5 ms·

You can't really control for this because it's completely subjective.

by mcntsh 4y ago

mint2 4y ago
One could argue the price differences show how much people are willing to pay. Think how much money I could save by moving out of SF. I am staying here. If Leaving out a crucial aspects just because they are hard to quantify then it is easy to stray into the garbage in garbage out arena. That’s harsh, I don’t think the list is garbage I just think it needs to at least try.
- mcntsh 4y ago
  Counter point: most people in America don't live in these HCOL cities.
  - mint2 4y ago
    Yes, but the ones that do are clearly forgoing tens or of thousands to do it so unquestionably it has value. That’s actually one way the results of the study can be interpreted, despite paying a cost of living difference of about $40k to live in NY vs Tennessee, smart people are choosing NY. That means the benefit they get by remaining in NY is greater than $40k… To a rough first order approximation. But it’s no rougher than completely neglecting value of location. On a side note, that’s a nice 2 story house on the beach, want to swap it for my two story house in the suburbs? It’s equivalent right!
    - mcntsh 4y ago
      > Yes, but the ones that do are clearly forgoing tens or of thousands to do it so unquestionably it has value. ... that only means it has value for those people. If money wasn't an option, I still wouldn't move to San Francisco.
      - mint2 4y ago
        In that case it’s apparent we agree that cities are not interchangeable commodities and factors beyond COL cannot be ignored for actual practical decision making.
        mcntsh 4y ago
        No there's no agreement, you're being overly pedantic. This analysis covers DOLLAR COST comparisons of the cities, it doesn't take into account anything outside of that. If it's not valuable to you then skip over it.
        mint2 4y ago
        Unfortunately while I won’t be persuaded by a list that is mostly useless, others will make decisions on it without realizing how misleading it is. That is why I object.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
But if you don't control for it, the analysis is meaningless.
- mcntsh 4y ago
  It's not because it removes subjectivity out of the equation. You might put a lot of value into living by a train station and stores but someone else might but a lot of value into having space and a garden. You can't factor the benefits of these things because the value of them is subjective.
  - mint2 4y ago
    Exactly, cities can’t be treated like interchangeable commodities. The list that simply compares price and nothing. Why is anyone drinking Napa wine or craft coffee rather than gallon jug wine and Folgers? Would it make sense to create a list of wine where the sole criteria is price? Tastes like hangovers and burning but $25 buys five gallons, while this tasty wine only gets a bottle! Adding location into it, only gets two glasses for the tasty wine at a bar. so might as well stay home and drink a gallon of hangover on a couch. By using a ranking that ignores anything hard to price, it’s the highest ranked choice!
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    The most important thing in analysis isn't to be objective. That's the second most important thing. The most important thing is to make sure you're measuring something meaningful. If something is difficult (or impossible) to measure, just grabbing the nearby easy to measure things doesn't suddenly make it meaningful analysis. Removing subjectivity isn't the goal. Providing insight is. And this isn't providing much insight.

You can't really control for this because it's completely subjective.

by mcntsh 4y ago

You can't really control for this because it's completely subjective.

One could argue the price differences show how much people are willing to pay. Think how much money I could save by moving out of SF. I am staying here. If Leaving out a crucial aspects just because they are hard to quantify then it is easy to stray into the garbage in garbage out arena. That’s harsh, I don’t think the list is garbage I just think it needs to at least try.

mcntsh 4y ago
Counter point: most people in America don't live in these HCOL cities.
- mint2 4y ago
  Yes, but the ones that do are clearly forgoing tens or of thousands to do it so unquestionably it has value. That’s actually one way the results of the study can be interpreted, despite paying a cost of living difference of about $40k to live in NY vs Tennessee, smart people are choosing NY. That means the benefit they get by remaining in NY is greater than $40k… To a rough first order approximation. But it’s no rougher than completely neglecting value of location. On a side note, that’s a nice 2 story house on the beach, want to swap it for my two story house in the suburbs? It’s equivalent right!
  - mcntsh 4y ago
    > Yes, but the ones that do are clearly forgoing tens or of thousands to do it so unquestionably it has value. ... that only means it has value for those people. If money wasn't an option, I still wouldn't move to San Francisco.
    - mint2 4y ago
      In that case it’s apparent we agree that cities are not interchangeable commodities and factors beyond COL cannot be ignored for actual practical decision making.
      - mcntsh 4y ago
        No there's no agreement, you're being overly pedantic. This analysis covers DOLLAR COST comparisons of the cities, it doesn't take into account anything outside of that. If it's not valuable to you then skip over it.
        mint2 4y ago
        Unfortunately while I won’t be persuaded by a list that is mostly useless, others will make decisions on it without realizing how misleading it is. That is why I object.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

But if you don't control for it, the analysis is meaningless.

mcntsh 4y ago
It's not because it removes subjectivity out of the equation. You might put a lot of value into living by a train station and stores but someone else might but a lot of value into having space and a garden. You can't factor the benefits of these things because the value of them is subjective.
- mint2 4y ago
  Exactly, cities can’t be treated like interchangeable commodities. The list that simply compares price and nothing. Why is anyone drinking Napa wine or craft coffee rather than gallon jug wine and Folgers? Would it make sense to create a list of wine where the sole criteria is price? Tastes like hangovers and burning but $25 buys five gallons, while this tasty wine only gets a bottle! Adding location into it, only gets two glasses for the tasty wine at a bar. so might as well stay home and drink a gallon of hangover on a couch. By using a ranking that ignores anything hard to price, it’s the highest ranked choice!
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  The most important thing in analysis isn't to be objective. That's the second most important thing. The most important thing is to make sure you're measuring something meaningful. If something is difficult (or impossible) to measure, just grabbing the nearby easy to measure things doesn't suddenly make it meaningful analysis. Removing subjectivity isn't the goal. Providing insight is. And this isn't providing much insight.