Study: Homeowners Aggravated and Heavy

why would a homeowner be fatter than a renter? did they control for age well enough?

That reminds me of the research that shows that couples with children are less happy than couples without due to a number of factors which boil down to it's bloody hard work!

However, I'm sure most parents here wouldn't have it any other way.

All that glitter is not gold.

This is probably about the most stupid and least meaningful "study" to ever come out of Wharton.

"Bucchianeri examines survey data from some 600 women in Ohio ..."

Six HUNDRED. WOMEN. In OHIO.

Yeah, that's representative of *America* (or, even in terms of this board, New York City).

Outside of such high-priced urban meccas like New York City and San Francisco, guess who's more likely to be a "renter"? YOUNG PEOPLE! And guess what? Young people are generally in better shape! And guess what else about young people? They're more likely to be SINGLE! Do you know what single people do more than married people? THEY GO OUT WITH FRIENDS!

Damn. I should be a Wharton MBA!

kind of like the consumer confidence polls. a few hundred people move markets.

Matt: from second paragraph, "once the data are controlled for a range of variables..."

Alanhart: Manipulated data is called S P E C U L A T I O N.

forget any analysis. let's just review raw data. that's meaningful to so many people.

This has got to be one of the dumbest studies I have ever read. Although I will admit that, compared to when I was a renter, I am fatter now. I think the main reason is that when I moved from my apt. to my house, I had more space for food. In my apt. I would not buy that much junk food because I did not have the room. But in the house, I can stockpile 3 years worth of snacks.

Oooh! I have a study for Wharton!

WHY is it that couples with children seem to have higher grocery bills than couples without children?

Let's survey 600 men in Denver and find out!

Actually, Matt, couples with children may well spend less total on food than couples without children. the social sciences lost a fine researcher when you didn't head to a life in academia.

I have a study for Harvard: Why does Detroit have a higher unemployment rate than Dallas? There must be some sort of negative event occuring in Detroit. We must figure out what it is. If only there was a Harvad study that did just that...

I think 'anticipated weight gain' needs to be added to the rent vs. buy calculation, especially when you factor in the likelihood of increased future health costs.

How do we calculate oz/sf and $/oz?

Let's not also forget that people in the Midwest are generally fat to begin with ...

Alpine, from where you live in New Jersey you can walk from your house to Palisades Interstate Park and have a constitutional every evening after dinner. Here's an important GIF to demonstrate and really add a lot to this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blender3D_NormalWalkCycle.gif

I don't know about that Matt. Farmers do a lot of physical labor so I'm sure that keeps them in shape. I think the fattest states are actually those in the Southeast. I know the fittest city is actually Washington D.C. Don't ask me why...

no need for that math tenemental. Buy a 5th floor walk up 6 blcoks away from the closest subway station and I'm sure that you will be the fittest person on your block.

I think Denver and Minneapolis are usually the fittest cities. DC? Out of the question.

Farmers do as much physical labor as it takes to drive an enormous Deere combine. They probably even have ones with elevators to bring the farmers up to the cabs.

The Obamas are living in the right city if they want to stay buff.
The Washington, D.C., metro area is the fittest city in the USA, ranking slightly higher than Minneapolis, Denver, Boston and San Francisco, according to a new analysis of the 50 most populous metro areas. The ranking is being released this week by the American College of Sports Medicine at its annual meeting in Seattle.

Oklahoma City is at the bottom of the list, and Detroit comes in second to last.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-05-25-fitcities_N.htm

So you're saying that in addition to their typical lower prices, high-floor walkups with lousy transportation options have a value-added long term health cost benefit? See, that's the kind of data we need hard numbers on.

"Farmers do a lot of physical labor so I'm sure that keeps them in shape."

Who said anything about farmers?

an apartment 5-10 blocks away from Whole Foods and Trader Joe's may also get a boost in value. Healthy choices close enough to walk to but far enough away to get some exercise. This could get complicated. If the Mr. Softee truck, or the roving dessert vehicle, routinely stops in front of your abode that's got to decrease value.

you said midwest, which is where most of the farmers are. DUH!

That's where all the farmer's daughter jokes are set. DUH!

Mr. Softee and friends are my archnemesis. That jingle was developed by the KGB. My friend wrote the lyrics to it one hot Brooklyn summer a couple of decades when Mr. Softee was parked outside her window for four months, 24/7.

I guess it would be archnemeses.

"you said midwest, which is where most of the farmers are. DUH!"

You realize that less than 10% of Midwesterners are farmers, yes?

You realize that Midwesterners are countable, yes?

Then "fewer", please.

Count THIS.

Relax ... I'm sure you weren't omitted in the count of Midwesterners.

goolsbee how do you know 914 sold for $870K...

"while homeowners do experience significant joy, they also face more aggravation, spend less time with friends and are even heavier than renters living in comparable homes."

Is this because of or on top of the massive financial losses they are suffering?

I'm sure many renters have experienced large financial losses in the stock market.