4 ms·
> This post could benefit greatly from a little more quantitative analysis. The article does actually mention quantitative analyses some, and why critics dismi
by jobu 9y ago
> This post could benefit greatly from a little more quantitative analysis.
The article does actually mention quantitative analyses some, and why critics dismiss it:
Critics think advocates put too much trust in quantitative analyses which try to estimate the effect of supply on prices. (Like this one [1] which estimates that adding 5,000 new units each year would be enough to stabilize real prices.) Such studies inevitably make dubious simplifying assumptions, and it’s all too easy to set up an analysis to get the conclusion you want.
[1] http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html http://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employmen...
- projectramo 9y agoI don't think the quant analysis eliminates debate (i.e. it will have advocates and critics). However, it does focus the debate on better issues. The question of housing may hang on exactly how much new housing is introduced by allowing people to kill more birds, for instance. Without the quantification, you might still be arguing about how much green space should be mandated. (These examples are pulled out of thin air). To put my point another way, the absence of criticism is not a benefit of quant analysis.