Ben Bernanke and Larry Summers are in the midst of a vigorous blog debate about why the world’s economy is so messed up and how it can be fixed.

Mr. Bernanke says a “global savings glut,” caused by people and governments overseas saving too much, has driven unemployment up in the United States, and driven wages, G.D.P. and interest rates down. The mechanisms are complicated, but one of the main reasons imbalances matter is that any country that’s saving too much is not buying enough American exports.

This is a cheerier story than Mr. Summers’s “secular stagnation.” Because if we fix the imbalances — get other countries to stop saving so much and start buying more of our products and borrowing more of our money — the American economy should more or less return to normal.

But is there a good way for American policy makers to fix imbalances that arise abroad? “We don’t really have powerful tools,” Mr. Bernanke said Monday in response to a question from The New York Times.

He rejected one idea floated by some left-of-center economists like Dean Baker: demanding the inclusion of anti-currency manipulation provisions in trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would aim to prevent countries from deliberately weakening their currencies in order to gain an advantage in exporting.

Mr. Bernanke offers plausible reasons for rejecting this approach. Other countries would be unlikely to agree to such provisions. It’s not clear you could develop treaty rules that effectively distinguish between currency manipulation and valid monetary policy activity. Most important, some currency-weakening policies are actually good for the global economy, especially if the country with the weakening currency has a weak economy (think Abenomics in Japan). An international regimen that cracks down on weak-currency policies could therefore, in some cases, make global imbalances worse.

But if not currency provisions in trade agreements, then what? “Obviously, there’s not a real legal stick to use,” he said, “but countries do respond I think to diplomatic overtures and to pressure from their trading partners when what they’re doing is perceived as, you know, counterproductive to the global economy.”

That is, ask nicely.

The best example of the Ask Nicely strategy is China, whose weak currency policy was one of the leading sources of global trade imbalance over the last 20 years. In recent years, the Chinese have allowed their currency to appreciate. Perhaps they did this because of pressure from America and other trade partners; perhaps because the weak renminbi, great though it was for Chinese manufacturers, was suppressing Chinese domestic consumption and reducing real income for the country’s citizens.

Either way, China’s policy persisted for an awfully long time and caused significant problems in the American economy. China exchanged products for American dollars. Instead of buying American products with those piles of dollars, it plowed a lot of them into American securities, including Treasury bonds. Strong foreign demand for American debt led to the strange situation from 2004 through 2007 when the Federal Reserve raised short-term interest rates but could not get long rates to move; this kept mortgage rates low and helped fuel the housing bubble.

The American trade deficit exceeded 6 percent of G.D.P. by 2006; the United States was able to maintain a decent labor market despite the trade deficit and expensive oil only because of the housing bubble. Then, the housing bubble burst. All of which is to say, it would have been nice if the Chinese had acted sooner.

Today’s main sources of imbalance don’t offer much hope for the Ask Nicely strategy. The other emerging Asian economies have continued to grow their trade surpluses even as China’s shrinks. Their actions are understandable: The currency crises of the 1990s caused a lot of economic pain in places like South Korea, and they have since sought to accumulate enormous amounts of foreign reserves so they never have to be at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund again. But that requires spending a lot of their excess income on American bonds instead of American products.

The other new source of economic imbalance is Europe. If European countries still had their own currencies, Germany would have a Deutschmark that is stronger than today’s euro, and places like Spain and Italy would have weak currencies. In the real world, Germany’s too-weak currency has led it to run a huge trade surplus. Southern Europe’s too-strong currency should lead it to run a trade deficit, but it can’t because it’s in a horrible, semipermanent depression, which forces its residents to save instead of buying.

When you combine those effects, you find the eurozone as a whole is now running a big trade surplus; the question is how long that will persist.

“When the European periphery returns to growth, which presumably will happen at some point, the collective surplus ought to decline,” Mr. Bernanke wrote Wednesday on his blog. If we need to wait for southern Europe to get its act together for the global economy to get back into balance, we may be waiting for a very, very long time.

Perhaps, in addition to looking for sticks like trade pact provisions, and instead of hoping we can talk Europe into not being a basket case anymore, policy makers could be looking for carrots. Maybe the road to global rebalancing doesn’t run through China or Europe but through countries that got burned in the 1990s currency crises, many of which have been motivated to run large current account surpluses and avoid borrowing.

The global situation today, in which developing countries are net savers and rich countries are net borrowers, is backward. Rich countries have lots of money, and developing countries have lots of investment opportunities. In a healthy global economy, capital should be flowing from the former to the latter, as it did before the mid-1990s. Perhaps the question we ought to be asking: What can we do to make developing countries unafraid to borrow from us again, so American exports can find markets and American capital can find better investment opportunities abroad?

The latest salvo in the mommy wars is that all that time you spend parenting just doesn’t matter. But it’s a claim that, despite the enthusiastic and widespread coverage by news media outlets that include The Washington Post, Vox, The Guardian, The Independent, The Globe and Mail, NBC News, The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times’s Motherlode, does not hold water.

The claim that parenting time doesn’t matter is the bottom line of a single recent study by a team of sociologists who suggest that child outcomes are barely correlated with the time that parents spend with their children. It’s essentially a nonfinding, in that they failed to find correlations that could be reliably discerned from chance.

This nonfinding largely reflects the failure of the authors to accurately measure parental input. In particular, the study does not measure how much time parents typically spend with their children. Instead, it measures how much time each parent spends with children on only two particular days — one a weekday and the other a weekend day.

The result is that whether you are categorized as an intensive or a distant parent depends largely on which days of the week you happened to be surveyed. For instance, I began this week by taking a couple of days off to travel with the children to Disney World. A survey asking about Sunday or Monday would categorize me as a very intense parent who spent every waking moment engaged with my children. But today, I’m back at work and am unlikely to see them until late. And so a survey asking instead about today would categorize me as an absentee parent. The reality is that neither is accurate.

It is no surprise that a measure that does such a poor job in capturing my parenting input would be barely related to my children’s outcomes.

Trying to get a sense of the time you spend parenting from a single day’s diary is a bit like trying to measure your income from a single day. If yesterday was payday, you look rich, but if it’s not, you would be reported as dead broke. You get a clearer picture only by looking at your income — or your parenting time — over a more meaningful period.

As Ariel Kalil, a developmental psychologist and professor of public policy at the University of Chicago, told me, “What you did yesterday should not be taken as representative of what you did last year.” This is why most high-quality studies of parenting time focus instead on how often parents read to their children, play with them or help them with homework over a period of a month or longer — long enough to represent their different approaches to parenting.

As an exhausted parent who doesn’t get enough time to work out, who hasn’t seen a grown-up movie for months, and who wishes that date night were an actual night rather than an idea, I understand why so many of us might seize on studies suggesting that we should take more time for ourselves. Perhaps we should. But we should do so without relying on misleading research. Far better that we make our parenting choices informed by the broader set of more reliable studies, which Ms. Kalil summarized for me as suggesting “that when parents spend high-quality time with their children, their children are more likely to succeed.”

Last week, a 21-year-old soccer player named Harry Kane made a spectacular debut for England’s national team, scoring against Lithuania just 79 seconds after entering the game and then wheeling away with a look of joyous disbelief as a crowd of roughly 80,000 countrymen roared approval.

Mr. Kane’s unexpected emergence this season as the leading scorer for his club team, Tottenham Hotspur, has captivated fans — not least because he was born and raised a few miles from Tottenham’s north London stadium.

It has also made him a beacon of an anti-globalization groundswell that aims to restrict the participation of foreign players in England’s soccer leagues.

“How many other Harry Kanes are there in the academies of English football who cannot get a first-team game?” Greg Dyke, chairman of English soccer’s governing body, the Football Association, wrote in an opinion article published by The Guardian. “We are simply not giving young domestic talent sufficient opportunities at the highest level of English football.”

Mr. Dyke put his concerns into broader and blunter form last week in announcing proposed limits on the participation of foreign players. The country’s top league, the Premier League, he declared, was headed toward being “owned by foreigners, managed by foreigners and played by foreigners.”

Economists have long held up soccer — which has become one of the most globalized markets for skilled labor — as a shining example of the benefits of open borders. The Premier League now draws capital and labor from around the world, and produces a spectacle consumed around the world. That’s why Tottenham’s jerseys feature the logo of AIA, an Asian-based insurance company that doesn’t even have offices in England. And economists say that’s good for the players, their countries — and for England.

As in the United States, however, this expert consensus has largely failed to shift public opinion. The recruitment of skilled foreigners to take jobs once held by English players feeds into deep anxieties about the inflow of immigrants in a country that has never seen itself as a melting pot. A recent Ipsos MORI poll found that 45 percent of Britons regard immigration as the top issue facing the country ahead of national elections in May.

The basic argument is straightforward. There are only 500 player jobs in the Premier League — 20 teams, each with 25 players. Two decades ago, Englishmen held about 69 percent of those jobs. Last season, they held 37 percent, according to data compiled by CIES Football Observatory. By contrast, 61 percent of players in the Spanish league were Spanish; 59 percent of players in the German league were German.

The Championship, the second tier of English soccer, has also become notably less English. English players accounted for less than half of the total minutes played during the early months of the current season, the BBC calculated.

And Mr. Dyke and his supporters say England’s national team is struggling because fewer players have the chance to learn their trade at the highest levels. Tottenham loaned Mr. Kane to four teams between 2011 and 2013 while employing a series of expensive imports in the job he now holds. Mr. Dyke says other talented English players may similarly be languishing in reserve.

Mr. Dyke has convinced the government to impose new limits on the supply of foreign players, by making it harder to get work permits. He also wants to limit demand for them, by persuading teams to reserve more of their 25 roster slots for homegrown players.

The effort is a version of what economists call “import substitution” — raising barriers at the border to encourage the development of domestic industry. It is a strategy developing nations have used with success — including, once upon a time, Britain and the United States, and, more recently, China.

But England is not developing a new industry. Soccer was invented there. And there are some important reasons to doubt the gut-feeling argument that foreign players are bad for the English game. The league itself is hugely profitable, and much of that money arrives in England from other countries. Rich foreigners buy teams. Companies buy sponsorships. Fans buy jerseys.

“The Premier League has become the most successful product in sporting history,” said Simon Kuper, co-author of “Soccernomics,” a 2014 book that uses data to examine the game’s development. And the English league has become the world’s most popular, outstripping leagues in Spain and Germany and Italy, in large part because it has become the most global.

The league’s success means that the remaining English players earn much more than their predecessors — so much more that English players, in aggregate, are almost certainly taking home more money. The average salary this season is 2.3 million pounds (about $3.4 million), according to a Daily Mail survey. In 1992-93, the first season of the current league structure, the average was just 140,000 pounds (about $208,000), after adjusting for inflation.

The Premier League also makes direct payments to England’s minor leagues. It buys players from minor league teams. And every year, three teams from the second division are promoted to the Premier League, while three Premier League teams move down. Since 1992, 46 different teams have enjoyed at least one season of windfall Premier League profits.

Players in the second flight now earn 486,000 pounds on average (about $721,000) — or more than three times as much, after inflation, as top-flight players two decades ago.

Mr. Kane and his peers, in other words, are beneficiaries of globalization.

The fans arguably are beneficiaries, too. They get to watch better players and better games, and their hometown teams are among the giants of global soccer. Manchester citizens may take pride in the success of Manchester United or Manchester City, even if few of the teams’ players have been English in recent years.

The globalization of soccer began to accelerate in 1995 when a Belgian player, Jean-Marc Bosman, convinced the European Court of Justice that European Union nations could not impose limits on the employment of European Union soccer players.

The effect was much broader. The year before the ruling, just 6 percent of the players in top European leagues came from outside Europe. Four years later, the share had climbed to 28 percent, according to a 2014 analysis by Chrysovalantis Vasilakis, an economist at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.

Mr. Vasilakis and other economists see evidence that globalization has increased the competitive balance of international competitions like the World Cup, as players from smaller and less affluent countries, such as Ghana and Uruguay, have more opportunities at the game’s highest levels. That suggests England and other traditional powers are losing ground, in relative terms, because they now face stiffer competition.

But it’s hard to see the evidence in the performance of England’s national team. During the Premier League era, the team has held a relatively steady position in FIFA’s ranking of national teams, with an average ranking of 10th. England’s performance at the World Cup has also remained relatively constant, although fans inevitably pine for a repeat of 1966, when England hosted and won the Cup.

Charles Kenny, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, notes that English players also benefit from the improved competition in the Premier League.

And Mr. Kenny, who is English, says he has no appetite for stepping on the prospects of other nations. “Does England really want to stay ahead in the global game by keeping other national teams down?” he said. “That seems an awfully colonial attitude.”

Step into the offices on Sand Hill Road, the heart of Silicon Valley venture capital, and one thing is immediately striking — the almost all-male cast of leading characters.

But there is another corner of the venture capital industry that looks quite different. There, women run firms, and all-female networks of angel investors share deal opportunities and advise one another on investments.

This new group of firms and angel networks — including Cowboy Ventures, Aspect Ventures, Broadway Angels, Illuminate Ventures, Forerunner Ventures and Aligned Partners — stands in stark contrast to the rest of the industry.

In some ways, these new female-dominated firms and investment networks are a sign of success. There are now enough experienced, financially successful women to start their own firms, the way men with last names like Kleiner and Draper did in the past. In March, six women who are current or former Twitter executives announced #Angels, a new angel investing network.

In addition to having significant investing or operations experience, the women offer a broader and more diverse network for recruiting and finding new start-ups and an understanding of female consumers, who are often the dominant users of new products.

“We’re in the middle of a shifting trend where there are newly wealthy women putting their money to work, and similarly we’re starting to have a larger number of experienced investors,” said Jennifer Fonstad, a founder of Aspect Ventures and Broadway Angels, who was formerly a partner at Draper Fisher Jurvetson. “Venture women are going out and doing what we saw a lot of the guys do.”

But it is also a sign of the deep-seated problems in the venture capital industry. A recent gender-discrimination trial — in which Ellen Pao, a former junior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, sued the firm — exposed elements of a male-dominated culture in which women are sorely underrepresented. Over all, just 6 percent of partners at venture capital firms are women, according to the Diana Project at Babson College. That is even lower than in 1999, when 10 percent were female. And, according to another study of gender and venture capital, 77 percent of the firms have never had a female investor.

That study, by Paul A. Gompers, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, found that a lack of inclusion and mentorship by male partners hurts female partners in a material way, by driving down their overall returns.

“What’s clear from these results is that investment returns are not only related to your own track record, but to having good colleagues around you,” said Professor Gompers, who was a paid witness for the defense in the discrimination trial, which Ms. Pao lost. “And the surprising thing is, on average, women aren’t benefiting from their male colleagues.”

Venture capitalists are, in a way, the gatekeepers to Silicon Valley, and if they are a group of white men who studied at places like Stanford, it is no wonder that most of the entrepreneurs fit the same mold. Venture firms with women as partners are three times as likely to invest in a company with a female chief executive and twice as likely to invest in one with women on the management team, according to the Babson College report.

The lack of female investors has cascading effects. Start-ups’ boards are composed mostly of venture capitalists, so they are often all men. A recent Fortune analysis found that of the 81 start-ups worth more than $1 billion, 5 percent had a female chief executive and 6 percent had a woman on the board. Other studies have found that male founders and directors are less likely to hire women as executives and engineers, or pay men and women equally.

“Honestly, there will be more female entrepreneurs if there are more female venture capitalists,” said Brit Morin, founder and chief executive of an e-commerce and crafts site called Brit & Co, whose investors include Cowboy Ventures.

Female investors said they did not specifically seek to invest in companies founded by women, but that because of their networks, they received more pitches from female entrepreneurs. Forty percent of the angel investments made by Sonja Hoel Perkins, a founder of Broadway Angels (not related to Tom Perkins, the co-founder of Kleiner Perkins), have been in companies started by women, a far greater proportion than are made by typical venture funds. That is also the case with a third of Cowboy Ventures’ 30 investments, and more than 40 percent of Aspect Ventures’ 13 investments.

“We are getting a first look at an unfair share of these amazing, oftentimes repeat entrepreneurs, who happen to be female,” said Theresia Gouw, a founder of Aspect and a former partner at Accel. Since more than half of the users of many mobile and social services are women, she added, companies can benefit from having female investors evaluate their products and serve on their boards.

That has been true for Mariam Naficy, the founder and chief executive of Minted, a crowdsourced marketplace for stationery and art that has raised $89 million. Early in her company’s life, before there was data to prove that her idea was a good one, female investors were much more likely than men to understand it, she said.

“Without being able to see quantitative evidence of better design, most male investors couldn’t allow themselves to make the leap,” Ms. Naficy said. “To virtually every female investor I met with, it was clear Minted’s community was producing far fresher and more unique design than our competitors.”

That seems to be paying off for Ms. Perkins, who was an early investor in Minted and said it is on track to being worth $1 billion.

Not that female venture capitalists invest only in companies with predominantly female customers. “There’s a myth out there that women only know how to invest in women’s products,” said Cindy Padnos, founder of Illuminate Ventures. She invests in cloud and mobile services for businesses.

“Women say, ‘If there were more women founders, I would invest in more of them,’ ” she said. “That’s too easy an excuse. You have to go out of your way to identify them and be receptive and show them this is a place where women and men succeed.”

Many of the women who have started the new firms said they did it because after spending so much time with entrepreneurs, they wanted to create their own start-ups. Because many traditional venture funds have ballooned and expanded to late-stage and international companies, there was a need for new, smaller investors who were focused on financing early-stage companies.

“We are in a valley of people who challenge the status quo, so it sort of seems natural that we have venture investors who are thinking about how to do things differently,” said Aileen Lee, founder of Cowboy Ventures and a former partner at Kleiner Perkins.

But most of all, Ms. Perkins said, working with women seemed fun. “All of us thought it would be great to be only women because all of us had worked with only men our whole lives,” she said.

“I also thought it would be inspiring for women and girls to get into venture capital and technology,” she added, “because I think a lot of women think, ‘Why be in venture capital if you perceive the industry as not being friendly toward you?’ ”

Suppose you accept the persuasive data that inequality has been rising in the United States and most advanced nations in recent decades. But suppose you don’t want to fight inequality through politically polarizing steps like higher taxes on the wealthy or a more generous social welfare system.

There remains a plausible solution to rising inequality that avoids those polarizing ideas: strengthening education so that more Americans can benefit from the advances of the 21st-century economy. This is a solution that conservatives, centrists and liberals alike can comfortably get behind. After all, who doesn’t favor a stronger educational system? But a new paper shows why the math just doesn’t add up, at least if the goal is addressing the gap between the very rich and everyone else.

Brad Hershbein, Melissa Kearney and Lawrence Summers offer a simple little simulation that shows the limits of education as an inequality-fighter. In short, more education would be great news for middle and lower-income Americans, increasing their pay and economic security. It just isn’t up to the task of meaningfully reducing inequality, which is being driven by the sharp upward movement of the very top of the income distribution.

It is all the more interesting that the research comes from Mr. Summers, a former Treasury secretary who is hardly known as a soak-the-rich class warrior. It is published by the Hamilton Project, a centrist research group operating with Wall Street funding and seeking to find third-way-style solutions to America’s problems that can unite left and right.

In their simulation, they assume that 10 percent of non-college-educated men of prime working age suddenly obtained a college degree or higher, which would be an unprecedented rise in the proportion of the work force with advanced education.

They assume that these more educated men go from their current pay levels to pay that is in line with current college graduates, minus an adjustment for the fact that more college grads in the work force could depress their wages a bit.

There is no doubt that in this simulated world with a more educated labor force, middle-income workers earn more — $37,060 in simulated 2013 earnings for a person at the 50th percentile, compared with $34,000 in the real world, a 9 percent improvement.

But that improvement brings that 50th-percentile worker only back closer to the inflation-adjusted level of income he enjoyed in 1979, which was $37,838. Meanwhile, the 90th-percentile worker in this simulation holds onto (and indeed improves upon) the sharp income gains of the past 34 years. Annual earnings at the 90th percentile climbed from $75,700 in 1979 to more than $100,000 in both the actual 2013 data and the simulation with higher education levels.

Add it all up, and the Gini ratio, a frequently used measure of income inequality, would decrease only to 0.55 from 0.57 in this scenario of drastic educational improvement. It would still be far higher than the 0.43 recorded in 1979.

None of this is to say that a better educational system isn’t desirable. The 9 percent income gain for middle-income men evident in the authors’ simulation is a big deal.

“Increasing the educational attainment of men without a college degree will increase their average earnings and their likelihood of being employed,” the authors write. And even if it doesn’t do much to reduce overall inequality, they find it does reduce inequality within the bottom half of the income distribution, by increasing the earnings of those near the 25th percentile of earnings (in 2013, those making $6,100 a year, compared with $8,720 in the simulation with higher education).

In other words, it’s worth pursuing more and better education for working-class Americans on its own terms, because it will improve their lives and economic potential. Inequality, meanwhile, is a deeper problem, and its potential solutions remain ideologically divisive.

A small group of House Democrats has begun moving to the right in the current Congress, breaking from a majority of colleagues on votes that pit lawmakers from liberal areas against those from more rural and conservative districts.

The lure of a Senate seat, which in many cases requires shifting from a narrower ideological focus to a broader one, and the threat of a well-funded challenger are among the reasons for this this shift.

A few members of this group, which numbers fewer than a dozen, are congressional veterans like Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who survived a tough challenge in 2014 and is voting with a majority of his fellow Democrats 64 percent of the time, down slightly from the previous Congress.

But most are new to the House and have known life only in the minority, with Republicans controlling the schedule and agenda. These Democratic lawmakers have voted against Democratic legislation such as the alternative budgets proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Their ranks include John Delaney of Maryland, who was first elected in 2012 and narrowly defeated his Republican challenger last fall, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who won easily in 2014 but may be considering a run for the Senate (and, notably, did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House in January). Ms. Sinema’s party voting percentage has dropped to 73 percent from 80 percent this year, while Mr. Delaney’s score has fallen further, to 80 percent from 92 percent.

Patrick Murphy of Florida is another example; he’s already running for the Senate seat currently held by the Republican Marco Rubio, and his party voting score has dropped from 83 percent in the last Congress to 77 percent in this one.

Also in the group are four California Democrats who have voted less often with their party in the current Congress than in the previous one, including Julia Brownley, who has joined a majority of Democrats on 84 percent of votes in 2015 compared with 91 percent the previous two years.

Retirements and election defeats thinned the ranks of moderate and conservative House Democrats last year, including many of those who previously voted to repeal all or parts of the Affordable Care Act. The remaining Democrats who are voting against their party more often represent a less liberal part of the caucus, but there are limits to their willingness to cross party lines. No Democrats voted for full repeal in February, and none voted for the Republican-written budget that also repeals the law.

The bills that have attracted the support of the small group of Democrats have included ones that provide tax cuts; support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline; and change the ways the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies study and approve regulations.

This article was initially published as a letter to subscribers of The Upshot’s weekly newsletter. You can sign up for the email here to get this and all of the best of The Upshot.

Americans are chasing the sun, as well as affordable housing and popular retirement destinations, in a migration pattern interrupted by the housing bust but now back in force, Neil Irwin wrote last week.

Paul Krugman followed up with a reminder that it’s mainly the weather, not low wages and low taxes, that is driving the migration.

One reader, Concerned Citizen of Venice, Fla., explained the age-old allure of Florida this way:

“Retirees move to Florida for moderate housing costs, good roads, municipal services, hospitals and medical care, and phenomenal weather. Wages and salaries tend to be lower, but so are overall living expenses. This has been the case for most of Florida’s development since the 1930s.”

Some of our readers weren’t impressed:

GrumpaT of Sequim, Wash.:

Let’s see: eroding beaches, salty wells, submerging land, blistering temperatures, and don’t forget the 150,000 Burmese pythons that are devouring the Everglades.

Winthropo Muchacho of Durham, N.C.:

I’m a native Floridian — born in Miami Beach in 1950 raised in Ft. Lauderdale. Folks like the ones described in the article have ruined South Florida — it’s too dense, people living there too self-absorbed, too into geriatric concerns. I want to skateboard, surf and snow ski until I am physically unable to do so — which hopefully is a long way off.”

Rudolf of New York:

Moving from New York to some place in Florida indeed would save me a lot of money — not only cheaper housing and less taxes, but also it would shorten life because of total boredom.

DrDale of D.C.:

I’m surprised they didn’t say more about New Orleans — one of the few real gems of cosmopolitan culture in a warm climate with affordable housing and cost of living, especially by NE standards. And the music and food are to die for!

SteveRR of CA:

To die for you say...”With a murder rate of 57.6 per 100,000, New Orleans had the highest murder rate of any U.S. city with a population of 100,000 or more in 2011 and ranked 21st in the world.”