In telling us of his own experiences, Professor Pasquale writes of how his family followed Mr. Glaeser’s 1st recommendation and traveled in search of a better job. So, if better wages (often an important component of a better job)are to be found in the “progressive” rust belt, why would anyone, if following Mr. Glaeser’s recommendation, leave there for a worse job in the Sun Belt? (and I’m going to ignore what I infer to be Professor Pasquale’s disdain for “right to work”. I dunno, maybe he feels it is a “progressive” value to be forced to associate with a union.)

Perhaps, and I’m just kind of shooting from the hip here, but perhaps there are no jobs at those better “progressive rust belt” wages thus making the actual paying jobs more attractive.

“But I deeply hope that the types of questions I’m asking have to be answered before anyone else takes mathematical modeling seriously as a guide to urban policy”

Well, I hope people start taking it more seriously instead of not at all. Just because a model doesn’t (or can’t) measure stability or the benefits of walking doesn’t mean it shouldn’t measure anything at all. Or that we shouldn’t consider what it’s telling us.

Even without a measure of stability’s value, economic analysis of the likes of Mr. Glaeser still have to represent a quantum leap over whatever current guide(s) to urban policy has wrought Detroit and New Orleans.