ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

I have to wonder about the jobs in Clayton and Cherokee Counties and how they compare to jobs in the city...waiting tables at Olive Garden compared to a job at Coca-Cola or CNN?

sprtsluvr8, I think her chart is saying, the Olive Garden's in the suburbs are hiring more people and not as many Coca-Cola's and CNN's in the city.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

She's the only one stating facts in this arguement...

Andrea, I would watch out for that one..."Time for US to go home"???? I think you may have a stalker...

Guilty!

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

You are still absolutely missing the point.

Andrea--you say yourself than Atlanta only has 22% of the region's jobs. Given the city roughly has about 500,000 of the 5,000,000 people in the metro area, it only has 10% of the metro population. This indicates that as people move closer to their jobs--as you predict they will--the city's population will increase. Please explain the flaw in my logic.

I understand there are arguments to be made against this conclusion, but following your assumptions the city should increase in poulation. Edit to add: sorry didn't read your last post; I agree absolutely with that.



"This logic is extremely unclear. The current nominal cost of doing business in a given place doesn't really matter--it's already priced into the market. What we're talking about how is how the cost of doing business is going to change."

And nobody's arguing that, so why bring it up?

I don't believe Andrea is saying that people will move closer to their jobs based solely on gas prices.

Decision Tree on Where People Chose To Live
1. Home Price
2. Taxes
3. City Services
4. Crime
5. Schools
6. Commutes
7. Gas Prices
8. A yard
9. House size
10. Race - Debatable

Reasons to Live in the Suburbs
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

Reasons to Live in the City
6, 7

You said, "This logic is extremely unclear. The current nominal cost of doing business in a given place doesn't really matter--it's already priced into the market. What we're talking about how is how the cost of doing business is going to change."

Wages are nominal, not office cost and location. You pay the same wage in the city as you would in the suburbs...hence being nominal cost. An office in the city (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead) is at least 20% more than in the suburbs. How is that nominal? Plus your workers have to pay for parking $75 - 200 per month, which is not nominal either.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

I have to wonder about the jobs in Clayton and Cherokee Counties and how they compare to jobs in the city...waiting tables at Olive Garden compared to a job at Coca-Cola or CNN?

sprtsluvr8, check the data I posted here a couple of days ago. The highest paying jobs tend to be clustered along the 400 corridor in north Fulton, south Forsyth and in Gwinnett along I-85. There are still some pockets of high paying jobs inside 285.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

Andrea--you say yourself than Atlanta only has 22% of the region's jobs. Given the city roughly has about 500,000 of the 5,000,000 people in the metro area, it only has 10% of the metro population. This indicates that as people move closer to their jobs--as you predict they will--the city's population will increase. Please explain the flaw in my logic.

Testarossa, check the data I posted a couple of days ago. The flow of jobs, especially high paying jobs, is toward the burbs.

Let me reiterate three points I've made over and over:

1. We don't know for a fact that people will want to move closer to their jobs, or if so, why. It stands to reason that they would, but where people live is based on a plethora of complex decisions. Some people may place factors other than the price of gasoline higher on their list of priorities.

2. We also don't know whether folks' choices about where to live are influenced by gas prices. Even if they are, we still don't know whether that will cause them to move in or out. If jobs were mainly intown, you might expect them to move in; but since they are mainly in suburbia, it's just as logical to conclude that they'll elect to move out. But again, it's likely that those decisions will be made based upon many factors other than the price of gasoline.

3. Regardless of gas prices, I think the city proper will continue to grow. Even though housing, taxation and other costs may substantially exceed gas costs, many of us prefer to live in the city anyway. I don't know whether I'm saving any money on gasoline by living here or not -- frankly, probably not since my employer moved from Buckhead, which is one mile from my home, to Perimeter, which is 8 miles from home. Either way I'm staying, because I like it here for other reasons that don't have a hill of beans to do with gas prices.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Testarossa, check the data I posted a couple of days ago. The flow of jobs, especially high paying jobs, is toward the burbs.

Let me reiterate three points I've made over and over:

1. We don't know for a fact that people will want to move closer to their jobs, or if so, why. It stands to reason that they would, but where people live is based on a plethora of complex decisions. Some people may place factors other than the price of gasoline higher on their list of priorities.

2. We also don't know whether folks' choices about where to live are influenced by gas prices. Even if they are, we still don't know whether that will cause them to move in or out. If jobs were mainly intown, you might expect them to move in; but since they are mainly in suburbia, it's just as logical to conclude that they'll elect to move out. But again, it's likely that those decisions will be made based upon many factors other than the price of gasoline.

3. Regardless of gas prices, I think the city proper will continue to grow. Even though housing, taxation and other costs may substantially exceed gas costs, many of us prefer to live in the city anyway. I don't know whether I'm saving any money on gasoline by living here or not -- frankly, probably not since my employer moved from Buckhead, which is one mile from my home, to Perimeter, which is 8 miles from home. Either way I'm staying, because I like it here for other reasons that don't have a hill of beans to do with gas prices.

Andrea, you are much more eloquent than me. I agree with you 100%.

Question?
Do we know how many people live in the city and commute to work in the suburbs. Do you think gas prices will cause them to move to the suburbs?

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

I don't believe Andrea is saying that people will move closer to their jobs based solely on gas prices.

Decision Tree on Where People Chose To Live
1. Home Price
2. Taxes
3. City Services
4. Crime
5. Schools
6. Commutes
7. Gas Prices
8. A yard
9. House size
10. Race - Debatable

Reasons to Live in the Suburbs
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

Reasons to Live in the City
6, 7

Right--and the only one of those factors that has changed as a result of gas prices is number 7. Thus the reasons to live in the city have become relatively more important, and the reasons to live in the suburbs have become relatively less important. Hence a shift in equilibrium occurs that will encourage people to move to the city.

People maximize their "real" wages--which takes transit into account--by living closer to their employers. There are two ways to make this happen: employers can move closer to their employees, or employees and move closer to their employers. This is a process that occurs on the margin.

The interesting debate to be had here is:

-Are businesses more footloose than residents?

-Will the increasing population and number of jobs cause this pattern to accellerate?

-Why are office towers still being built if they should theoretically move to the suburbs?

-Might an influx of wealthy people to the cities totally change all nine items on your list?

etc

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

Question?
Do we know how many people live in the city and commute to work in the suburbs. Do you think gas prices will cause them to move to the suburbs?

40% of city residents work in the suburbs. And your point is well taken -- I suspect most of us who live here choose to do so for reasons other than gas prices.

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Testarossa, check the data I posted a couple of days ago. The flow of jobs, especially high paying jobs, is toward the burbs.

That's exactly what my model predicts will happen.

Let me reiterate three points I've made over and over:

1. We don't know for a fact that people will want to move closer to their jobs, or if so, why. It stands to reason that they would, but where people live is based on a plethora of complex decisions. Some people may place factors other than the price of gasoline higher on their list of priorities.

I'd like to hear a plausible argument for why someone would favor living farther from a job, all other things equal. On this same note, we don't know anything about economics for a fact. Predictions are based on reasonable assumptions.

2. We also don't know whether folks' choices about where to live are influenced by gas prices. Even if they are, we still don't know whether that will cause them to move in or out. If jobs were mainly intown, you might expect them to move in; but since they are mainly in suburbia, it's just as logical to conclude that they'll elect to move out. But again, it's likely that those decisions will be made based upon many factors other than the price of gasoline.

These deicisions are based on lots of other factors and always will be. But only one of the factors is in question--the price of gasoline. This will cause people to change behavior on the margin. Those whose decisions are overwhemlingly based on things other than gas will not change their behavior; it is the people for whom all the other reasons fall somewhat into balance that might be swayed one way or another.

Also, the concentration of jobs relative to the concentration of people favors the city center over the suburbs. The city contains 22% of jobs but 10% of people. The suburbs contain 90% of people but only 78% of jobs. This does not translate to people fleeing the city because most jobs are in the suburbs.

Heck, there are way more jobs in New York than there are in Atlanta. Why do we all live here? It's because there are more jobs per person here (based on real wages).

3. Regardless of gas prices, I think the city proper will continue to grow. Even though housing, taxation and other costs may substantially exceed gas costs, many of us prefer to live in the city anyway. I don't know whether I'm saving any money on gasoline by living here or not -- frankly, probably not since my employer moved from Buckhead, which is one mile from my home, to Perimeter, which is 8 miles from home. Either way I'm staying, because I like it here for other reasons that don't have a hill of beans to do with gas prices.

I agree with this point.

[sprtsluvr8]

Originally Posted by Andrea

sprtsluvr8, check the data I posted here a couple of days ago. The highest paying jobs tend to be clustered along the 400 corridor in north Fulton, south Forsyth and in Gwinnett along I-85. There are still some pockets of high paying jobs inside 285.

I'm sure Fulton and Gwinnett have higher paying jobs...I mentioned Clayton and Cherokee and other such counties...

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

Why are office towers still being built if they should theoretically move to the suburbs?

Nobody's saying the city is dying -- to the contrary, it's healthier than it has been in decades. Even though the vast majority of jobs are in the burbs, there are still a lot of people working in town.

Remember, this is not a zero sum game. It's not whether the city must die so that suburbia can live, or vice versa. There's plenty of room for both.

In my personal opinion, the wave of the future is continued growth and sophistication of the suburbs. But I think intown Atlanta will also thrive as a uniquely urban component of the city. It may not be first among equals, but it will hold an important position among Atlanta’s boroughs. It's the traditional and historic heart of the area, and many important government, civic, cultural and commercial aspects of the region flourish here.

As to why towers are built, one factor is the higher cost of land. But I think ego, prestige and just plain fun are part of the equation, too. Tall buildings are cool!

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

I'm sure Fulton and Gwinnett have higher paying jobs...I mentioned Clayton and Cherokee and other such counties...

sprtsluvr, I don't know the intrinsics beyond what those charts show. Anecdotally speaking, I get the impression from people who live there that Cherokee is up and coming and eager to make itself a sophisticated, livable suburb, but that Clayton is struggling a little more. I'm also factoring in the brouhaha the Clayton schools have had to undergo lately, and my own firsthand impressions from just driving around in both counties.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

Right--and the only one of those factors that has changed as a result of gas prices is number 7. Thus the reasons to live in the city have become relatively more important, and the reasons to live in the suburbs have become relatively less important. Hence a shift in equilibrium occurs that will encourage people to move to the city.

People maximize their "real" wages--which takes transit into account--by living closer to their employers. There are two ways to make this happen: employers can move closer to their employees, or employees and move closer to their employers. This is a process that occurs on the margin.

The interesting debate to be had here is:

-Are businesses more footloose than residents?

-Will the increasing population and number of jobs cause this pattern to accellerate?

-Why are office towers still being built if they should theoretically move to the suburbs?

-Might an influx of wealthy people to the cities totally change all nine items on your list?

etc

Keep in mind home prices in the suburbs have significantly decreased because of the credit crisis and foreclosures and home prices are fairly steady in the city. Also, as the economic climate gets graver, crime will increase in the city. testarossa50, your arguments only work if all the jobs in Atlanta were in the city or if all the new jobs were coming to the city. See Andrea's charts. Suburban job growth has out-paced the city and is projected to in the future.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

I'd like to hear a plausible argument for why someone would favor living farther from a job, all other things equal.

I don't believe you can explain it in economic terms. It has more to do with things like status, lifestyles, commuting patterns, race and psychosocial issues. For instance, in many cities it has traditionally been a sign of status for the wealthy to move out from the business districts. I also know of people who keep horses, or are gardeners, golfers, and water lovers. Many people no longer commute to an office or factory on a daily basis. They telecommute, or work from home, or travel frequently. Some even have helicopters and chauffeurs. Other people constantly chafe about being “too crowded” – they’ll gladly pay more for gas and drive three extra hours a day in order to have 5 acres up in Euharlee or a farm in Bostwick.

[BabydaddyATL]

Question for sprtsluvr8

Could you rank what factors in order of importance on how you feel families choose to buy a home. You can start with mine and feel free to add or delete any criteria I added. I am really curious.

Decision Tree on Where People Chose To Live
1. Home Price
2. Taxes
3. City Services
4. Crime
5. Schools
6. Commutes
7. Gas Prices
8. A yard
9. House size
10. Race - Debatable

[BabydaddyATL]

Quote:
Originally Posted by testarossa50
I'd like to hear a plausible argument for why someone would favor living farther from a job, all other things equal.

Same reason 40% of city residents work in the suburbs and don't live in the suburbs. Person choice and not necessarily economics.

testarossa50, does you argument follow that 40% of the cities residents should move to the suburbs to be closer to their work because of gas prices?

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

Keep in mind home prices in the suburbs have significantly decreased because of the credit crisis and foreclosures and home prices are fairly steady in the city.

This indicates that people are moving to the city, not otherwise.

Also, as the economic climate gets graver, crime will increase in the city.

Ok. I think crime will increase in the suburbs too. Have you been to the southside lately?

testarossa50, your arguments only work if all the jobs in Atlanta were in the city or if all the new jobs were coming to the city. ]

No. My "argument" is not mine at all. It's classical urban economics. It's an extrmely useful, systematic way of analyzing the impact of different events on urban economic behavior. It is the mathematically provable conclusion of reasonable axioms.

But it's far from perfect, and responsible analysts will put asterisks next to its conclusions. Most people don't consider their choices in a dollars and cents, black and white world. That is why I don't disagree with much of what Andrea's saying: she's simply charting her asterisks, and rightly so.

See Andrea's charts. Suburban job growth has out-paced the city and is projected to in the future.

This misses the point.

The results of urban economics:

Input:

-Suburbs grow at rate x.

-City grows at rate y.

-x > y.

-Suburbs have p jobs per capita.

-Cities have q jobs per capita.

-q > p.

-x, y, p, and q can change in the long run.

Price shock: Transportation costs increase. All other things remain equal.

Output:

-Suburbs grow at rate x'; x' < x.

-City grows at rate y'; y' > y.

-p increases.

-q decreases.

What this doesn't tell us:

-Whether x' > y' or otherwise.

-Whether x - x' > y' - y or otherwise.

-Whether p = q or otherwise.


This is the economics behind an increase in transportation costs. There are infinitely many complications, so one should reasonably put asterisks all over the place.

But without this basic starting point, any discussion is just going to be opinion-based. Which is fine, but this offers a foundation for more meaningful discussion IMO.

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

Quote:
Originally Posted by testarossa50
I'd like to hear a plausible argument for why someone would favor living farther from a job, all other things equal.

Same reason 40% of city residents work in the suburbs and don't live in the suburbs. Person choice and not necessarily economics.

testarossa50, does you argument follow that 40% of the cities residents should move to the suburbs to be closer to their work because of gas prices?

The "all other things equal" qualifier was extremely important. For starters, it disqualifies your example.

And second, it causes your question not to follow from my statement.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by Andrea

I don't believe you can explain it in economic terms. It has more to do with things like status, lifestyles, commuting patterns, race and psychosocial issues. For instance, in many cities it has traditionally been a sign of status for the wealthy to move out from the business districts. I also know of people who keep horses, or are gardeners, golfers, and water lovers. Many people no longer commute to an office or factory on a daily basis. They telecommute, or work from home, or travel frequently. Some even have helicopters and chauffeurs. Other people constantly chafe about being “too crowded” – they’ll gladly pay more for gas and drive three extra hours a day in order to have 5 acres up in Euharlee or a farm in Bostwick.

Originally Posted by testarossa50

The "all other things equal" qualifier was extremely important. For starters, it disqualifies your example.

And second, it causes your question not to follow from my statement.

testarossa50, let's start from the present. True or False? People in Atlanta, as of April 25th, 2008, have not taken commute times or gas prices into account when choosing to decide where they live. Do you agree with statement?

Second, true or false, I believe that as gas prices increases in the future people will live closer to their employer. So if I work in the surburbs I will live or move to the suburbs, conversely, if work in the city I will live in the city or move to the city regardless of other factors. True or false?

Lastly, could you explain in your words what my argument is?

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

testarossa50, let's start from the present. True or False? People in Atlanta, as of April 25th, 2008, have not taken commute times or gas prices into account when choosing to decide where they live. Do you agree with statement?

No.

Second, true or false, I believe that as gas prices increases in the future people will live closer to their employer. So if I work in the surburbs I will live or move to the suburbs, conversely, if work in the city I will live in the city or move to the city regardless of other factors. True or false?

False. But insofar as the increase in gas prices has a marginal effect on your decision, you face a greater incentive than you previously did to move closer to your employer.

Lastly, could you explain in your words what my argument is?

No. You've made two false statements. I can't determine much from that.