HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2022, 5:13 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
This is a bit of an aside to my OP, but way, way too much U.S. housing policy is concerned with keeping seniors in their homes, even though it's a net negative effect for everyone.

1. Seniors aging in place are often in houses which don't work for an aging person (presence of stairs, for example.

2. Seniors basically destroy the value of single-family homes due to deferred maintenance. I've seen so many homes which were close to ruined even in desirable areas because of something like an old person who either couldn't afford to fix a leaking roof or didn't think it was a big deal.

3. In high-cost areas, it's a really sub-optimal outcome to have 1-2 elderly people in 3+ bedroom homes. They sop up family-sized homes, but don't have families. They live in prime areas close to places of work, but don't work.

I do recognize that there's reasons to keep elderly people in place - like a move makes the onset of dementia more likely - but I still feel like on balance we shouldn't incentivize the elderly to age in place, at least not in higher-cost areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 3:24 AM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
This has frequently been a topic in threads that drift in that direction, but I think having a dedicated thread to the subject would be really helpful.

One of the major reasons that professional-class people often give for moving away from cities once they become parents is "the schools." Leaving aside bad-faith arguments which really boil down to racism, this determination is often made by looking at the school ranking somewhere like Greatschools, or standardized test scores in the state. They presume a mediocre to low scoring school is a "bad" school, and don't want their kids negatively impacted. Hence they move their kids to a "good" school.

The problem with this analysis is the priors of it are entirely, 100% backwards. Many studies have concluded that good schools do not produce good students. Instead, good students produce good schools.

There's an issue when it comes to measuring school quality which is known as "selection bias." To give a clear example of this, consider the average undergraduate at Yale versus the average undergraduate at a low-ranked four-year college. The Yale student will have far higher levels of aptitude upon graduating than the student at the non-selective school. However, if you track changes in aptitude across the four years of college, the overall improvement level (as a percentage) would be identical. Yale does better because it starts with better raw material, more or less. The selectiveness of it is what makes it high-performing.

The same basic principles work at high-performing primary and secondary schools. Top suburban public schools do better than urban public schools because you generally need to have some level of wealth to buy into these districts, wealth is correlated to some degree with parental aptitude, and parental aptitude is correlated with child aptitude. Much the same thing is true for private schools (need $$$ to get in, plus they can kick you out if you have issues), charters (most of the modest performance boost happens when schools find a way to circumvent the pure lottery system) and urban magnet schools where entrance is by exam. In all cases when you compare kids of similar aptitude ranges upon entrance to the schools, and compare their performance at the end of their enrollment...there's no statistical difference.

Basically, all students learn at roughly the same rate, all the way from kindergarten to PHD programs. Some students however start out ahead for various reasons, and those students who are behind will (on average) never catch up. Hence you might as well pick a school for your kids based upon other reasons besides the idea that it can somehow "supercharge" your kid.

Since school performance is based upon the overall "quality" of the entering classes, but this isn't understood well by parents, this leads to all sorts of bad outcomes educationally. For example, classic middle-class flight from public school systems often starts because the number of poorer, often black/brown students increases in a district, which brings down the average scores. With average scores going down, parents highly focused on education begin looking elsewhere, which brings down average scores even more. Ultimately this creates a cycle which is very difficult to get out of, though some urban schools in highly gentrified areas have done it through getting a critical mass of middle-class parents to stick it out, which leads to the school having a reputation as "improving" - which then tends to build upon itself in a reverse manner to flight.

To be clear, this is not an argument in favor of sending your kids to any school. Speaking personally, while both of my kids attend public schools in the city, I opted for the magnet system (which is lottery based) for both of them, partially because of the educational choices given, along with exposure to people from all walks of life. I don't think you should, for example, have your kids attend a school which is openly dangerous, or put them in situations where they could be bullied. But ultimately we have been very happy with our choices. I'm glad we didn't spend tens of thousands on a private school which wouldn't provide any better adult outcomes, or move to a suburban neighborhood we would have hated for their sakes, only to have their lives essentially turn out the same.
This was not my experience as a parent. My kids started at LAUSD and transferred to a high quality school district where we found that they were already a year behind those students by the 3rd grade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 3:39 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Where is this claim coming from that there's a Midwestern value of detaching from family? Yes, the poor elders of the Midwest are left to rot in homes while the elderly in CA get to relish in the 'familial centered' culture of California. Does that not sound ridiculous to anyone else?

I do suspect that because Southern California is so big that a fair number of families now have most of all living generations still living in the LA area.

Meanwhile, ambitious career people in the Midwest tend to move to other cities since there is a limit to how many jobs in obscure fields exist in each city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 3:47 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
The ease of home ownership for the past 70 years is a big part of why North Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world. Not sure why we'd aspire to return to pre-1950s standards of living. 
The ease of home ownership was designed in part to disperse property ownership between millions of hands and so discourage the rise of communism.
Socialism was always going to fight an uphill battle in the United States since there was already so much private land ownership (tons of family-owned farms rather than peasants renting farmland from a local aristocrat), but home ownership further fortified the country against socialist temptations.

I also find that home ownership motivates people to "grow up" a little. You learn about how houses work but also taxes, banking, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 4:03 PM
3rd&Brown 3rd&Brown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
I also find that home ownership motivates people to "grow up" a little. You learn about how houses work but also taxes, banking, etc.
Haha. This is true. Renting culture really holds people back from learning some basic civic and "adulting" lessons.

I'll never forget the time I was visiting a friend at her new rowhome in Philadelphia (she moved from a doorman building in NYC) and when she answered the door, I hugged her, then turned to the trash laying on her sidewalk and said "are you going to pick that up"? I should qualify this by stating that this wasn't an errant potato chip bag blowing around...it was clear the way the trash was in state that it had been there for a while.

Her response was: "I thought the city did that".

I lol'd and shaded her with my non-verbal response so bad that I've not seen an ounce of trash anywhere near her house ever since.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 5:30 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown View Post
Haha. This is true. Renting culture really holds people back from learning some basic civic and "adulting" lessons.
It's an example of one of those things in life where you can't completely understand it from a technical or emotional perspective until you do it, even if you grew up in a house that your parents owned. I'd put it up there with becoming an umpire/referee, teacher, waiting tables, etc. There is a reason why things are the way they are.

There is a lot of emotion that surrounds property hunting, buying, and owning. There is also a jealous emotion experienced by people who can't afford a nice house, or increasingly, any house.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 6:20 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
The ease of home ownership was designed in part to disperse property ownership between millions of hands and so discourage the rise of communism.
Socialism was always going to fight an uphill battle in the United States since there was already so much private land ownership (tons of family-owned farms rather than peasants renting farmland from a local aristocrat), but home ownership further fortified the country against socialist temptations.

I also find that home ownership motivates people to "grow up" a little. You learn about how houses work but also taxes, banking, etc.
i dont know what your definition of socialism here is, but "peasants renting farmland from a local aristocrat" is feudalism in the old days, not socialism. of course that still happens today as there are migrant farm workers and others who share crop farmland they do not own. thats not socialism either. maybe you meant communism? anyway, i don't think a post war rise in suburbs and home ownership had anything to do with fighting off the commies. at least not directly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 7:19 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
i dont know what your definition of socialism here is, but "peasants renting farmland from a local aristocrat" is feudalism in the old days, not socialism.
Right - that's the system that existed in Russia pre-1917 and helps explain why a communist revolution there was "successful". The China situation was somewhat different as Mao was backed by a major foreign power - The Soviet Union - whereas the Bolshevik Revolution was home-grown and exploited the weakness of the royal family during a time of war.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 8:10 PM
NYbyWAYofGA's Avatar
NYbyWAYofGA NYbyWAYofGA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Interesting subject.

Here in Toronto, public schools are broadly in good repute; and are well utilized by the middle and upper middle classes and even some of the very rich; though many of those do send their children to elite private schools.

We don't have quite as much disparity between high and low performing schools as may be seen in some U.S. communities; though that is not to suggest there isn't a disparity, because there is indeed one.

In Toronto, provided a school is not over capacity, you can live in any neighbourhood and send your child to a school in any other. There isn't the same adherence to school districts or the like often seen in the U.S.

That said, capacity issues can limit admissions from outside of one's neighbourhood.

Parent here do show concern for getting their children the best possible education though; and one way in which this manifests here is the long queue for getting one's kids into French Immersion. This is often a subtle way in which parents can place their children in a self-select program that is essentially thought of as gifted (though there are no academic entry requirements if you place your kids at the earliest opportunity)

***

As someone who myself went through public education (though also a few years in private school); and then went on to an elite university, I can say the differences are real, though not what most imagine.

Discipline was tighter in the private school, but academics not particularly more rigorous.

Where I found the biggest difference was in doing well in the public system, I ended up in some 'enriched' classes (what you might call AP in the U.S. or gifted); and that difference was material.

Class size dropped, the teaching was different, more collaborative, and generally featured more challenging material.

***

Crawford I think, made excellent points, that environment does influence outcome in some measure. Not merely by quality of teaching, or peer expectations, but in the form of class size, enrichment activities, how much teacher time is devoted to students who struggle and more.

These things are addressable within a framework of public education; but some places do so better than others; and some are challenged by where students are at academically when they arrive in Kindergarten.

****

Raising the bar involves addressing those issues that arise in low-income communities. Lower parental education level; less liklihood of high-speed internet at home, fewer books in the home, parents less able to help with homework, not only because of ability, but due to shift work, longer hours, two jobs etc.

One will never achieve total parity in the experiences that children from low-income families have available to them, with those from high-income families.

But the gap can be narrowed. People often fail to account for the leaning that may occur through a summer camp, whether that's an overnight camp in a rural/wild area; or whether that's an art camp or space camp or some other form of urban adventure for a child. Such experiences give them new words, new connections with other kids, new abilities etc which are then reflected when they return to school in September.

Likewise, access to travel, the simple act as a child of having passport or seeing a parents, of going to an airport, getting on a plane etc etc. provides a wealth learning opportunity even before one arrives at a destination, be that across the country or around the world.

Again, we're not going to be able to provide that opportunity to every child, but many smaller things can achieve similar benefits.

What if government waived fees for your first passport, made the process one through your local High School in Grade 9, and then every child had a 10-year passport? It doesn't make a low-income earner a globe-trotter, but it adds a valuable piece of ID, knowledge of the process for obtaining a passport, and does open some doors, particularly for those living close to an international land border.

***

One can also invest in catching parents up in areas where that is a challenge.

What about paying them to attend an orientation night with or for their kids? How about using that opportunity to pitch free return-to-school (for adults) / GED programs and having staff there to facilitate paperwork?

Moves like that can really help raise both a student's performance and that of a school.

****

In the U.S., however, I think, as with Cities, there need to be fewer local fiefdoms and some effort to level resources between schools, and indeed, provide extra to those schools facing the greatest challenges.
You've made some great points, but alot of those things won't happen here in the states, unfortunately. Too egaliterian. The system here relies on a permanent underclass and they are not about to let that go anytime soon....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 8:19 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,510
I totally get why people stay at home for free rent. I used to look down on situations like that because I was trained to believe "you move out at 18 and live on your own until your 70s and if you still live at home after 20 you are probably a loser". several years ago I realized that was dumb especially if you weren't financially stable or trying to get on your feet.

now I'm in a situation where we were able to move into my wife's childhood home on 1 acre in SoCal (built by her grandpa, a WWII vet...classic SoCal mid-century story), and her mom moved to the back house. free rent is freaking awesome (and free childcare). several thousand back in our pockets monthly. it's too bad this isn't the norm in America but looks like citizens are catching on thanks to immigrants. we plan on buying in about two years and will get a better house/neighborhood thanks to the savings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 9:46 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
several years ago I realized that was dumb especially if you weren't financially stable or trying to get on your feet.
Almost nobody goes out and gets a second job to earn an additional $1,000/mo when their living expenses go down $1,000/mo, netting a $2,000 difference. Instead, they often work less and spend more money on travel, food, and stuff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 9:56 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Almost nobody goes out and gets a second job to earn an additional $1,000/mo when their living expenses go down $1,000/mo, netting a $2,000 difference. Instead, they often work less and spend more money on travel, food, and stuff.
This is my anecdotal observation with rent control in NYC. It doesn't increase affordability. Everyone I know with rent controlled apartments just takes more vacations and buys a second home in the Catskills. Also they're under no pressure to improve themselves economically, bc their home is theirs and price-controlled forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 10:06 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This is my anecdotal observation with rent control in NYC. It doesn't increase affordability. Everyone I know with rent controlled apartments just takes more vacations and buys a second home in the Catskills. Also they're under no pressure to improve themselves economically, bc their home is theirs and price-controlled forever.
Controlled or stabilized? I think rent-stabilization works pretty well in NYC for people who actually live in stabilized units. True rent-control is nearly extinct and is a trivial piece of the rental market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 10:16 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Controlled or stabilized? I think rent-stabilization works pretty well in NYC for people who actually live in stabilized units. True rent-control is nearly extinct and is a trivial piece of the rental market.
Below-market rents. So stabilized (yes, controlled are basically gone now) but below-market. Stabilized rents in affluent areas. In non-affluent areas, yeah, stabilized rents are close to parity with market rents.

Everyone seems to buy some acreage or a second home. A rent-stabilized friend has a sunflower farm Upstate, just because. He has nearly a hundred acres, maybe 110 miles from Manhattan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 10:20 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This is my anecdotal observation with rent control in NYC. It doesn't increase affordability. Everyone I know with rent controlled apartments just takes more vacations and buys a second home in the Catskills. Also they're under no pressure to improve themselves economically, bc their home is theirs and price-controlled forever.
It's pretty hard to be completely disciplined with earnings and spending. Knowing that you're saving a lot of money in a major category (for example, I lived for four years in my twenties without a car, yet managed to slide into significant debt) makes you think that you're "good with money", but you probably aren't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2022, 11:47 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Below-market rents. So stabilized (yes, controlled are basically gone now) but below-market. Stabilized rents in affluent areas. In non-affluent areas, yeah, stabilized rents are close to parity with market rents.

Everyone seems to buy some acreage or a second home. A rent-stabilized friend has a sunflower farm Upstate, just because. He has nearly a hundred acres, maybe 110 miles from Manhattan.
thats quite a priviledged anecdotal assumption. my neighbors in our old place in the wv who were rent control, and that was several of them, would be in the streets without it. they are dirt poor older retirees. rent control and stabilization are nothing to worry about as its fading away on its own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2022, 4:32 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
thats quite a priviledged anecdotal assumption. my neighbors in our old place in the wv who were rent control, and that was several of them, would be in the streets without it. they are dirt poor older retirees. rent control and stabilization are nothing to worry about as its fading away on its own.
Last year NYC would have been in absolute chaos without rent-stabilization. I know a lot of people that had to move last year because the rent on their non-stabilized units spiked after the COVID lull.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2022, 5:59 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Last year NYC would have been in absolute chaos without rent-stabilization. I know a lot of people that had to move last year because the rent on their non-stabilized units spiked after the COVID lull.
It was absolute chaos down here where there is no rent control or stabilization. Rents shot up a thousand dollars a month for many when leases came up.

Average rent hikes were ~50% per year.
https://therealdeal.com/2022/06/22/m...t-hikes-again/
Quote:
Miami leads nation in rent hikes — again
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2022, 1:02 AM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This is my anecdotal observation with rent control in NYC. It doesn't increase affordability.

That's not the point of rent control though. Rent control isn't meant to ensure broad affordability for everyone - it's to protect existing tenants from drastic or unpredictable increases to their agreed-upon rents. It's a housing security measure as opposed to a housing affordability one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2022, 4:17 PM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
America's Hometown
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lionville, PA
Posts: 11,775
I "owned" for 20 years.

I went back to renting.

It was just less stressful.

You don't own a home if you are paying a mortgage. The bank owns it until you are done paying them the loan shark interest on top of the mortgage loan you owe them. Then there is the thousands of dollars of renovations and maintenance over the course of the mortgage.

For years I was house poor. It was stressful and I was always worrying about what may need to be fixed and how am I going to pay for it without tapping into the retirement account.

Now my housing costs are fixed every 12 months and I no longer house poor. I actually now put far more away into my retirement fund than I did when I was a "home owner"

One size does not fit all. Home ownership just isn't my deal. I regretted it. All it did was push me into debt and worry about finances for 20 years. Yeah the tax returns were nice for a few years but once you pay down the interest in the first 10 years of a 30
year mortgage you see that benefit lose it's luster.

Plus I don't have kids so I never had to move to a good school district even thought my last home was in a good one and where I rent now is supposedly even better.

Also...a lot of people who overpaid for homes in 2022 and now going under water as home values drop. So that's not good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.