This is the terrible economic Pain we are feeling?

[DWCAP]

Nos, wasnt trying to make fun of you.
I was talking more about people who buy houses cause they had decided how their live was gonna be at 14 and couldnt change. That isnt me being mean, she told me about it. She likes to talk about herself, and when trapped in the same room with someone like that for hour on end, they will tell you the strangest stuff. Interesting psycology, but painful while while listening.
Or People who are all gungho about saving the world and such but cant be bothered to drink out of a mug cause then theyd have to wash it.
If your gonna buy a house, buy it. If your gonna be green, go green. But dont make up stuff to justify your actions later when they dont match your stated goals.

[DWCAP]

Nos, wasnt trying to make fun of you.
I was talking more about people who buy houses cause they had decided how their live was gonna be at 14 and couldnt change. That isnt me being mean, she told me about it. She likes to talk about herself, and when trapped in the same room with someone like that for hour on end, they will tell you the strangest stuff. Interesting psycology, but painful while while listening.
Or People who are all gungho about saving the world and such but cant be bothered to drink out of a mug cause then theyd have to wash it.
If your gonna buy a house, buy it. If your gonna be green, go green. But dont make up stuff to justify your actions later when they dont match your stated goals.

[DWCAP]

Nos, wasnt trying to make fun of you.
I was talking more about people who buy houses cause they had decided how their live was gonna be at 14 and couldnt change. That isnt me being mean, she told me about it. She likes to talk about herself, and when trapped in the same room with someone like that for hour on end, they will tell you the strangest stuff. Interesting psycology, but painful while while listening.
Or People who are all gungho about saving the world and such but cant be bothered to drink out of a mug cause then theyd have to wash it.
If your gonna buy a house, buy it. If your gonna be green, go green. But dont make up stuff to justify your actions later when they dont match your stated goals.

[DWCAP]

Nos, wasnt trying to make fun of you.
I was talking more about people who buy houses cause they had decided how their live was gonna be at 14 and couldnt change. That isnt me being mean, she told me about it. She likes to talk about herself, and when trapped in the same room with someone like that for hour on end, they will tell you the strangest stuff. Interesting psycology, but painful while while listening.
Or People who are all gungho about saving the world and such but cant be bothered to drink out of a mug cause then theyd have to wash it.
If your gonna buy a house, buy it. If your gonna be green, go green. But dont make up stuff to justify your actions later when they dont match your stated goals.

[dumbrenter]

Surveyor, Any dictionary that uses the word “causal” to describe correlation should not be trusted. I would go more with the statistics definition you had above. To take example of smoking and lung cancer…..There is a very high positive correlation between smoking and cancer but nowhere has it been proven that smoking causes lung cancer. The opposite: where non-smoking does not cause lung cancer is not true either.

To go back to the assertion from PBS, there might be a positive correlation between homeowner and their children getting better education. But that does not mean the buying a home causes your children to become smarter or get a better education.
The actual cause might be different, maybe folks who own homes are the ones with stable families and tend to spend time with their children. Maybe deadbeats, drug dealers, gang folks are not really interested in buying a home.

The fallacy of implying causation from just correlation was used in public policy with disastrous consequences. PBS is a serial culprit in this regard.

[dumbrenter]

Surveyor, Any dictionary that uses the word “causal” to describe correlation should not be trusted. I would go more with the statistics definition you had above. To take example of smoking and lung cancer…..There is a very high positive correlation between smoking and cancer but nowhere has it been proven that smoking causes lung cancer. The opposite: where non-smoking does not cause lung cancer is not true either.

To go back to the assertion from PBS, there might be a positive correlation between homeowner and their children getting better education. But that does not mean the buying a home causes your children to become smarter or get a better education.
The actual cause might be different, maybe folks who own homes are the ones with stable families and tend to spend time with their children. Maybe deadbeats, drug dealers, gang folks are not really interested in buying a home.

The fallacy of implying causation from just correlation was used in public policy with disastrous consequences. PBS is a serial culprit in this regard.

[dumbrenter]

Surveyor, Any dictionary that uses the word “causal” to describe correlation should not be trusted. I would go more with the statistics definition you had above. To take example of smoking and lung cancer…..There is a very high positive correlation between smoking and cancer but nowhere has it been proven that smoking causes lung cancer. The opposite: where non-smoking does not cause lung cancer is not true either.

To go back to the assertion from PBS, there might be a positive correlation between homeowner and their children getting better education. But that does not mean the buying a home causes your children to become smarter or get a better education.
The actual cause might be different, maybe folks who own homes are the ones with stable families and tend to spend time with their children. Maybe deadbeats, drug dealers, gang folks are not really interested in buying a home.

The fallacy of implying causation from just correlation was used in public policy with disastrous consequences. PBS is a serial culprit in this regard.

[dumbrenter]

Surveyor, Any dictionary that uses the word “causal” to describe correlation should not be trusted. I would go more with the statistics definition you had above. To take example of smoking and lung cancer…..There is a very high positive correlation between smoking and cancer but nowhere has it been proven that smoking causes lung cancer. The opposite: where non-smoking does not cause lung cancer is not true either.

To go back to the assertion from PBS, there might be a positive correlation between homeowner and their children getting better education. But that does not mean the buying a home causes your children to become smarter or get a better education.
The actual cause might be different, maybe folks who own homes are the ones with stable families and tend to spend time with their children. Maybe deadbeats, drug dealers, gang folks are not really interested in buying a home.

The fallacy of implying causation from just correlation was used in public policy with disastrous consequences. PBS is a serial culprit in this regard.

[dumbrenter]

Surveyor, Any dictionary that uses the word “causal” to describe correlation should not be trusted. I would go more with the statistics definition you had above. To take example of smoking and lung cancer…..There is a very high positive correlation between smoking and cancer but nowhere has it been proven that smoking causes lung cancer. The opposite: where non-smoking does not cause lung cancer is not true either.

To go back to the assertion from PBS, there might be a positive correlation between homeowner and their children getting better education. But that does not mean the buying a home causes your children to become smarter or get a better education.
The actual cause might be different, maybe folks who own homes are the ones with stable families and tend to spend time with their children. Maybe deadbeats, drug dealers, gang folks are not really interested in buying a home.

The fallacy of implying causation from just correlation was used in public policy with disastrous consequences. PBS is a serial culprit in this regard.

[dumbrenter]

Surveyor, Any dictionary that uses the word “causal” to describe correlation should not be trusted. I would go more with the statistics definition you had above. To take example of smoking and lung cancer…..There is a very high positive correlation between smoking and cancer but nowhere has it been proven that smoking causes lung cancer. The opposite: where non-smoking does not cause lung cancer is not true either.

To go back to the assertion from PBS, there might be a positive correlation between homeowner and their children getting better education. But that does not mean the buying a home causes your children to become smarter or get a better education.
The actual cause might be different, maybe folks who own homes are the ones with stable families and tend to spend time with their children. Maybe deadbeats, drug dealers, gang folks are not really interested in buying a home.

The fallacy of implying causation from just correlation was used in public policy with disastrous consequences. PBS is a serial culprit in this regard.

[surveyor]

Facts, facts, and facts

DW: It’s a long study (156 pages). Google “homeownership and child health rates” and it’s one of the results. Here is the information you asked for. If you want the money statement that pretty much refutes what your original statement said, it’s in bold…

There have been a number of high quality studies that have investigated the impacts of homeownership on the educational attainment of children. The studies differ in the types of educational outcomes examined, the data sets used, and the methodological approaches employed. Yet, these studies universally conclude that the children of homeowners have better educational outcomes than the children of renters even after controlling for a wide variety of other household characteristics and employing statistical methods to account for selection bias in who becomes an owner.

Finally, Aaronson adds further controls to account for differences in household wealth, including the amount of housing equity. Including housing wealth in the estimated model is found to further reduce the estimated impact of homeownership on high school graduation by about half, with greater levels of housing equity associated with a greater likelihood of graduation. While Aaronson hypothesizes
that this result reflects the association between wealth and other household characteristics that affect well being, he also notes that non-housing wealth does not have the same positive association with graduation rates. This result is consistent with the argument made by others that housing wealth is indicative of larger and higher quality homes, which may support better educational outcomes.

Nonetheless, while Aaronson finds that including controls for residential mobility and wealth reduces
the impact of homeownership, it is still the case that an independent and statistically significant
association between homeownership and high school graduation remains.

I admit that the PBS program mentioned the homeownership and social success correlation only in passing, but it was still part of the overall conversation about the subject of class and talked directly. That’s why I also included the study.

Anyways, to summarize, the study says that in higher incomes, the gap is smaller between the homeowners and the renters, but that there is still a correlation between homeownership and child benefits.

So I have facts to back up my statement. Do you have any studies or facts that show that owning a house doesn’t mean your kid will be better off?

And let’s get something straight – you guys can rent as long as you like and buy houses when it costs terrific, and I don’t begrudge you guys that. Still, the facts are that there has been a historical benefit to owning property, and this benefit has existed ever since property rights were developed. This is a phenomenon that has not just come recently or was created as a tagline for realtors. It is a real benefit and has been in action for a hundred years and more.

There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t make this benefit false.

Does this mean you should buy overpriced property? NO.

I’m just saying that children benefit from homeownership and that it is documented.

[surveyor]

Facts, facts, and facts

DW: It’s a long study (156 pages). Google “homeownership and child health rates” and it’s one of the results. Here is the information you asked for. If you want the money statement that pretty much refutes what your original statement said, it’s in bold…

There have been a number of high quality studies that have investigated the impacts of homeownership on the educational attainment of children. The studies differ in the types of educational outcomes examined, the data sets used, and the methodological approaches employed. Yet, these studies universally conclude that the children of homeowners have better educational outcomes than the children of renters even after controlling for a wide variety of other household characteristics and employing statistical methods to account for selection bias in who becomes an owner.

Finally, Aaronson adds further controls to account for differences in household wealth, including the amount of housing equity. Including housing wealth in the estimated model is found to further reduce the estimated impact of homeownership on high school graduation by about half, with greater levels of housing equity associated with a greater likelihood of graduation. While Aaronson hypothesizes
that this result reflects the association between wealth and other household characteristics that affect well being, he also notes that non-housing wealth does not have the same positive association with graduation rates. This result is consistent with the argument made by others that housing wealth is indicative of larger and higher quality homes, which may support better educational outcomes.

Nonetheless, while Aaronson finds that including controls for residential mobility and wealth reduces
the impact of homeownership, it is still the case that an independent and statistically significant
association between homeownership and high school graduation remains.

I admit that the PBS program mentioned the homeownership and social success correlation only in passing, but it was still part of the overall conversation about the subject of class and talked directly. That’s why I also included the study.

Anyways, to summarize, the study says that in higher incomes, the gap is smaller between the homeowners and the renters, but that there is still a correlation between homeownership and child benefits.

So I have facts to back up my statement. Do you have any studies or facts that show that owning a house doesn’t mean your kid will be better off?

And let’s get something straight – you guys can rent as long as you like and buy houses when it costs terrific, and I don’t begrudge you guys that. Still, the facts are that there has been a historical benefit to owning property, and this benefit has existed ever since property rights were developed. This is a phenomenon that has not just come recently or was created as a tagline for realtors. It is a real benefit and has been in action for a hundred years and more.

There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t make this benefit false.

Does this mean you should buy overpriced property? NO.

I’m just saying that children benefit from homeownership and that it is documented.

[surveyor]

Facts, facts, and facts

DW: It’s a long study (156 pages). Google “homeownership and child health rates” and it’s one of the results. Here is the information you asked for. If you want the money statement that pretty much refutes what your original statement said, it’s in bold…

There have been a number of high quality studies that have investigated the impacts of homeownership on the educational attainment of children. The studies differ in the types of educational outcomes examined, the data sets used, and the methodological approaches employed. Yet, these studies universally conclude that the children of homeowners have better educational outcomes than the children of renters even after controlling for a wide variety of other household characteristics and employing statistical methods to account for selection bias in who becomes an owner.

Finally, Aaronson adds further controls to account for differences in household wealth, including the amount of housing equity. Including housing wealth in the estimated model is found to further reduce the estimated impact of homeownership on high school graduation by about half, with greater levels of housing equity associated with a greater likelihood of graduation. While Aaronson hypothesizes
that this result reflects the association between wealth and other household characteristics that affect well being, he also notes that non-housing wealth does not have the same positive association with graduation rates. This result is consistent with the argument made by others that housing wealth is indicative of larger and higher quality homes, which may support better educational outcomes.

Nonetheless, while Aaronson finds that including controls for residential mobility and wealth reduces
the impact of homeownership, it is still the case that an independent and statistically significant
association between homeownership and high school graduation remains.

I admit that the PBS program mentioned the homeownership and social success correlation only in passing, but it was still part of the overall conversation about the subject of class and talked directly. That’s why I also included the study.

Anyways, to summarize, the study says that in higher incomes, the gap is smaller between the homeowners and the renters, but that there is still a correlation between homeownership and child benefits.

So I have facts to back up my statement. Do you have any studies or facts that show that owning a house doesn’t mean your kid will be better off?

And let’s get something straight – you guys can rent as long as you like and buy houses when it costs terrific, and I don’t begrudge you guys that. Still, the facts are that there has been a historical benefit to owning property, and this benefit has existed ever since property rights were developed. This is a phenomenon that has not just come recently or was created as a tagline for realtors. It is a real benefit and has been in action for a hundred years and more.

There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t make this benefit false.

Does this mean you should buy overpriced property? NO.

I’m just saying that children benefit from homeownership and that it is documented.

[surveyor]

Facts, facts, and facts

DW: It’s a long study (156 pages). Google “homeownership and child health rates” and it’s one of the results. Here is the information you asked for. If you want the money statement that pretty much refutes what your original statement said, it’s in bold…

There have been a number of high quality studies that have investigated the impacts of homeownership on the educational attainment of children. The studies differ in the types of educational outcomes examined, the data sets used, and the methodological approaches employed. Yet, these studies universally conclude that the children of homeowners have better educational outcomes than the children of renters even after controlling for a wide variety of other household characteristics and employing statistical methods to account for selection bias in who becomes an owner.

Finally, Aaronson adds further controls to account for differences in household wealth, including the amount of housing equity. Including housing wealth in the estimated model is found to further reduce the estimated impact of homeownership on high school graduation by about half, with greater levels of housing equity associated with a greater likelihood of graduation. While Aaronson hypothesizes
that this result reflects the association between wealth and other household characteristics that affect well being, he also notes that non-housing wealth does not have the same positive association with graduation rates. This result is consistent with the argument made by others that housing wealth is indicative of larger and higher quality homes, which may support better educational outcomes.

Nonetheless, while Aaronson finds that including controls for residential mobility and wealth reduces
the impact of homeownership, it is still the case that an independent and statistically significant
association between homeownership and high school graduation remains.

I admit that the PBS program mentioned the homeownership and social success correlation only in passing, but it was still part of the overall conversation about the subject of class and talked directly. That’s why I also included the study.

Anyways, to summarize, the study says that in higher incomes, the gap is smaller between the homeowners and the renters, but that there is still a correlation between homeownership and child benefits.

So I have facts to back up my statement. Do you have any studies or facts that show that owning a house doesn’t mean your kid will be better off?

And let’s get something straight – you guys can rent as long as you like and buy houses when it costs terrific, and I don’t begrudge you guys that. Still, the facts are that there has been a historical benefit to owning property, and this benefit has existed ever since property rights were developed. This is a phenomenon that has not just come recently or was created as a tagline for realtors. It is a real benefit and has been in action for a hundred years and more.

There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t make this benefit false.

Does this mean you should buy overpriced property? NO.

I’m just saying that children benefit from homeownership and that it is documented.

[surveyor]

Facts, facts, and facts

DW: It’s a long study (156 pages). Google “homeownership and child health rates” and it’s one of the results. Here is the information you asked for. If you want the money statement that pretty much refutes what your original statement said, it’s in bold…

There have been a number of high quality studies that have investigated the impacts of homeownership on the educational attainment of children. The studies differ in the types of educational outcomes examined, the data sets used, and the methodological approaches employed. Yet, these studies universally conclude that the children of homeowners have better educational outcomes than the children of renters even after controlling for a wide variety of other household characteristics and employing statistical methods to account for selection bias in who becomes an owner.

Finally, Aaronson adds further controls to account for differences in household wealth, including the amount of housing equity. Including housing wealth in the estimated model is found to further reduce the estimated impact of homeownership on high school graduation by about half, with greater levels of housing equity associated with a greater likelihood of graduation. While Aaronson hypothesizes
that this result reflects the association between wealth and other household characteristics that affect well being, he also notes that non-housing wealth does not have the same positive association with graduation rates. This result is consistent with the argument made by others that housing wealth is indicative of larger and higher quality homes, which may support better educational outcomes.

Nonetheless, while Aaronson finds that including controls for residential mobility and wealth reduces
the impact of homeownership, it is still the case that an independent and statistically significant
association between homeownership and high school graduation remains.

I admit that the PBS program mentioned the homeownership and social success correlation only in passing, but it was still part of the overall conversation about the subject of class and talked directly. That’s why I also included the study.

Anyways, to summarize, the study says that in higher incomes, the gap is smaller between the homeowners and the renters, but that there is still a correlation between homeownership and child benefits.

So I have facts to back up my statement. Do you have any studies or facts that show that owning a house doesn’t mean your kid will be better off?

And let’s get something straight – you guys can rent as long as you like and buy houses when it costs terrific, and I don’t begrudge you guys that. Still, the facts are that there has been a historical benefit to owning property, and this benefit has existed ever since property rights were developed. This is a phenomenon that has not just come recently or was created as a tagline for realtors. It is a real benefit and has been in action for a hundred years and more.

There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t make this benefit false.

Does this mean you should buy overpriced property? NO.

I’m just saying that children benefit from homeownership and that it is documented.

[Author]

Posts