18 ms·

> The unsaid foundation of this obvious bit of snobbery is that only a handful of coastal US cities are suitable for families. Not obvious snobbery. Lower dens

> The unsaid foundation of this obvious bit of snobbery is that only a handful of coastal US cities are suitable for families. Not obvious snobbery. Lower density means greater distance to and fewer options for child care and other important (or even just nice-to-have) services. Right? Possibly also greater distance to friends, relatives, et c., who could help out. The rest is from many hours over several years trying and failing to find somewhere cheaper than my dead-center-middle-tier-city (mine's lamer than any of the cheap options you mentioned, except maybe Charlotte, but I wouldn't bet on it) 'burbs that has decent-or-better schools k-12. Conclusion: the choices are to compromise my kids' education, do home schooling, or pay for boarding school (which is not remotely something we could swing for more than, at a great stretch, maybe one kid—and there go all your savings on housing, and then some). I do not live in a rich coastal city. My house is now over your $408 median but was way under that when we bought it three years ago (and we thought that price was a rip-off, already being way higher than it was about two years prior) and our schools are... good for the area. In fact I've also struggled to find anywhere I could make a lateral move, price-wise, that would come with significantly better schools than where I am now. The trouble is that those areas are in-demand, so of course prices are higher than areas with worse schools. What it sure looks like is there are floors on how low you can go in a given price bracket without school quality starting to slip. Realizing significant savings on housing by moving somewhere lamer and with worse local economic opportunities than where I am now, comes at the price of worse schools. To get better schools (short of paying for a good private school) I'd pretty much have to move somewhere more expensive (though, to be clear, not all more expensive places have better schools than my district). [EDIT] More to the point, my personal situation is pretty OK, actually—less than ideal, but OK—but even in this not-exciting economically-middling city housing prices are rising much faster than young folks can save for them. The point is that young people are getting priced out, even here, they're getting priced out of options like what I've taken, fast. Our house is up something like 35% over 3 years, and we though the price we paid was a rip-off (~20% higher than 2 years before that).

runako 5y ago
> Not obvious snobbery. My apologies, your story is compelling. > Lower density means greater distance to and fewer options for child care and other important (or even just nice-to-have) services. Right? You are Density is (outside of the top 4-5) a weak proxy for home prices[1]. Chicago being one example, the Houston metro being more dense than Seattle metro for another. More importantly, you have to go to a pretty small town to start missing even nice-to-have services. I'm suggesting that there are top 25 major metros where housing is cheaper than the US median and where there are good schools. > What it sure looks like is there are floors on how low you can go in a given price bracket without school quality starting to slip. This holds within, but not across, markets, obviously. $450k in one market is an excellent school district, while in California it's not. If your budget is $450k, you will land in a better neighborhood with better schools in a cheaper city than in a more expensive city. > decent-or-better schools k-12 Reminder that rating sites like great schools penalize districts in urban areas. Density typically includes apartments/affordable housing/transit, which frequently includes people struggling financially and/or people whose first language is not English. This shows up in test scores. Even if every family at a school excels academically except those of more modest means, rating sites will ding the school. Even though research shows such environments are often very good for children. So "school quality" ratings basically are "what percentage of families in this neighborhood have white-collar professionals," which is not really a great measure. TL;DR; it's difficult to evaluate school quality via the Internet. > Possibly also greater distance to friends, relatives, et c., who could help out. Honestly, this is the real killer. I empathize with folks with tight familial ties to California, for this reason. 1 - http://www.usa.com/rank/us--population-density--metro-area-rank.htm http://www.usa.com/rank/us--population-density--metro-area-r...
- brimble 5y ago
  > This holds within, but not across, markets, obviously. $450k in one market is an excellent school district, while in California it's not. If your budget is $450k, you will land in a better neighborhood with better schools in a cheaper city than in a more expensive city. Yeah, you are right about that. Thing is, even the area I'm in is inflating much faster than incomes are. I don't think young people coming up are going to have an easy time getting into even the relatively-cheap-but-decent-schools places like where I am. They're rapidly becoming not-cheap. > Reminder that rating sites like great schools penalize districts in urban areas. Density typically includes apartments/affordable housing/transit, which frequently includes people struggling financially and/or people whose first language is not English. This shows up in test scores. Even if every family at a school excels academically except those of more modest means, rating sites will ding the school. Even though research shows such environments are often very good for children. So "school quality" ratings basically are "what percentage of families in this neighborhood have white-collar professionals," which is not really a great measure. TL;DR; it's difficult to evaluate school quality via the Internet. Very true. I've seen some try to address this by making "equity" (or similar) a significant part of whatever final score they have, so that under-performing schools that are at least not notably failing to serve their low-income students get a big bump in the ratings, and apparently-good ones that are doing poorly at bringing up lower SES student scores have that failing amplified. Modern testing also helps with this, with a stronger focus on growth versus absolute scores. In both cases those can also muddy the waters, though, if your concern is trying to find the absolute best instruction and overall experience in an area. Measurement of that is definitely a tough problem. Separately, it is also the case that school quality appears to be largely based on selection bias, that is, the "good schools" also tend to have the easiest-to-teach (stable home lives, probably not having money problems) students—but it's also the case that better (more ambitious, better-performing, better-behaved) peer models and less classroom disruption will result in a better and more effective school experience, even if instruction quality were everywhere equal. It's a case in which my aims for best-serving my kids, and how I wish the world worked, are in some conflict. > Honestly, this is the real killer. I empathize with folks with tight familial ties to California, for this reason. Yeah, general "just move somewhere with a better economy" advice (usually aimed at folks already in cheap areas, not cases like what we've been discussing) usually neglect that the benefits of having nearby, on-good-terms family and friends can cost well into the five figures to replicate without them, for folks with kids especially. Loss of free child care, loss of "hey can you come help me move this?", loss of free skilled help for, say, auto or home repair, free rides places if your car breaks down, free transport service for the kids, et c. That's such a huge benefit, hard to abandon, especially for people with low incomes. (or, as you note, people stuck having to choose between an expensive area and a cheaper one where they won't have close ties to people)

runako 5y ago

> Not obvious snobbery. My apologies, your story is compelling. > Lower density means greater distance to and fewer options for child care and other important (or even just nice-to-have) services. Right? You are Density is (outside of the top 4-5) a weak proxy for home prices[1]. Chicago being one example, the Houston metro being more dense than Seattle metro for another. More importantly, you have to go to a pretty small town to start missing even nice-to-have services. I'm suggesting that there are top 25 major metros where housing is cheaper than the US median and where there are good schools. > What it sure looks like is there are floors on how low you can go in a given price bracket without school quality starting to slip. This holds within, but not across, markets, obviously. $450k in one market is an excellent school district, while in California it's not. If your budget is $450k, you will land in a better neighborhood with better schools in a cheaper city than in a more expensive city. > decent-or-better schools k-12 Reminder that rating sites like great schools penalize districts in urban areas. Density typically includes apartments/affordable housing/transit, which frequently includes people struggling financially and/or people whose first language is not English. This shows up in test scores. Even if every family at a school excels academically except those of more modest means, rating sites will ding the school. Even though research shows such environments are often very good for children. So "school quality" ratings basically are "what percentage of families in this neighborhood have white-collar professionals," which is not really a great measure. TL;DR; it's difficult to evaluate school quality via the Internet. > Possibly also greater distance to friends, relatives, et c., who could help out. Honestly, this is the real killer. I empathize with folks with tight familial ties to California, for this reason. 1 - http://www.usa.com/rank/us--population-density--metro-area-rank.htm http://www.usa.com/rank/us--population-density--metro-area-r...

brimble 5y ago
> This holds within, but not across, markets, obviously. $450k in one market is an excellent school district, while in California it's not. If your budget is $450k, you will land in a better neighborhood with better schools in a cheaper city than in a more expensive city. Yeah, you are right about that. Thing is, even the area I'm in is inflating much faster than incomes are. I don't think young people coming up are going to have an easy time getting into even the relatively-cheap-but-decent-schools places like where I am. They're rapidly becoming not-cheap. > Reminder that rating sites like great schools penalize districts in urban areas. Density typically includes apartments/affordable housing/transit, which frequently includes people struggling financially and/or people whose first language is not English. This shows up in test scores. Even if every family at a school excels academically except those of more modest means, rating sites will ding the school. Even though research shows such environments are often very good for children. So "school quality" ratings basically are "what percentage of families in this neighborhood have white-collar professionals," which is not really a great measure. TL;DR; it's difficult to evaluate school quality via the Internet. Very true. I've seen some try to address this by making "equity" (or similar) a significant part of whatever final score they have, so that under-performing schools that are at least not notably failing to serve their low-income students get a big bump in the ratings, and apparently-good ones that are doing poorly at bringing up lower SES student scores have that failing amplified. Modern testing also helps with this, with a stronger focus on growth versus absolute scores. In both cases those can also muddy the waters, though, if your concern is trying to find the absolute best instruction and overall experience in an area. Measurement of that is definitely a tough problem. Separately, it is also the case that school quality appears to be largely based on selection bias, that is, the "good schools" also tend to have the easiest-to-teach (stable home lives, probably not having money problems) students—but it's also the case that better (more ambitious, better-performing, better-behaved) peer models and less classroom disruption will result in a better and more effective school experience, even if instruction quality were everywhere equal. It's a case in which my aims for best-serving my kids, and how I wish the world worked, are in some conflict. > Honestly, this is the real killer. I empathize with folks with tight familial ties to California, for this reason. Yeah, general "just move somewhere with a better economy" advice (usually aimed at folks already in cheap areas, not cases like what we've been discussing) usually neglect that the benefits of having nearby, on-good-terms family and friends can cost well into the five figures to replicate without them, for folks with kids especially. Loss of free child care, loss of "hey can you come help me move this?", loss of free skilled help for, say, auto or home repair, free rides places if your car breaks down, free transport service for the kids, et c. That's such a huge benefit, hard to abandon, especially for people with low incomes. (or, as you note, people stuck having to choose between an expensive area and a cheaper one where they won't have close ties to people)