7 ms·

Elizabeth Warren pointed out that the US housing crisis was partly caused by inflated house prices in good public school districts. Middle income families were

Elizabeth Warren pointed out that the US housing crisis was partly caused by inflated house prices in good public school districts. Middle income families were paying the education of their children in high property price. Maybe LeBron should invest into the property around the school to reap some of the benefits and use them to finance the school. Holistic property development.

mirajshah 8y ago
Interesting! But it seems like gentrifying the area around the school is probably not in line with his vision of having at-risk children benefit from the school.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  Gentrification is not something he can change and it's not going to happen overnight. The question is who benefits.
BurningFrog 8y ago
Warren is not a great thinker on Economics issues. Good or bad school districts only change the relative prices. It doesn't alter the total amount of housing per population. In other words, anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  Warren is academic expert bankruptcy and commercial law. She is third most cited academic in her specialty. She is pretty good at economics especially when it comes to consumer behavior and one of the best politicians overall. "The Vanishing Middle Class" (2007) is a good book.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    Warren is a lawyer, not an economist. Her academic career in that field is very impressive, but that has nothing to with an understanding of the science of Economics, which is notoriously full of counterintuitive and misunderstood truths.
    - Nokinside 8y ago
      You understand economics very narrowly if you use that as the only basis of your ad hominem. Warren worked in the field where she needed good economic knowledge.
      - naravara 8y ago
        >You understand economics very narrowly if you use that as the only basis of your ad hominem. The poster doesn't understand economics at all if they think changes in relative housing prices don't affect housing supply.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        I occasionally hear of Warren making statements, about economic matters, that are completely detached from reality. The problem isn't knowledge, it's judgement.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Credentialed economists are not the only people who can make claims about economics. If you can substantively debate her assertion then please do. Otherwise you are not contributing.
      - tonysdg 8y ago
        Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but isn't this the exact opposite of an appeal to authority? The claim is that she's not qualified because she's not a credentialed economist. (I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Warren's background to have a substantiated opinion either way, though I certainly don't doubt her intelligence.)
  - fhood 8y ago
    She is also a consummate politician, who has been known to say misleading and inflammatory things for political gain. She has also been busy steaming leftwards, a move that may endear her to young hyper-liberal voters, but does very little to help my country move past the political chasm that has opened up, and is crippling our government. I don't think that she is a bad person, but I do believe that she is bad for American politics right now.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      This. I liked her when she primarily concerned herself with consumer advocacy.
    - awelkie 8y ago
      Not to get too off topic, but I have a hard time blaming the left for the current political divide in the United States. Saying that someone who pushes leftwards is bad for American politics because they're not closer to the "center" seems like promoting a false equivalence.
      - fhood 8y ago
        I agree, and I don't blame the left as much as I blame the right. I do however think that exacerbating the divide is a bad thing.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        But anything but going closer to the Right is "exacerbating the divide."
      - Dirlewanger 8y ago
        If you don't think both sides play a part in the precipitous spike in polarizing political discourse, then frankly you are ignorant.
        eropple 8y ago
  - anonuser123456 8y ago
    The fact that she is an expert in bankruptcy and commercial law should make you extremely skeptical of her economics credentials. She spends her time in that domain, not the domain of macroeconomics.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  You'd think that the good school districts are areas with new construction, because whoever can afford it will want to move away from the plebs. So you have big, new, expensive housing. On the other hand you'll predict unoccupied residences on the undesirable areas. This is true in my neck of the woods.
- everdev 8y ago
  Right, but if you have a county-wide increase in property value of 10%. Good school districts might see a 20% increase while bad school districts see no appreciation. Also, there's first time homebuyers and deaths or people leaving the country/country to consider. People enter and exit the market all the time, it's not a perfect 1:1 swap all the time. I think it's a valid point that county/state/national economic growth is rarely uniform.
- steventhedev 8y ago
  > In other words, anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one. Exactly. More demand for a fixed supply in the "good" school district, reduced demand for a fixed supply in the "bad" one. Property taxes are in some part based on the demand for houses as reflected in the assessment price. So even assuming that the market keeps those houses occupied by owners, long term the trend will be towards larger tax revenues for the good district, which drives a larger budget for education, which in turn attracts more demand for the homes.
  - krrrh 8y ago
    (sorry this post got long, I mostly wanted to stress how valuable it is for a community to equalize funding per student) In Alberta the conservative government in the 1990s controversially consolidated county school districts into much larger ones and pooled property taxes. This basically resulted in the same dollars being spent per student regardless of where they lived. I recall a lot of limousine liberals complaining about how their schools canceled their dance programs due to the mean old conservatives, but it was a profoundly liberal move, and it resulted in an influx of resources into poorer districts. At the same time it emphasized the conservative positions of local accountability and choice. It’s worth noting that Alberta compares favorably with Finland for math and science scores[1], and has the lowest private school enrollment in Canada. There are other factors that contribute to this, but the tax reforms in the 1990s stand out as a big factor, contributing to the provincial economy and its increasing profile in academic research. The districts had a lot of room to experiment, and Edmonton went the furthest by basically eliminating catchment areas and making schools first-come, first-served (most parent still choose schools close to them for convenience especially in elementary, high school kids could also get free city transit passes iirc). If a school’s enrollment dropped too low it could be closed and the building would be made available for a new standard or charter school to use. They also allowed for a plethora of public charter schools based on parents and principals making proposals for empty or underutilized buildings and proving they could get enrollment. This included a school that focused on hockey, one that had a focus on cadets and Canadian history, and a high school that dispensed of organized sports in favor of excellent arts facilities. None of these schools could discriminate on enrollment (except two cases I’m aware of that got an exemption, an all-girls jr high developed to test the idea that girls would do better in STEM classes without boys present, and a school for First Nations kids that focused on their culture). I’m always puzzled that I do rarely see governors and mayors pushing through similar proposals. [1] https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2006/09/21/clever-red-necks https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2006/09/21/clever-red...
- Nokinside 8y ago
  My other reply was only reply to your Ad hominem. The actual point you make: > anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one. This is correct only if you consider hosing availability. When the housing contains additional value (value of education) the value of housing can increase in absolute. Include the added value from education and you see the point. Example: (value of housing) + (value of public education in the district) = combined value of the property Year 1997: District A: 100 + 20 = 120 District B: 100 + 20 = 120 Year 2007: District A: 90 + 20 = 110 District B: 110 + 40 = 150
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I don't think it's an uneducated answer, but even reasonable ideas in economics are generally somewhat speculative. It is a scarcity, after all. Scarcities can have net different economic consequences.
kingbirdy 8y ago
Based on the article it seems students are being drawn from around the district from the lowest performing schools, rather than from the area around the school.
- dmix 8y ago
  So basically not the way government has done it for decades but based on market need, therefore it differs quite a bit from a 'public school' as it is being claimed to be?
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    This has been done by governments for decades with magnet schools to force desegregation.
stuckinarut 8y ago
Funding schools via property taxes is part of how US schools got into this mess. It's a lousy system.

mirajshah 8y ago

Interesting! But it seems like gentrifying the area around the school is probably not in line with his vision of having at-risk children benefit from the school.

Nokinside 8y ago
Gentrification is not something he can change and it's not going to happen overnight. The question is who benefits.

BurningFrog 8y ago

Warren is not a great thinker on Economics issues. Good or bad school districts only change the relative prices. It doesn't alter the total amount of housing per population. In other words, anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one.

Nokinside 8y ago
Warren is academic expert bankruptcy and commercial law. She is third most cited academic in her specialty. She is pretty good at economics especially when it comes to consumer behavior and one of the best politicians overall. "The Vanishing Middle Class" (2007) is a good book.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  Warren is a lawyer, not an economist. Her academic career in that field is very impressive, but that has nothing to with an understanding of the science of Economics, which is notoriously full of counterintuitive and misunderstood truths.
  - Nokinside 8y ago
    You understand economics very narrowly if you use that as the only basis of your ad hominem. Warren worked in the field where she needed good economic knowledge.
    - naravara 8y ago
      >You understand economics very narrowly if you use that as the only basis of your ad hominem. The poster doesn't understand economics at all if they think changes in relative housing prices don't affect housing supply.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      I occasionally hear of Warren making statements, about economic matters, that are completely detached from reality. The problem isn't knowledge, it's judgement.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Credentialed economists are not the only people who can make claims about economics. If you can substantively debate her assertion then please do. Otherwise you are not contributing.
    - tonysdg 8y ago
      Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but isn't this the exact opposite of an appeal to authority? The claim is that she's not qualified because she's not a credentialed economist. (I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Warren's background to have a substantiated opinion either way, though I certainly don't doubt her intelligence.)
- fhood 8y ago
  She is also a consummate politician, who has been known to say misleading and inflammatory things for political gain. She has also been busy steaming leftwards, a move that may endear her to young hyper-liberal voters, but does very little to help my country move past the political chasm that has opened up, and is crippling our government. I don't think that she is a bad person, but I do believe that she is bad for American politics right now.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    This. I liked her when she primarily concerned herself with consumer advocacy.
  - awelkie 8y ago
    Not to get too off topic, but I have a hard time blaming the left for the current political divide in the United States. Saying that someone who pushes leftwards is bad for American politics because they're not closer to the "center" seems like promoting a false equivalence.
    - fhood 8y ago
      I agree, and I don't blame the left as much as I blame the right. I do however think that exacerbating the divide is a bad thing.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        But anything but going closer to the Right is "exacerbating the divide."
    - Dirlewanger 8y ago
      If you don't think both sides play a part in the precipitous spike in polarizing political discourse, then frankly you are ignorant.
      - eropple 8y ago
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  The fact that she is an expert in bankruptcy and commercial law should make you extremely skeptical of her economics credentials. She spends her time in that domain, not the domain of macroeconomics.
HarryHirsch 8y ago
You'd think that the good school districts are areas with new construction, because whoever can afford it will want to move away from the plebs. So you have big, new, expensive housing. On the other hand you'll predict unoccupied residences on the undesirable areas. This is true in my neck of the woods.
everdev 8y ago
Right, but if you have a county-wide increase in property value of 10%. Good school districts might see a 20% increase while bad school districts see no appreciation. Also, there's first time homebuyers and deaths or people leaving the country/country to consider. People enter and exit the market all the time, it's not a perfect 1:1 swap all the time. I think it's a valid point that county/state/national economic growth is rarely uniform.
steventhedev 8y ago
> In other words, anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one. Exactly. More demand for a fixed supply in the "good" school district, reduced demand for a fixed supply in the "bad" one. Property taxes are in some part based on the demand for houses as reflected in the assessment price. So even assuming that the market keeps those houses occupied by owners, long term the trend will be towards larger tax revenues for the good district, which drives a larger budget for education, which in turn attracts more demand for the homes.
- krrrh 8y ago
  (sorry this post got long, I mostly wanted to stress how valuable it is for a community to equalize funding per student) In Alberta the conservative government in the 1990s controversially consolidated county school districts into much larger ones and pooled property taxes. This basically resulted in the same dollars being spent per student regardless of where they lived. I recall a lot of limousine liberals complaining about how their schools canceled their dance programs due to the mean old conservatives, but it was a profoundly liberal move, and it resulted in an influx of resources into poorer districts. At the same time it emphasized the conservative positions of local accountability and choice. It’s worth noting that Alberta compares favorably with Finland for math and science scores[1], and has the lowest private school enrollment in Canada. There are other factors that contribute to this, but the tax reforms in the 1990s stand out as a big factor, contributing to the provincial economy and its increasing profile in academic research. The districts had a lot of room to experiment, and Edmonton went the furthest by basically eliminating catchment areas and making schools first-come, first-served (most parent still choose schools close to them for convenience especially in elementary, high school kids could also get free city transit passes iirc). If a school’s enrollment dropped too low it could be closed and the building would be made available for a new standard or charter school to use. They also allowed for a plethora of public charter schools based on parents and principals making proposals for empty or underutilized buildings and proving they could get enrollment. This included a school that focused on hockey, one that had a focus on cadets and Canadian history, and a high school that dispensed of organized sports in favor of excellent arts facilities. None of these schools could discriminate on enrollment (except two cases I’m aware of that got an exemption, an all-girls jr high developed to test the idea that girls would do better in STEM classes without boys present, and a school for First Nations kids that focused on their culture). I’m always puzzled that I do rarely see governors and mayors pushing through similar proposals. [1] https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2006/09/21/clever-red-necks https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2006/09/21/clever-red...
Nokinside 8y ago
My other reply was only reply to your Ad hominem. The actual point you make: > anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one. This is correct only if you consider hosing availability. When the housing contains additional value (value of education) the value of housing can increase in absolute. Include the added value from education and you see the point. Example: (value of housing) + (value of public education in the district) = combined value of the property Year 1997: District A: 100 + 20 = 120 District B: 100 + 20 = 120 Year 2007: District A: 90 + 20 = 110 District B: 110 + 40 = 150
dalbasal 8y ago
I don't think it's an uneducated answer, but even reasonable ideas in economics are generally somewhat speculative. It is a scarcity, after all. Scarcities can have net different economic consequences.

kingbirdy 8y ago

Based on the article it seems students are being drawn from around the district from the lowest performing schools, rather than from the area around the school.

dmix 8y ago
So basically not the way government has done it for decades but based on market need, therefore it differs quite a bit from a 'public school' as it is being claimed to be?
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  This has been done by governments for decades with magnet schools to force desegregation.

stuckinarut 8y ago

Funding schools via property taxes is part of how US schools got into this mess. It's a lousy system.