Hacker News Reader

Comment by nose | Hacker News Reader

I'm not really sure what to make of this. The article is conflating tradeoffs people make. People typically overbid on housing for access to good public schools. Folks sending their kids to private school live in a cheaper home with a better commute. They're optimizing for commute time, perceived safety, education, and access to child care.

The real way for everyone to escape this perceived hedonic treadmill is to build more housing, invest in public transit infrastructure, and have affordable childcare.

View on HN

> People typically overbid on housing for access to good public schools.

Such an American thing. Not sure what to make of it.

It’s the same in the UK, house prices in the catchment area of a good school are significantly higher.

It’s a soft form of segregation that hangs around because the upper classes benefit from it.

For example, the practice of funding public schools with property taxes was found unconstitutional in Ohio back in ‘97, but the Republican-held legislature ignored the ruling and refused to create an alternative. The practice continues even today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeRolph_v._State

https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Ohio_state_governme...

it is interesting to look at germany here. rules there are different in each region, and some regions have free choice of schools. basically the finding is that in some cases free choice lead to even more segregation in each school because parents avoid schools that have lots of lower class or migrant children. by forcing parents to live near the school the problem is "limited" to the people who can afford to move. so it's swapping one problem for another. the results seem to be mixed however, some studies report that switching to free choice had no effect.

And a UK thing, well not so much northern Ireland, but the rest of the UK uses catchment areas and I'm experiencing this now.

I’m experiencing the same in New Zealand. In-zone houses for high-performing public schools are more expensive than adjacent houses (I.e. out of zone) by almost exactly the amount of the local private school fees. House price scales with the number of bedrooms in the same way that private school fees scale with the number of children enrolled. So the question is; is it more beneficial for the children to get the more expensive education or to inherit the more expensive property?

Side note, “public school” here means state-owned and “private” means “owned by private individuals”, which I have heard is the opposite nomenclature to what’s used in the UK?

Yes, UK terminology is confusing. Easier just to say state and private, and I think more and more do say this.

That stuff will help on the margins but won't fundamentally change anything as long as you have a growing number of people chasing after a limited number of high status purchases. There will always be a limited number of ivy league school openings, fancy hotels in Paris, and houses in the Hamptons. The only options are to participate in the same increasingly competitive rat race with your peers, or look for a different angle. Some people are fortunate to have interests outside the norm that they can pursue, but others will need to put in some more effort to explore and find what they actually like.

For upper middle class vacationers taking a trip through Paris, Barcelona, and other big name European cities to visit nice hotels and restaurants is probably the most stereotypical vacation possible. For some people that is their ideal trip, but the demand for those locations is off the charts. Given the thousands of alternative vacation spots out there, most people would have a much better time and save money going somewhere less obvious.

The upper middle class don’t need to use public transport and have no issues paying for childcare.

It’s like you’ve commented on the wrong article or something. This article was talking about marginal costs and benefits.

> have no issues paying for childcare

I guess this depends what you mean by issue. One can pay for it but eventually (especially for multiple children) it crowds out other things.

The price forces a consideration of marginal costs and benefits instead of being able to think about it in terms like "my child would be happier here" or "I value education in classics/fine arts/religion/whatever else a private school teaches for non-financial reasons."

I’ve heard it said that a country is wealthy not when the poor have cars but when the rich use public transportation.

Couldn't the country be poor with exorbitantly expensive parking?

In short: no, not to the extent that it'd make rich people use public transportation.

Their personal driver can pick them up if needs be.

> The upper middle class don’t need to use public transport

Their kids still ride the school busses. Upper-middle class aren't in a position to hire a limo and driver to take the kids to school.

> and have no issues paying for childcare

Typically because both parents are working high pressure jobs, which makes childcare a mandatory expense, not a luxury.

Plenty of those in the upper middle class can just drive their kids to school. Some of them are taking a bus, sure, but not most.

You and some of these other responders are clearly conflating the middle class and the UPPER middle class. The upper middle class made >$160k in 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class_in_the_Unit...

I grew up in an upper middle class household, and the vast majority of my cohort in high school were also upper middle class, judging by the professions of their parents and the nature of their homes when I visited for group projects and the like.

Most of the kids took the bus, unless they were old enough to drive themselves.

> The upper middle class made >$160k in 2025

I was figuring upper middle class was around 2x that (250-400k) in desirable areas like the Bay Area/Seattle/NYC. Which after mortgage/rent, car payments, school fees... still isn't private-limo or even stay-at-home-parent money

> I was figuring upper middle class was around 2x that (250-400k) in desirable areas like the Bay Area/Seattle/NYC. Which after mortgage/rent, car payments, school fees... still isn't private-limo or even stay-at-home-parent money

Nobody said anybody is taking a limo, I have no clue where this straw man obsession of yours even came from.

Depending on which part of the country you’re in, 160k absolutely is stay at home money for the (most likely) wife, who would also be picking up the kid(s). Sure, that isn’t upper middle class money in San Francisco or NYC, but it was surely obvious nobody was saying it was in this context lol.

Legit this thing with you and limos is so weird. You realise limos basically don’t even exist anymore except as a gag for high school proms, right?

> Sure, that isn’t upper middle class money in San Francisco or NYC, but it was surely obvious nobody was saying it was in this context lol

The article is written by the COO of a NYC-based wealth management firm, so it very explicitly is the context.

> Nobody said anybody is taking a limo

"limo" in this context is a shorthand for whatever form of 3rd-party individual transport you choose. Taxis, uber black, or the nanny dropping the kids off at school all work out much the same (albeit the old-money NYC folks are absolutely still rolling with their private drivers)

They're still riding the bus, the only difference is their parents have them wait in the car at the end of the driveway for the bus.

Welcome to the rural upper middle class. Bonus points when the bus lets the parent out onto the road ahead of them after loading their kid onboard the bus.

It's absurd to say the upper middle class doesn't use public transportation. Of course they do. My commute is $8 each way on public transportation and would be significantly worse or more expensive if I drove (traffic) or used Uber. I could afford to live closer to work, but I wouldn't have nearly a nice home or sense of safety for my family. Childcare also is still a major consideration when deciding how many children to have. No one wants to earn upper middle class wages and still end up living paycheck to paycheck.

I also take public transportation into work because parking is expensive and work pays for a commuter card. But for literally everything else I have to drive, even to get to public transportation. It does feel like a upper middle class privilege. If I were poorer I'd be renting close to work to save

> It's absurd to say the upper middle class doesn't use public transportation. Of course they do.

This is maybe only a thing in the handful of US cities with a well-developed subway/tram system? I've not seen many upper middle class folks taking the bus in other US cities

I am not sure where I am on the stack, but I make more than most families in my area and I heavily rely on public transport. It's also why I can afford to a lot of things others cannot -- I am not sinking money into a car payment, car insurance, gas, etc. every month.

I consider myself upper middle class and I ride the bus. I'd rather ride my bike but sometimes I ride the bus.

I'm not sure you understand who the upper middle class are.

Household incomes exceed $100,000 (equivalent to $164,849 in 2025).[5] Professions for this class may include: judges, senior military officers, financial planners, engineers, professors, architects, airline pilots, and businessmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class_in_the_Unit...

How do they pickup their kids towards the end of the workday?

Commute times are a real factor in deciding where to live, and which schools to pick. In the Bay Area, the only real solution is living closer to work, which requires over bidding & selecting private schools if they picked the wrong area.

Why are you using the metropolis with the highest cost of living in the US as some kind of benchmark? SF is an extreme outlier. Why do you keep mentioning it?

Almost everybody who is upper middle class in the US doesn’t live in San Fransisco, so find a better comparator.

Sure, now map that income to transit usage in any major American city that actually has public transit.

Also $160k household can be very different in terms of childcare costs depending on how many people in that household are working, and is an actual problem for double income families with young kids in HCOL areas.

That's a very common problem, it's not a well defined and clearly visible definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com