputation of places like St. Louis. You're absolutely right about perception. What I'm arguing is that the perception is erroneous and based on a very limited understanding of what's really going on in the Rust Belt. The fact that you think "Proof: Ferguson" is a complete thought demonstrates this beyond doubt. But you're definitely right about the weather. It sucks. Edit: Just one thing I wanted to point out, not so much for you, but for anyone else reading this. Saying that, "And the crime rate there is known to be very high" about St. Louis is equivalent to suggesting that the South Bay isn't safe because the crime rate is very high in Oakland. The only difference is that nobody measures the safety of the South Bay against Oakland. But in St. Louis, the whole region is referred to as "St. Louis" even though only the inner core -- St. Louis City -- is included in those crime stats. You're right about one thing: that's a huge perception problem. The crime rate is "known" to be high here due to ignorance about how the region draws its political borders (which affects how crime stats are collected) and wildly mistaken impressions about Ferguson. But, I guess as long as you "know" it to be true, it's not worth trying to better understand it.

dionidium 10y ago

I'm not offended. I'm well aware of the perception and reputation of places like St. Louis. You're absolutely right about perception. What I'm arguing is that the perception is erroneous and based on a very limited understanding of what's really going on in the Rust Belt. The fact that you think "Proof: Ferguson" is a complete thought demonstrates this beyond doubt. But you're definitely right about the weather. It sucks. Edit: Just one thing I wanted to point out, not so much for you, but for anyone else reading this. Saying that, "And the crime rate there is known to be very high" about St. Louis is equivalent to suggesting that the South Bay isn't safe because the crime rate is very high in Oakland. The only difference is that nobody measures the safety of the South Bay against Oakland. But in St. Louis, the whole region is referred to as "St. Louis" even though only the inner core -- St. Louis City -- is included in those crime stats. You're right about one thing: that's a huge perception problem. The crime rate is "known" to be high here due to ignorance about how the region draws its political borders (which affects how crime stats are collected) and wildly mistaken impressions about Ferguson. But, I guess as long as you "know" it to be true, it's not worth trying to better understand it.