To Recruit Teachers, School Districts Are Building Homes
50 points by mooreds 6 hours ago | 39 comments

apparent 12 minutes ago
Teacher recruiting wouldn't be so hard if pay weren't lockstep, as it is in so many places. Unions demand this, and it keeps some potentially-effective teachers out of the profession (and keeps old lousy ones in, unfortunately).
reply
wewewedxfgdf 4 hours ago
The core fabric of society - the deal that was offered by society to the people - to work in a job, own a house, raise a family, have a retirement - has decayed away entirely for many people.
reply
anon291 15 minutes ago
Well states need home prices to increase because the majority of their pension funds for their employees is invested in hedge funds seeking outsized returns that use single family homes as an investment vehicle.

This can never be solved until we resolve the public pension crisis.

Lawmakers in my state of Oregon are soon going to debate how the state invests in hedge funds but the simple truth of the numbers says that there's no possible way Oregon can meet its pension obligations without their stated returns.

reply
crooked-v 3 hours ago
The housing part never 'decayed', it was actively blocked by the people who already had homes. That's why you see things now like California actively overriding local zoning.
reply
cucumber3732842 3 hours ago
>, it was actively blocked by the people who already had homes.

You're not wrong but this is too simplistic and avoids holding up a mirror that really ought to be held up. Zoning was the "we're gonna regulate our way into utopia" of their time. The class of useful idiots who made it happen and the class of useful idiots who will go to bat for it's continuance because they make a buck on it is far broader than that.

reply
tptacek 3 hours ago
It's not simplistic. It is literally the core problem with housing. Zoning had a first objective of preventing Black families from moving into white neighborhoods, and then, in the 1980s, assumed a new role of driving scarcity (and thus the price of houses in areas of opportunity, to the benefit of existing homeowners).
reply
SoftTalker 3 hours ago
This is quite a new deal and not one enjoyed by most people for most of history.
reply
Loughla 2 hours ago
What is the purpose of what you're saying? Because people lived like serfs and slaves for a lot of history, we should be okay with that?

I don't mean to be shitty, and I fully understand that contrary takes are what HN is great at, but I genuinely fail to see what the point of your comment is other than a knee jerk nothing?

reply
lazyasciiart 22 minutes ago
The first comment suggests that it was always like this and life has got worse. The second says it has almost never been like this, it was a short-lived condition only. That is in no way a normative statement on how it should be.
reply
AngryData 2 hours ago
Is that not how the 95% of the population of farmers lived before industrialization? The only difference is the job being their own farm or trade.
reply
lazyasciiart 24 minutes ago
They didn’t own their own houses.
reply
andyferris 4 hours ago
We are very fortunate that my wife got to work at the local school. She now walks to work and I work from home about 4 days out of 5 workdays.

The benefits are huge in terms of time available and costs, and not needing childcare before or after school.

It’s hard to solve couples having two jobs in different places, but having at least one person get to work basically instantly and for zero cost is a massive boon to society.

The issue I saw is that the government department in charge of education is not the one in charge of housing and infrastructure, and there are no incentives to hire locally or make it easier to move locally. Instead you get teachers in suburb A travelling to suburb B and vice-versa, and no way that they can choose to swap roles. We lucked out.

reply
morkalork 3 hours ago
It used to be like this in rural communities even up into the 70s and 80s. The town's branch manager would be young, shipped out for a few years and live in a house the bank owned and given a stipend to maintain it. Same with the postmaster and other professions.
reply
ReactiveJelly 4 hours ago
A land value tax would fix this
reply
tptacek 3 hours ago
I know the Georgism joke here, but we don't need an LVT to fix this; we just need states to override home rule on minimum density requirements for residential and mixed-use zoning. The core problem here is in fact very simple!
reply
anon291 12 minutes ago
Exactly. I have a plot of land in inner Portland and they won't let me build on it. I mean they will, but not at the density needed to satiate demand such that home prices fall to the proper amount a home should cost. Should be a simple proposition with someone trying to spend his own money to build housing but it's not because they make it as hard as possible.
reply
dragonwriter 3 hours ago
A land value tax without changes in non-tax land use regulations would not fix, and a land value tax would not be necessary after removing the non-tax land use restrictions which this responds to.
reply
lokar 4 hours ago
Not on its own. You also need to relax or remove direct (and indirect, eg parking minimums) restrictions on residential density.
reply
trashcan 4 hours ago
How?
reply
OutOfHere 4 hours ago
It would allow housing to be substantially denser.
reply
dragonwriter 3 hours ago
How would an LVT do that when the barrier to dense housing is zoning restrictions?

Changing the tax structure doesn't remove that restriction.

reply
tptacek 3 hours ago
An LVT addresses the incentives underling zoning. The LVT imagined by Georgists would very probably result in radically altered zoning rules. Zoning, after all, exists primarily to prop up the finances of homeowners.
reply
dragonwriter 3 hours ago
A Georgist LVT is based on the value of the bare land, which is constrained by permitted uses. Adopting it without first removing zoning restrictions would increase the incentive for homeowners to defend the existing zoning rules, since the removal of the rules would increase the scope of alternative uses of the land in ways which would make it economically impossible for most existing single family homeowners to afford the taxes on the property.

On the other hand, once you remove the zoning restrictions, the existing economic incentives will produce densification without LVT, tbat's the whole thing the zoning restrictions exist to stop.

reply
ahazred8ta 2 hours ago
An LVT results in McMansions on quarter acre lots being taxed at the same rate as trailers on quarter acre lots. It's the perfect way to allow rich people to buy out poor people and pay the same tax as poor people. Welcome to unintended consequences.
reply
OutOfHere 2 hours ago
> trailers on quarter acre lots

That is an irrelevant counterargument, since the idea of dense housing leans towards tall apartment buildings, not trailers. No one should have to live in a trailer.

reply
ahazred8ta 28 minutes ago
The idea of what should happen is irrelevant, because we have not seen this "dense housing" actually materialize in US LVT jurisdictions any time in the past 100 years.

The township of the Fairhope Single-Tax Corporation near Mobile, Alabama was originally conceived as an artist's colony but is now occupied by families with a median income of $95K. Density is almost exactly 1 housing unit per residential acre. The feds have built 140 Section 8 subsidized units, but there do not seem to be any privately built high density tall apartment buildings of the type you want to see.

Can you point to an LVT place in the US where developers have chosen to build large numbers of actual NON-LUXURY high rise apartment buildings for the benefit of non-rich people? That would be a big newsworthy success story if it actually happened.

reply
AvAn12 4 hours ago
Could just, you know, pay more…
reply
apparent 13 minutes ago
Or allow pay that is not lockstep/tied to mostly-useless degree completion. Unions fight this stuff like hell because the people in charge have gone through the current system and therefore benefit from it.

It is not that hard to do outcome-based pay over a multi-year period, but this is the main criticism. You can either track kids over a number of years and track their relative growth in each year, or you can use bargaining up-front whereby teachers can vote on a "multiplier" for each class before they know who will end up with which class.

reply
tptacek 3 hours ago
Teachers in major metro school systems already have quite a good deal. Rural schoolteachers really do have the deal everyone heard about in 1990s politics, but urban schoolteachers are generally economically privileged.

(That doesn't mean they aren't impacted by housing scarcity in ways that disrupt the administration of school systems; they are. But the problem isn't compensation, the problem is corrupt regulation written to prop up homeowner assets.)

reply
Loughla 2 hours ago
I genuinely need to see what data you're citing with this statement. Until recently, I worked in education and often worked with urban schools. Starting salaries of 55-60k/year living in a major metropolitan area is not what I would call economically privileged.
reply
tptacek 2 hours ago
The average CPS salary is somewhere around $75k, with 10+ weeks of vacation, but that undercounts it dramatically because CPS teachers get defined-benefit pension plans and often earn tens of thousands in additional cash comp for extracurricular work, and that's before what happens when you get a masters.
reply
jt2190 2 hours ago
reply
tptacek 2 hours ago
What are you trying to say by posting this link?
reply
dpbriggs 4 hours ago
Why not make housing cost less instead?
reply
fearmerchant 5 minutes ago
The only way that works is to build more housing. Austin has shown the way.
reply
ninjalanternshk 3 hours ago
Because we’ve been sold the story that your house has to appreciate in value 2-3 times over the period you live in it, consequently, homeowners vote against anything that lowers housing costs.
reply
anon291 10 minutes ago
Except it's not much of a lie. The actual return on housing is basically not much higher than inflation
reply
OutOfHere 4 hours ago
They're not mutually exclusive goals. Wanting a more affording salary and scalable housing both are valid goals.
reply
lumost 3 hours ago
Governments may be uniquely positioned to offer housing incentives as they often own the land, and control the zoning.
reply