MONKEY BOXER

The trouble with the housing question - where to buy? when to buy? what to buy? - is that it affects so many other concerns.

Not only do you have to consider the value of the house, but there’s also the future of the neighborhood. There’s the economic potential of the area, both for our careers and for entertainment value. There’s pollution to think about.  And not just physical, but light and noise, too. What about the commute? And traffic? And the crime rate? And the school districts?

The never-ending series of questions can be mind-boggling. No one person can optimize their decision-making by become an expert in real estate, economics, urban planning, home repair and parenting. Especially in the few (probably busy) months that one spends looking for a house.

With so much speculation included in the price of homes, it’s no wonder that prices can vary so much between growing and dying areas. And with so much at stake, there’s going to be a wide variety of opinions on the subject of home ownership. A $250,000 home can easily end up costing you $400,000 after interest; could you shell out that kind of cash and admit it was a mistake?

—–

Tim Harford, economist and author of The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World, has much to say about this dilemma.

Harford shows how economists use a variety of statistics and experiments to tease out unexpected truths. For example, “each additional floor in your building increases your risk of being robbed in the street or having your car stolen by two and a half percentage points - if your building has twelve stories rather than two, your chances of being mugged rises by a quarter.” (This is because taller buildings mean fewer people are close to the street, scaring off predators with their presence.)

Harford talks a lot of cities, crime, innovation and urban development. He notes that while even though the doubling of a city’s size raises wages 10 percent but prices 16 percent, there are enough positive externalities (benefits one receives without paying for) to city life to encourage more and more people to move there.

There are interesting statistics that make one reconsider rural, or even suburban, life.

For example, wages rise faster and higher in urban areas than in rural areas not because people are smarter (at least at the start) but because all of the mingling promotes constant learning and networking. Cities are proven to be more dynamic, rewarding places to live, professionally speaking. Cities produce markedly more patents per capita than rural areas, and one innovation (reflected by a patent) often sparks a series of related innovations in the nearby area.

It is natural, then, that industries condense into small areas. Internet companies in Silicon Valley. Film in Hollywood. Pharmaceuticals in New Jersey. And so on. These areas attract people talented and interested in these industries, which boosts innovation, which attracts more people. (And the Internet, instead of letting people live farther apart, is only increasing the effectiveness of face-to-face interactions, which mostly benefit city-dwellers.)

This seems to be a strong argument for living in a city (and perhaps not just any city), at least if professional and intellectual development are important to you.

Another interesting discovery which I’ve seen in several publications now is how much more environmentally-friendly cities are. While New York produces more pollution than Fort Collins, on a per capita basis, New Yorkers are greener. They drive less, shop on foot, use public transportation and live in smaller spaces (so they accumulate less junk and have less space to heat, cool and clean).

Another argument for city (and not suburban, in this case) living. It’s funny, since many rural people claim to be greener.

Of course, there are other factors to consider.  Small town life may not be green, and your professional options may be limited. It also seems your intellectual powers may even be stunted, relatively-speaking, but peace and quiet is certainly a draw. As is simplicity and safety.

How does one choose?

—–

Perhaps Daniel Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, has an answer. He has pointed out how truly bad we all are at accurately judging our own happiness, whether it’s in the past or the future. He’s shown that people really aren’t all that good at determining what they ought to do.

The solution? If you want to know if, say, becoming a pilot will make you happy, talk to people who are pilots and see if they’re happy.

Making a lot of money as an investment banker may sound good, despite the hours, but you should reconsider if the majority of bankers talk about how they’re miserable, suffering from hypertension and are too busy to really enjoy the buckets of money they’ve earned.

I wonder what people would say in this case. No one wants to choose to be less intellectual or to pursue a less productive career. But isn’t the real point not your intellect or career but your happiness? Are the simple, small town folk happier than the sophisticated urbanites?

Anecdotes aren’t useful here, for a number of reasons Harford and Gilbert would be happy to point out. Some investigative economics is needed, and some statistical analysis.

Which doesn’t help me much at the moment.

—–

So, for now, I don’t have any answers. Alexa and I will keep talking and trying to get to the root need behind our mixed feelings on living here or there, in this place or that, now or later. I doubt there’s one place that’s simply perfect for all of our needs. In fact, I know there isn’t, since Alexa likes lush, wet greenscapes and I prefer bare, dry, rockscapes. But maybe we can meet in the middle.