Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraftwerk
Part of the problem : "miserable" is a subjective term, you could live very well in one of these crappy cities or even the capitol of a third world country or you could be "miserable" in Greenwich, CT. Thanks for the link to the article which has kicked up so much dust , i will give it a read.
|
Back in the early 80's I worked in Daggett Ca for several months, it's almost a town east of Barstow.
I considered that place miserable.
i also worked a job in El Centro before that. Same same.
but I completely agree with your assessment of the original article: the word "miserable" is subjective and in their context, could be misleading.
They decided that cites with high levels of "
crime, drug addiction, population changes, job opportunities, commute times, household incomes, abandoned homes and effects from problems such as natural disasters" would make a city a miserable place to live.
In many cases that would be true but I can also think of a few exceptions.
Places with long-term devastation from a natural disaster would likely fit, but what about a place that recovered quickly?
The bay area or Northridge earthquakes come to mind, or the recent flooding in Houston. Bad things do not necessarily make a place miserable.
To most folks, my commute is relatively long but that does not suggest the city I live in is miserable, just the opposite IMO.
It sounds to me like the criteria of the study was developed but committee and not well-focused.
I chalk it up to one of those 80/20 things, right 80% of the time.
But .... we are talking about it so it did it's job. The article and study got attention (and clicks) and sold advertisements.