You've lost track of the fact that I quoted certain items from the Heritage report and that various people including you took issue with what I quoted. I never said anything about the cost of housing in Europe. I only quoted the report which referred to size. That is the issue. If you want to have a different discussion, about cost, then I shan't join because I haven't run across anything on that. _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judith Evans Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:16 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-id] The Poverty of Heritage LH>However, the author of the United Nations Housing Indicators report LH>asserts that, in most cases, the average housing size in major cities LH>can be taken as roughly representative of the nation as a whole. It isn't the average housing size that's the issue (pace Pollitt) it's the *cost* (which also of course varies with size). Housing in London (and parts of the SouthEast) is massively more expensive than elsewhere in the UK. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:00 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-id] The Poverty of Heritage Note footnote 11 of the Heritage report: "See Katha Pollitt, "Poverty: Fudging the Numbers," The Nation, November 2, 1998. Pollitt argues that it is misleading to compare the living space of poor Americans nationwide to that of average citizens in major cities in other nations, since European cities, in particular, have small housing units that are not representative of their entire nations. However, the author of the United Nations Housing Indicators report asserts that, in most cases, the average housing size in major cities can be taken as roughly representative of the nation as a whole. A comparison of the data in Table 4 and Appendix Table A would appear to confirm this."