• English
  • Español
AGENTS: Did you know you can share a personalized version of this post? Learn more!
,

(English) Time Magazine: As Wrong Today as They Were in 2005

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en Inglés Estadounidense.


Miembros: ¡regístrese ahora y configure su Post Personalizado & empiece a compartirlo hoy!

¿No es un miembro aun? Haga un clic aquí para aprender más acerca de la nueva función de KCM, Post Personalizados.

Have You Set Up Personalized Posts Yet? | Keeping Current Matters
6 comentarios
  1. D.
    D. Dice:

    «Again, they are simply arguing a miniscule point of an extensive research paper that proves the benefits of homeownership. Where is their research, their study, their expert testimony disproving this study’s results? They gave none because there is none.»

    You appear to be either unfamiliar with or do not understand the meaning of the phrase «correlation is not causation.» Increases in ice cream sales do not cause hot weather.

    Responder
  2. Steve Harney
    Steve Harney Dice:

    Great point D. I do understand the point of ‘correlation vs causation’. I have no challenge with them questioning the methodology of any report.

    The question I was asking was where are Time’s studies to prove their point: «Evidence that homeownership actually brings other benefits is decidedly mixed.»

    Mix means more than one thought. Every study discussed in the article came to the conclusion that homeownership WAS beneficial. Where are the contrarian points that are required to create a ‘mix’?

    Responder
  3. Simon
    Simon Dice:

    Hey Steve,

    If you read the DiPasquale/Glaeser study that Time cited re: home ownership I don’t think it backs up your assertion home ownership proves the benefits of home ownership.

    It, in fact, only bolster’s D’s point:
    «A large fraction of the effect of homeownership occurs because homeowners are different in many ways from renters. We provide little evidence on the magnitude of the benefits to society of increasing homeownership and no evidence on the costs of homeownership policies (such as reduced mobility), either in absolute terms or relative to other programs that might promote citizenship.»

    http://www.cityresearch.com/pubs/homeown.pdf

    Responder
  4. Steve Harney
    Steve Harney Dice:

    Great points, Simon. However, the paragraph you quoted begins with the statement:

    «Overall, our results suggest that homeownership positively influences the formation of social capital, and much of the influence of homeownership occurs because homeownership increases the community tenure.»

    The study makes many other points such as homeowners are 15% more likely to vote in local elections and 6% more likely to work on solving local problems.

    The paper’s conclusion says:

    «The primary conclusion of this paper is that it appears that standard economic incentives (both the effects of homeownership and tenure) influence investment in social capital…it is likely that homeownership generates positive externalities…»

    The Time article said:

    «Evidence that homeownership actually brings other benefits is decidedly mixed.»

    The paper mentioned did not question whether there were benefits to homeownership. It questioned whether the benefits were worth policy changes.

    Again, I ask – where is the ‘mix’ of evidence?

    Responder

Dejar un comentario

¿Quieres unirte a la conversación?
Siéntete libre de contribuir!

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *