> I don't doubt that plenty of people share your view and plenty will share mine.
Your statement is true. And it's also true when we switch the pronouns. What's your point?
"Plenty" is not the same as "majority", which was your original claim.
> Okay, so one of your idealized cases and it's still closer
How is it one of my "idealized" cases? Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help this conversation.
> to the "1 hour by public transit" scenario than "10 minutes by driving" you originally chose.
1. I never claimed you will always find affordable houses within 10 minutes drive. I was countering the claim that it need be an hour or more. That it took 40 minutes is still in support of my claim. That it took more than 10 minutes doesn't refute my point.
2. It was fairly clear from my original comment that the point was one can move to a city where you can find sub-hour commutes. From that it's clear that I am not implying you'll find it with every employer or in every city. The whole comment was about choosing where you work.
> I'm curious where you get this, too. The top 5 MSAs already cover 25% of the population.
Simple: Look up a list of metro areas in the US. Add up the top 20. Then add up the rest.
Hint: A city of 100K is still a city. Trying to claim that this is a minority position will again get the same response: Given that most people who live in 100K (or even smaller) cities believe they live in a city, it would be incorrect to claim that the majority do not view such places as cities. There may far fewer employers for engineering in such cities, but I can assure you there are still plenty.
(And no, you don't need to go as low as 100K to get a cumulative greater than your top 20).
Your statement was:
> I'd wager most people think of something like the top 20 metropolitan statistical areas by population when they hear the term.
Baltimore is not in the top 20. Nor is San Antonio. Nor is Portland. Nor is Milwaukee. The list goes on and on. Do you think these people do not think of their own cities when using the word?
Your statement is true. And it's also true when we switch the pronouns. What's your point?
"Plenty" is not the same as "majority", which was your original claim.
> Okay, so one of your idealized cases and it's still closer
How is it one of my "idealized" cases? Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help this conversation.
> to the "1 hour by public transit" scenario than "10 minutes by driving" you originally chose.
1. I never claimed you will always find affordable houses within 10 minutes drive. I was countering the claim that it need be an hour or more. That it took 40 minutes is still in support of my claim. That it took more than 10 minutes doesn't refute my point.
2. It was fairly clear from my original comment that the point was one can move to a city where you can find sub-hour commutes. From that it's clear that I am not implying you'll find it with every employer or in every city. The whole comment was about choosing where you work.
> I'm curious where you get this, too. The top 5 MSAs already cover 25% of the population.
Simple: Look up a list of metro areas in the US. Add up the top 20. Then add up the rest.
Hint: A city of 100K is still a city. Trying to claim that this is a minority position will again get the same response: Given that most people who live in 100K (or even smaller) cities believe they live in a city, it would be incorrect to claim that the majority do not view such places as cities. There may far fewer employers for engineering in such cities, but I can assure you there are still plenty.
(And no, you don't need to go as low as 100K to get a cumulative greater than your top 20).
Your statement was:
> I'd wager most people think of something like the top 20 metropolitan statistical areas by population when they hear the term.
Baltimore is not in the top 20. Nor is San Antonio. Nor is Portland. Nor is Milwaukee. The list goes on and on. Do you think these people do not think of their own cities when using the word?