2 ms·

People will happily move to heavily polluted cities to get a job. Should we infer they enjoy pollution? You're absolutely right that people won't always answer

People will happily move to heavily polluted cities to get a job. Should we infer they enjoy pollution? You're absolutely right that people won't always answer polls seriously or honestly, but it's fairly clear people will put up with awful situations if it will help their family out, so looking at their actions isn't a reliable indicator either.

parineum 6y ago
No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. The metric is that they _do_ prefer that city to others. If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  > No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others. The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions. Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.

parineum 6y ago

No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. The metric is that they _do_ prefer that city to others. If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
> No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others. The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions. Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.