In The Two Income Trap, one of the ongoing tropes is that the
pressure to send one’s children to “good” schools underlies the competition for
houses in well-regarded schools systems. Ms Warren and Ms Warren Tyagi explain
that women in the workforce increased the spending power of the family. The
extra income did not go to runaway spending on clothes and other consumer
goods. They say:
“…families where swept you up in a bidding war, competing furiously with one another for the most important possession a house in a decent school district. As confidence in the school system crumbled, the bidding war for family housing intensified, and parent soon found themselves bidding up the price for other opportunities for their kids, such as s slot in a decent preschool or admission to a good college. Mom’s extra income fit in perfectly, coming at just the right time to give each family extra ammunition to compete in the bidding wars – and to drive up the prices even higher to for the things they all wanted.”
I
have written about schools on this blog and I have heard how important schools
are. In my entry Is
living well about the schools? the short answer was “yes!” Even for
people without children, "everyone knows" that the price of a house
depends on the reputation of the school system.
In The Two Income Trap, the authors quote a study that
confirms that
“school quality was <em>the single most important determinant of neighborhood prices – more important than racial composition of the neighborhoods, commute, distance, crime rate, or proximity to a hazardous waste site.” [Emphasis theirs]
The
Two Income Trap authors say the solution to the housing crisis is
fixing the school crisis. If the competition for schools was neutralized by
more opportunity for education that isn't tied to house location, then the
inflation of "good school" towns would cool down.
"Any
policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between
location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need
for parents to pay an inflated price for a home just because it happens to lie
within the boundaries of a desirable school district," wrote Ms Warren and
Ms Warren Tyagi.
Do
you think that’s a feasible solution? Do you think Ms Warren should take on
this one when she’s done with TARP?
Another
problem facing young families is the simple lack of affordable family-sized
housing anywhere, not just in the "schools, schools,
schools" neighborhoods. Where there
are larger condo units or houses, they are sold to people who have more
spending power than many young families.
Reprinted
from BREN, March, 2010.
1 comment:
The "competition" for schools is largely a fiction to begin with. There isn't much practical advantage to being in one of the "elite" districts unless you are among the 5% who are at the top of the most advanced courses. Even those kids will do fine in a lesser district, though they may have fewer opportunities to do college-level work their senior year.
Worry more about school culture, and how your child will grow in that culture. That is largely separate from academics, and not closely tied to the wealth of the town.
Post a Comment