NYT:More New Jobs Are in City Centers, While Employment Growth Shrinks in the Suburbs

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Statistics and/or Sociology 101: Correlation does not imply causation

quoted for emphasis.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I think we can thank the creation of cell phones and smart phones with the Rennaisance of our inner cities. Crime dropped because it's simply much more difficult to commit a crime and get away with it if everyone has a camera, gps, and access to 911 in seconds.

Scary areas suddenly became not so scary when you have backup.

Classic Bullshitology.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I think we can thank the creation of cell phones and smart phones with the Rennaisance of our inner cities. Crime dropped because it's simply much more difficult to commit a crime and get away with it if everyone has a camera, gps, and access to 911 in seconds.

Scary areas suddenly became not so scary when you have backup.

Even a casual glance at the facts belies your baseless claim. Cell phones were uncommon in 1991, when the tide turned and urban violent crime rates began their continuing decline.


source

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Classic Bullshitology.

Sorry you feel this way.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by fflint

Even a casual glance at the facts belies your baseless claim. Cell phones were uncommon in 1991, when the tide turned and urban violent crime rates began their continuing decline.


source

Neat graph fflint! It's not a baseless claim at all. Not sure why you guys are so quick to dismiss this theory and be so negative?

Notice your graph is of violent crime only. Also notice that yes it did start to decline in 1991, but accelerated downward as more cell phones hit the market! It didn't re-peak and hasn't gone up. Thanks for that, it actually backs up their theory that cell phones have created a deterrent to committing a crime. It's simply too damn risky to assault/rob someone on the streets. police response times are much faster, thanks to cell phones.

I believe that technology, cell phones in particular, have made people feel safer in what was once unfamiliar no-go territory. This opened the door for people to venture back to the inner-cities and spur a Rennaisance across the board.

Read this, it's 16 pages, it's interesting and you might learn something.

http://www.safecity.eu/files/mobilephones.pdf

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Neat graph fflint! It's not a baseless claim at all. Not sure why you guys are so quick to dismiss this theory and be so negative?

Critical thinking isn't the same thing as "negativity." You are looking only to confirm your theory; the rest of us are looking at how it doesn't hold water. The remainder of what you wrote is just muddled thinking, a mere doubling down on your pet belief. You really need to go to college.

[Jasonhouse]

The graph is only of arrests. What about the crimes where no one is caught?

I wonder what the graph would look like then?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Neat graph fflint! It's not a baseless claim at all. Not sure why you guys are so quick to dismiss this theory and be so negative?

Notice your graph is of violent crime only. Also notice that yes it did start to decline in 1991, but accelerated downward as more cell phones hit the market! It didn't re-peak and hasn't gone up. Thanks for that, it actually backs up their theory that cell phones have created a deterrent to committing a crime. It's simply too damn risky to assault/rob someone on the streets. police response times are much faster, thanks to cell phones.

Smartphones are a very recent phenomenon. Cellphones were not the norm until around 2001 or so, long after the biggest decreases in crime. I'm not clear why regular cellphones would deter crime, as they offered nothing that the once ubiquitous pay phones offered.

Cellphones might even contribute to crime, in that criminals know most people are carrying one, and they likely are of some value.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by fflint

Critical thinking isn't the same thing as "negativity." You are looking only to confirm your theory; the rest of us are looking at how it doesn't hold water. The remainder of what you wrote is just muddled thinking, a mere doubling down on your pet belief. You really need to go to college.

Why do even pretend like you know anything about me? I don't need to present my resume to some internet troll from SF.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Smartphones are a very recent phenomenon. Cellphones were not the norm until around 2001 or so, long after the biggest decreases in crime. I'm not clear why regular cellphones would deter crime, as they offered nothing that the once ubiquitous pay phones offered.

Cellphones might even contribute to crime, in that criminals know most people are carrying one, and they likely are of some value.

Check the PDF I linked. It addresses these issues you bring up.

[jpdivola]

No doubt US cities are on the rebound. But, we still live in a country that is probably 90% suburban/ 10% urban by built environment. Yeah, the 10% maybe growing a little faster right now.

But, as has been pointed out, urban development is still very expensive relative to suburban development. This is ultimately going to keep the US from ever re-urbanizing en mass.

High productivity industries (finance, tech, design, consulting)that employ lots of young, high skilled labor are flocking to cities to attract the best and the brightest. The higher real estate costs are just another form of "fringe benefits". But, most jobs are still pretty mundane and the war for talent isn't so great. Back and middle office stuff still tends to be in the suburbs. Even many big Corporate HQs are still in the affluent suburbs. High skilled jobs in education, health care and consumer oriented professional services still need to be in the suburbs since that is where their customer base largely lives.