2 ms·

> But index crimes in Chicago are far below where they were at any point in the 1990s. The full context isn't just "crime is up", but also "up from where". Tha

> But index crimes in Chicago are far below where they were at any point in the 1990s. The full context isn't just "crime is up", but also "up from where". That context isn't helpful for someone who is considering where to live. I don't care what crime rates were in a city 30 years ago, I care how a given city's crime rates compare to other places today (and possibly in the foreseeable future). > But it has not at all much to do with the quality of life for professionals in the city. I take your point that, in a segregated city like Chicago, the north-side crime rates are going to be a lot lower than the city average, but I'm pretty sure rates are rising in virtually all neighborhoods.

tptacek 4y ago
Yes, and that's what I'm telling you: that the "rising crime rate" story tells you nothing at all about what it's like to live here, because crime is rising from historic lows, and the headline crimes are gang-related and largely confined to neighborhoods you won't live in --- something you can see pretty clearly from the different rates of increase of homicide (the quintessential gang crime) and violent crime overall (still near all-time lows). You came to this discussion with a data point that clearly isn't meaningful. You don't even need empirical data to see that; logic is enough to tell you that you can't deduce quality of life from "crime is up". Up from where? But, to be helpful, I've provided that context for you.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  It seems like you misunderstood my argument. Based on: > You came to this discussion with a data point that clearly isn't meaningful. You don't even need empirical data to see that; logic is enough to tell you that you can't deduce quality of life from "crime is up". ... it seems like you think I'm arguing "rates are up over the last decade and thus quality of life must be bad overall". My argument is that crime rates are high overall (tenth worst of the top 100 big cities) and on a worsening trajectory. The near-term trajectory (i.e., the last ~decade) is important because we don't live in a city from moment to moment, but we will likely be in a city for 5 or more years. I also don't purport to claim that crime rates tell you everything about a place's quality of life, in case that wasn't clear. Yes, it is unlikely that a professional will live in the worst neighborhoods in Chicago, but they're also less likely to live in the worst neighborhoods in any other city they might move to. You could credibly argue that Chicago's more segregated nature means more variation in crime rates between the worst and the best neighborhoods, which I completely believe (and consequently I also consider more qualitative assessments of cities in addition to a strictly numerical approach considering the dearth of data).
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Ok! You're probably right and we're probably just talking past each other.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      No worries, I'm sure I contributed to the confusion in some way. :)

tptacek 4y ago

Yes, and that's what I'm telling you: that the "rising crime rate" story tells you nothing at all about what it's like to live here, because crime is rising from historic lows, and the headline crimes are gang-related and largely confined to neighborhoods you won't live in --- something you can see pretty clearly from the different rates of increase of homicide (the quintessential gang crime) and violent crime overall (still near all-time lows). You came to this discussion with a data point that clearly isn't meaningful. You don't even need empirical data to see that; logic is enough to tell you that you can't deduce quality of life from "crime is up". Up from where? But, to be helpful, I've provided that context for you.

throwaway894345 4y ago
It seems like you misunderstood my argument. Based on: > You came to this discussion with a data point that clearly isn't meaningful. You don't even need empirical data to see that; logic is enough to tell you that you can't deduce quality of life from "crime is up". ... it seems like you think I'm arguing "rates are up over the last decade and thus quality of life must be bad overall". My argument is that crime rates are high overall (tenth worst of the top 100 big cities) and on a worsening trajectory. The near-term trajectory (i.e., the last ~decade) is important because we don't live in a city from moment to moment, but we will likely be in a city for 5 or more years. I also don't purport to claim that crime rates tell you everything about a place's quality of life, in case that wasn't clear. Yes, it is unlikely that a professional will live in the worst neighborhoods in Chicago, but they're also less likely to live in the worst neighborhoods in any other city they might move to. You could credibly argue that Chicago's more segregated nature means more variation in crime rates between the worst and the best neighborhoods, which I completely believe (and consequently I also consider more qualitative assessments of cities in addition to a strictly numerical approach considering the dearth of data).
- tptacek 4y ago
  Ok! You're probably right and we're probably just talking past each other.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    No worries, I'm sure I contributed to the confusion in some way. :)