Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

dredmorbius wrote: post #147
jbattle wrote: post #8

Isn't this just the same as population density? I think there's an XKCD about this ... https://xkcd.com/1138/

This is electoral votes per county, which is close to being population-weighted. What you'll find is that it's more moderate than the land-value cartogram, especially on the West Coast and Florida. Land values trend similarly to population densities, but actually exceed them. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycart...

Electoral votes per county isn't really all that close to population-weighted; electoral votes are not apportioned proportionally to population.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#152

Post by dang »

boomshucka wrote: post #81
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking too narrowly. Your point is correct, but the broader point is that there should be those same work opportunities spread out around the country so that you don't have to move to SF or wherever to get a good job. That is what hurts the economy on a broader scale. Employment is "sticky" in that personal mobility can't move as fast as capital mobility and that seems to have led to concentrations of wealth…

No, I'm simply not making the mistake of taking my own conclusions and assuming the author is making THAT point. Whether you are right or not, it's not the authors point with that line. NIMBY was the point. As for whether you are right, you might think this personal mobility v capital mobility is a clever sounding point. It's dumb. The idea that one simple idea has led to concentrations of wealth is absurd. It's usef…

> It's useful in life to actually think things through, rather than parrot phrases you've heard in econ 101. You are literally clueless.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#153

Post by aflyax »

The fact that people don't all prefer everywhere equally is a "troubling inequality"? Property value is just a reflection of demand vs. supply. People want to live in some areas of the country more than in others, but, since the area is limited, the increased desire drives prices up.

Is it really so shocking that more people would rather live in San Francisco than Alabama?

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#154

Post by aflyax »

jbattle wrote: post #8

Isn't this just the same as population density? I think there's an XKCD about this ... https://xkcd.com/1138/

It's related to population density. A lot more people want and try to live in NYC than Birmingham, AL. More people living and desiring to live per same square mileage ~ increased price of property.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#155

Post by refurb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #151
dredmorbius wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is electoral votes per county, which is close to being population-weighted. What you'll find is that it's more moderate than the land-value cartogram, especially on the West Coast and Florida. Land values trend similarly to population densities, but actually exceed them. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycart...

Electoral votes per county isn't really all that close to population-weighted; electoral votes are not apportioned proportionally to population.

It's pretty close!

Each state gets a number of electoral vote that matches the number of Representatives and Senators in their state. The senator thing throws it off a bit, but number of reps is based on population.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#156

Post by rsync »

kpennell wrote: post #75
davidw wrote: post #4

> The demand to live in these places is soaring, but the desire among incumbents to accommodate newcomers is low Sums up why we ended up in Bend, Oregon rather than Boulder, Colorado. In the latter, there is a small but significant group of people whose idea is that the area needs fewer jobs, not smarter housing. Edit: http://journal.dedasys.com/2015/06/18/boulder-colorado-vs-be... - more about our choice, for the cu…

Really nice piece. I basically moved from SF to Boulder (with stops abroad in between). What you're talking about in the blog is playing out right now with the "make growth pay it's own way". http://openboulder.org/ob-opposes-two-growth-related-ballot-... They are smart people spearheading these anti-growth measures. They want (like you said) the Boulder from 30 years ago. They are motivated, smart, and have the time…

"There's little to no culture or character or funkiness here"

Oh come on - it will always be the birthplace of Illegal Pete's, right ?

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#157

Post by dragonwriter »

refurb wrote: post #155
dragonwriter wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral votes per county isn't really all that close to population-weighted; electoral votes are not apportioned proportionally to population.

It's pretty close! Each state gets a number of electoral vote that matches the number of Representatives and Senators in their state. The senator thing throws it off a bit, but number of reps is based on population.

No, it's not that close. The small number of reps plus the huge variation in state sizes means that it's not particularly close even before considering the distortions from Senate seats. There is, IIRC, almost a 2:1 ratio between the maximum and minimum population-to-representative ratio among the states.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#158

Post by jschwartzi »

refurb wrote: post #155
dragonwriter wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral votes per county isn't really all that close to population-weighted; electoral votes are not apportioned proportionally to population.

It's pretty close! Each state gets a number of electoral vote that matches the number of Representatives and Senators in their state. The senator thing throws it off a bit, but number of reps is based on population.

This used to be true because, as more population was added more Representatives would be added to the House, but as I recall it's been quite a long time since new seats were added to the House.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#159

Post by abandonliberty »

briandear wrote: post #128
iskander wrote: post #110

>Folks who can’t afford to live in those places don’t get to take advantage of those labor markets. The demand to live in these places is soaring, but the desire among incumbents to accommodate newcomers is low. Hence NIMBYism, high housing costs, severe inequality—the whole shebang. NYC has had a massive residential construction boom (see Williamsburg, downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, &c). Almost all of the hous…

Also NYC real estate is a very safe place to park cash. So many properties simply sit empty.

I've always wanted a validation of this. Vancouver, Canada supposedly has the same problem.

I have yet to see anything beyond circumstantial evidence.

Re: Mapping the U.S. By Property Value Instead of Land Area

#160

Post by rwhitman »

humanrebar wrote: post #134
rwhitman wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC if you need a $1200 / mo 1BR apartment, sure Manhattan and north eastern Brooklyn aren't options but you still have places like Harlem, Queens, New Jersey, The Bronx, Staten Island all of which are under an hour commute from Manhattan (and with a rapid transit system that respects shift workers by running 24hrs a day). NYC has also been adding high density (albeit market rate) housing stock by the tens of thou…

I don't want to get drawn into a long debate on it, but I think it's clear that NYC has competitive commute times to the Bay Area. Some even think it's worse: http://fortune.com/2015/05/20/these-american-cities-have-the... As far as NIMBY goes... I guess I was taking that more broadly. There isn't objections against density qua density, but projects are blocked because they block views. And projects are blocked becau…

Both of those articles are a good illustration of my point actually, sensational conclusions drawn from reports that don't take into account the dramatic differences between the cities being compared. In this case, NYC is so enormous that it's in another weight class where the benchmarks we're being presented are highly flawed in context.

For example, the commute time piece in Fortune isn't looking at metro area, only intra-city commute time. NYC having the longest average commute makes for an interesting data point and it's technically true, but it doesn't take into account the fact that the city of New York has an extremely large land area spread across several islands with a population that dwarfs most of the cities on that list. Considering how the data for NYC is influenced by situations like the non-trivial number of Staten Islanders who commute 1 to 2 hours a day to Manhattan (still intra-city) via ferry + subway, the 31.5 minute average commute time in SF doesn’t look so good. Painting these pictures with the same brush is an effort in futility, the same standards just don’t apply

Post reply on HN