3 ms·

It's probably a reasonable metric. But, it doesn't necessarily tell us why. Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough jo

It's probably a reasonable metric. But, it doesn't necessarily tell us why. Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough job market to offset several other negatives (long commutes, lack of green space). Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Put another way, given the option between two suburban hell-scapes, people will pick the one that pays better. But, it's a still a suburban hell-scape. Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).

parineum 6y ago
> Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city. I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example... > Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC). "Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there. Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.

parineum 6y ago

> Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city. I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example... > Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC). "Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there. Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.