I'd be careful about controlling for median house value. If the hypothesis is that neighborhood income inequality increases neighborhood desirability (community characteristics held constant), then this desirabiliy will be priced into the median house value in addition to the 2-bedroom house value. The causal effect would be understated.
The Mathematics aside, in zip codes with which I'm intimately familiar I don't know of any 2 bedroom housing in wealthy neighborhoods. Now zip codes cover a large area so yes 2 bedroom homes and wealthy neighborhoods could co exist in the same zip. But that's like saying St.Augustine and Jacksonville are near one and the other. Only places where two bedroom and wealthy neighbors exist are neighborhoods undergoing gentrfication. Check out zips 32266,32233, and 32250
I think that is why there is the stipulation on entry level homes. They are probably tiny cape cods, townhouses and (I would guess though the author doesn't say) condos.
It is a little surprising he didn't look at 3 bedroom homes, as I would think those sorts of homes would be a bit more selectively chosen. By the time you are getting a place with 2 rooms for kids, you are probably thinking more about school districts and staying there a long time. Before you have kids you probably aren't so choosy or rooted.
Might a lot of people's sense of relative income nowadays be based not on the actual neighborhood in which they live but the social and other media they consume?
But the neighbourhoods in question aren’t wealthier, the wealth is just more unequally distributed. So any wealth premiums would apply equally to the “control”
Possibly, but a gated community where everyone makes 500k a year would be less unequal than a few blocks of apartments where some buildings are super high end and some are "affordable housing". Or if you are in more rural areas there might be 3-4 rather high income people mixed in with a few middle class and a lot of rural poor. Average wealth is lower in the rural area, but very high inequality of income
I'm for the ELIMINATION of DST. Screws up our circadian rhythms. I look both ways before plunging headlong into a busy street. Pedestrians should be like me. And I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, home of the stupidest pedestrians on earth.
Hawaiians will give them a run on pedestrian stupidness, in fact I think they are TRYING to get ran over intentionally as a form of lottery.
Btw we don't have DST and don't seem any worse off for it. I feel it's more an issue in northern states like Montana, i.e. should be a north south divide, not east west.
I'd be careful about controlling for median house value. If the hypothesis is that neighborhood income inequality increases neighborhood desirability (community characteristics held constant), then this desirabiliy will be priced into the median house value in addition to the 2-bedroom house value. The causal effect would be understated.
The Mathematics aside, in zip codes with which I'm intimately familiar I don't know of any 2 bedroom housing in wealthy neighborhoods. Now zip codes cover a large area so yes 2 bedroom homes and wealthy neighborhoods could co exist in the same zip. But that's like saying St.Augustine and Jacksonville are near one and the other. Only places where two bedroom and wealthy neighbors exist are neighborhoods undergoing gentrfication. Check out zips 32266,32233, and 32250
I think that is why there is the stipulation on entry level homes. They are probably tiny cape cods, townhouses and (I would guess though the author doesn't say) condos.
It is a little surprising he didn't look at 3 bedroom homes, as I would think those sorts of homes would be a bit more selectively chosen. By the time you are getting a place with 2 rooms for kids, you are probably thinking more about school districts and staying there a long time. Before you have kids you probably aren't so choosy or rooted.
Might a lot of people's sense of relative income nowadays be based not on the actual neighborhood in which they live but the social and other media they consume?
wouldn't a preference for "wealthier" neighborhoods indicate a status premium? people pay more to live in a more exclusive zip?
But the neighbourhoods in question aren’t wealthier, the wealth is just more unequally distributed. So any wealth premiums would apply equally to the “control”
Isn't "most unequal" a way of saying that the biggest muckety-mucks live nearby?
Possibly, but a gated community where everyone makes 500k a year would be less unequal than a few blocks of apartments where some buildings are super high end and some are "affordable housing". Or if you are in more rural areas there might be 3-4 rather high income people mixed in with a few middle class and a lot of rural poor. Average wealth is lower in the rural area, but very high inequality of income
I'm for the ELIMINATION of DST. Screws up our circadian rhythms. I look both ways before plunging headlong into a busy street. Pedestrians should be like me. And I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, home of the stupidest pedestrians on earth.
PS. Really enjoyed the article.
Hawaiians will give them a run on pedestrian stupidness, in fact I think they are TRYING to get ran over intentionally as a form of lottery.
Btw we don't have DST and don't seem any worse off for it. I feel it's more an issue in northern states like Montana, i.e. should be a north south divide, not east west.
N/S divide is a GREAT point!