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.
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.
"The Vanishing Middle Class" (2007) is a good book.
I don't think that she is a bad person, but I do believe that she is bad for American politics right now.
Moving leftwards is absolutely the best thing the democrats could possibly do. further left policies are popular. Further left policies address the massive amount of voters who don't give a shit because neither party represents anything but corporations.
America could use 50 more senators that were willing to start moving much further left.
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.
(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.)
BurningFrog is arguing that that is not correct because Senator Warren is not an authority in the first place.
You could still argue that she is correct; but (assuming BurningFrog's judgements on her qualifications), that arguement must be on the merits of her arguements, not her qualifications.
In it, Nokinside claimed that Warren is an expert in Economics due to her academic career. That's what I'm arguing against.
I of course agree that people from any background, including Warren's, can make claims about Economics that should be discussed on their merits, not dismissed (or accepted...) because of the speaker's academic background.
The poster doesn't understand economics at all if they think changes in relative housing prices don't affect housing supply.
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 = 150Exactly. 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.
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...
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.
This is true in my neck of the woods.
It is a scarcity, after all. Scarcities can have net different economic consequences.
The question is who benefits.