Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NH is getting older, less children are being born, and we are losing young adults because of housing and affordability. That is a fact. Is this fake news too? It comes from the lead demographer at the UNH Carsey Institute. That must be bad because colleges are leftist, right, and can't be trusted? https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcon...context=carsey
You can discredit and ignore cited research from demographers as much as you want, but the problem does not go away. Just because you see kids around doesn't mean the projections of declines aren't there.
NH's hopes seem to lie on in-migration of young families and younger people from other states, retaining more of NH-born young adults, and reducing the cost of K-12 and higher education and the way we pay for it to make NH a more attractive place that young people want to stay in.
Steve - I don't understand why this is a "problem". Doesn't it make more sense for families with school children to live closer to urban areas? More jobs, better paying jobs with benefits. Rural areas just don't have the support that families need.
I just read that Barnstead is teaching their children in trailers because they can't afford to build a new school building, and they can't afford to build a new police station building either. But at least, they are trying to live within their means.
Making NH a 55+ community through policies that discourage families from moving here is not a viable long term solution.
[/quote]
Why can't NH have more towns like Moultonboro?? Clearly there is a need for retirement areas with low property tax rates. All of MA can retire to NH as long as we keep our green undeveloped areas. Why not??
And I do believe that NH could be very attractive for middle-aged professions working in Boston for the higher salaries, but choosing not to have children, so willing to live in a NH town that has a minimal school system. There is a trend among educated people to not have children.
A falling population rate is also better for our environment and the planet. A falling population is better for NH too. My house would be worth more if the property taxes on it were lower.
But until NH attracts businesses that pay better AND pay enough in state and town taxes, NH can't afford to educate the number of school age children that it has. It's simple arithmetic here, not calculus. Either the state is going to run in the red, or the homeowners' bank accounts. And NH doesn't owe their school teachers job security and forever jobs, and certainly not since no one else does. And it's also not America's problem when too many college students decide that they want to be grade school teachers.
And there does need to be a different way to fund public schools. But the formula of a 50 or 100 years ago doesn't work anymore due to the costs of educating a child doubling and even tripling over the decades due to much higher health insurance costs, dealing with special needs students and also underfunded pension plans. It's a mess that needs to be fixed. We are no longer teaching children out of a one room schoolhouse.
Steve - I don't understand why this is a "problem".
It's really just a workforce issue. The economy needs working age people to support all of the retirees and all the services they use, like healthcare.
According to the demographics projections, some areas of NH will be fine and some will have a lopsided age distribution.
You are right though, about the cost of K-12 education and how we fund it. Certainly a ball and chain around the state's neck.
As Brave Stranger says, there's probably not a lot we can do. NH is not pro-development so housing will always be an issue. With the way that we fund schools, there will never be enthusiasm among many towns to attract young families with kids.
and you can believe the bs fed to you all you want, doesn't mean it is true
I am so not surprised by your response to well-researched data and conclusions from varied credible sources. Facts don't matter, I guess, if they don't conveniently fit in with your worldview. Easier to connect it to a conspiracy. You and I will probably be gone before NH sees the worst of this demographic shift and it's impact.
If NH was pro-development, NH wouldn't be NH anymore in short order. You can't have it both ways. And so what if there is a lopsided age distribution.
It seems to me that the only people unhappy with NH (not counting the education cost debacle) are those who are trying to take advantage of NH's advantage BUT don't like the lifestyle that created it. If you want to live close to development and businesses, go do so. But don't come ruining our state because you want the financial perks a rural state offers but still want the bustling urban life.
I am so not surprised by your response to well-researched data and conclusions from varied credible sources. Facts don't matter, I guess, if they don't conveniently fit in with your worldview. Easier to connect it to a conspiracy. You and I will probably be gone before NH sees the worst of this demographic shift and it's impact.
data is a wonderful thing, it can be skewed to fit anyone's agenda
It's really just a workforce issue. The economy needs working age people to support all of the retirees and all the services they use, like healthcare.
According to the demographics projections, some areas of NH will be fine and some will have a lopsided age distribution.
You are right though, about the cost of K-12 education and how we fund it. Certainly a ball and chain around the state's neck.
As Brave Stranger says, there's probably not a lot we can do. NH is not pro-development so housing will always be an issue. With the way that we fund schools, there will never be enthusiasm among many towns to attract young families with kids.
It will be interesting to see what happens to low property tax towns like Moultonboro, after all... we all can't move there, without changing it. However, if towns who don't have to worry about funding a large public school system, IMO the older childless residents would be more willing to have their property taxes go towards services that they actually are using.
Hopefully in the future, more towns in NH will work to attract childless adults of all age groups and have Moultonboro's reputation for low property taxes. And also build more seasonal housing.
Otherwise, I believe that it was in NYC that there is a neat housing program, matching young adults who need affordable housing with seniors. The seniors rent a spare bedroom to these young people, and in return get some company and some household assistance.
I grew up in Concord, MA and in past decades, they have built a new high school building and added some housing developments. But the big difference between Concord, MA and Northwood, NH is the proximity to Boston and top-paying jobs for professionals. Concord is only 25 away from all of those jobs, while Northwood is an hour and a half away without rush hour traffic. So if a family wants Concord, MA quality schools for their children, they really need to move to MA for them, and not expect that from rural NH.
If NH was pro-development, NH wouldn't be NH anymore in short order. You can't have it both ways. And so what if there is a lopsided age distribution.
It seems to me that the only people unhappy with NH (not counting the education cost debacle) are those who are trying to take advantage of NH's advantage BUT don't like the lifestyle that created it. If you want to live close to development and businesses, go do so. But don't come ruining our state because you want the financial perks a rural state offers but still want the bustling urban life.
data is a wonderful thing, it can be skewed to fit anyone's agenda
Well, then, do you have any studies that you base your opinion on that you feel haven't been skewed or manipulated by power hungry, leftist, socialist, money-grabbing political globalist conspirators? Or is your opinion based on a "gut feeling"? Would love to see some demographic data and predictions that say NH has nothing to worry about in the future because of it's age distribution characteristics. I'll be waiting....
I guess we'll just have to see how it all works out. I get it that everyone wants NH to stay rural and undeveloped, low tax, low government, Live Free or Die, and all of that. There will just be economic ramifications to those decisions to act or not act to attract residents to the state. Many will fare well, others will not, I guess. Life is too short to get too wrapped up over it. If it becomes too much, we have the freedom to leave.
Currently, our grade school costs $20K per student per year. Our high school costs us $15K a year per student. I don't understand why our grade school is so broken.
It's crazy that it costs this much. To put this in perspective, there are private schools where each child is tutored individually 20 hours per week (no group classes, all instruction is 1 teacher and 1 student, 3 to 4 hours per day). It costs about $25k / year for this (here's an example: https://www.futures.edu, and they operate in a high cost of living area).
Granted kids are only in school half as much as normal, but still, spending $15k / year / student for group classes when you can get 1:1 tutoring full time for $25k / year means something is seriously wrong. I'm sure there are more than 2 kids per class in the public schools. I know there are special needs students and that costs substantially more, but there aren't that many of them.
The problem isn't the number of kids, it's that the cost of public education is just completely out of control. I'm willing to bet if you look at the school budget, not much of that $15k - $20k has much to do with educating students.
It's crazy that it costs this much. To put this in perspective, there are private schools where each child is tutored individually 20 hours per week (no group classes, all instruction is 1 teacher and 1 student, 3 to 4 hours per day). It costs about $25k / year for this (here's an example: https://www.futures.edu, and they operate in a high cost of living area).
Granted kids are only in school half as much as normal, but still, spending $15k / year / student for group classes when you can get 1:1 tutoring full time for $25k / year means something is seriously wrong. I'm sure there are more than 2 kids per class in the public schools. I know there are special needs students and that costs substantially more, but there aren't that many of them.
The problem isn't the number of kids, it's that the cost of public education is just completely out of control. I'm willing to bet if you look at the school budget, not much of that $15k - $20k has much to do with educating students.
Established institutions of all types are in decline or in turmoil in many categories in the US. I think this certainly goes along with the heightened political turmoil and dysfunction of both parties at the national level as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
