ASU economists say we'll grow when our leaders stop looking stupid" (Glendale: taxes, living)

[CheyDee]

Washington D.C. has spent almost $30k per pupil per year for years, "but in 2013 fully 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not "proficient" in reading and 81 percent were not "proficient" in math."

Census Bureau Confirms: DC Spends $29,409 / pupil

"...Alaska spent the third-highest amount on students ($16,674 per head) in 2011, but Education Week has the state tied for having the fourth-worst schools in the country."

Obviously, just throwing money at the problem isn't the solution.

[enigmadsm]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Oh really? Our education results do not indicate that at all. I was a product of the 80's and my education was far better than what my kids received in "the 21st century".

I also found this interesting from a 2012 Huffington Post Article...

"Still, the Harvard study found little correlation between increased per-pupil spending and gains in test scores. A similar analysis by 24/7 Wall St. last July yielded similar results. In 2009, the U.S. spent more than $10,000 per student, ranging from $6,356 in Utah to $18,126 in New York. Utah's high school graduation rate, however, was higher than New York's."

U.S. Students Still Lag Behind Foreign Peers, Schools Make Little Progress In Improving Achievement

BTW, is this what we know now in the 21st century that we didn't know in the 20th century? I'm beginning to see your point and I don't think what we've learned is helping us. My daughter tries to explain this stuff to me and I just shake my head. I can't make heads or tails of how her packet teaches her to do math (notice I didn't say her teacher?) and she can't either. I show her my way, the way I was taught way back in the 20th century, and she always says "that is so much easier, why didn't they just show us like that?" to which I can't answer her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyl_uYrojs

If I could rep you more I would...Gotta spread it around I suppose.

where were you stationed BTW? I was at Mountain Home AFB Idaho for a stint, and basically your earlier remarks about Californians moving to other states and having xx effects were very apparent there as well.
fortunately, Boise still felt like an awesome place to be for the most part

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by enigmadsm

If I could rep you more I would...Gotta spread it around I suppose.

where were you stationed BTW? I was at Mountain Home AFB Idaho for a stint, and basically your earlier remarks about Californians moving to other states and having xx effects were very apparent there as well.
fortunately, Boise still felt like an awesome place to be for the most part

Yep, you seen it if you were at Mountain Home...I was stationed in Northern Idaho (Coeur D' Alene area) and it was a great place to live until it became unaffordable to live there and there were no jobs left after the migration of Californians into Idaho. I was also stationed in Southern Oregon (Medford/Grants Pass area) same thing happened there and then northwestern Washington (Island County) where it happened as well.

As you said, Boise was/is a great place to live if your job at Micron or HP wasn't taken by a Californian and you can afford the much more expensive real estate. I grew up in Idaho and Boise used to be a hidden gem where Idahoans could go and find a good job (normally at Micron or HP) and affordable place to live. Not any more unfortunately as that is where I would have liked to have ended up after my retirement from the military.

There are a lot of people (as can be seen in this forum) that have not experienced this as they have never lived in places that were attractive to these "average Californians" that are fleeing and that Mike Orr is speaking of. None of these places had any boom in jobs that came with the Californians but it did make the Realtors rich (Mike Orr is a Realtor).

I have nothing against Californians and am not bashing them, could apply just as easily to people from Texas that got rich with oil. Attracting people with wealth to a low cost of living place does drive the economy for those that can still afford to live there. The problem is that after the wealth is brought in it makes the low cost of living area a high cost of living area and is compounded by the fact that the area doesn't have high paying jobs to support the higher cost of living so the only ones that can thrive are those that moved there with wealth to begin with. The rest of us then get on city-data.com and start researching lower cost of living places with jobs to move to.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by CheyDee

Washington D.C. has spent almost $30k per pupil per year for years, "but in 2013 fully 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not "proficient" in reading and 81 percent were not "proficient" in math."

Census Bureau Confirms: DC Spends $29,409 / pupil

"...Alaska spent the third-highest amount on students ($16,674 per head) in 2011, but Education Week has the state tied for having the fourth-worst schools in the country."

Obviously, just throwing money at the problem isn't the solution.

This is not about DC. Their problems are quite different from our own and yes, money is not going to fix them. There is, I think you would agree, a minimum level of funding that is needed. Anyone who thinks that education in AZ is being adequately funded is just plain ignorant of the facts. Our schools are literally falling apart. Maintenance, especially, has been deferred for years. The shortfall in state funding was covered for a long time by maintenance overrides, but with all the skinflint retirees who have moved here, those now routinely fail. Roofs leak, electrical problems abound, toilets and wash basins are taped off because of plumbing issues. The books are falling apart, entire chapters are missing and the books are held together with duct tape in many cases. The computers are old early Pentiums running obsolete versions of Windows. The buses break down, some just sit there because the districts have no money to fix them.

There is very little about AZ schools to be proud of and a good deal to be ashamed of. Our reputation for disinterest and lack of investment in education is well-deserved and it is hurting us in attracting business. There is not a business leader in this community who would tell you otherwise.

[Discovery1]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

That is exactly what these "economists" and Mike Orr are preaching...they want to attract all these wealthy people from other places (mainly California) that don't do anything other than make our place theirs and force us to move and find cheaper places to live. If you want to switch your work to a service industry servicing the Californians that take your current job then it's a great plan for you. I've lived it three times over, during two decades, and not excited about doing it again in Arizona. Luckily at the time I was secure in the military, however, those around were not as secure as I was. Not to mention, I'm no longer secure in the military so it would affect me directly.

Remember how Oregon and Washington twenty plus years ago when everything was fine and affordable until the Californians migration then the quality of life/affordable went down hill ever since. People are fighting for low paying jobs and apartments is all what you hear up there these days.

I don't hate Californians for choosing what best for them but obviously the system of Goverment is badly broken in California, way overdue and it spilled all over to its neighbors.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by Discovery1

Remember how Oregon and Washington twenty plus years ago when everything was fine and affordable until the Californians migration then the quality of life/affordable went down hill ever since. People are fighting for low paying jobs and apartments is all what you hear up there these days.

I don't hate Californians for choosing what best for them but obviously the system of Goverment is badly broken in California, way overdue and it spilled all over to its neighbors.

Yes, I know it well as those are two of the three places I spent the last three decades. Washington, Oregon and Idaho all of which are suffering from the California migration into their states which made them unaffordable for those that originally called the places home.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Yes, I know it well as those are two of the three places I spent the last three decades. Washington, Oregon and Idaho all of which are suffering from the California migration into their states which made them unaffordable for those that originally called the places home.

The same has happened in AZ. Sedona and Prescott especially have been impacted. Phoenix, on the other hand, is so huge and attracts people from other areas as well, so we have not seen the affordability factor at work here. Frankly, I would not mind. I would happily sell my house at an inflated price to a Californian with a boat load of money and get the heck out of this place. This is not MY retirement dream.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The same has happened in AZ. Sedona and Prescott especially have been impacted. Phoenix, on the other hand, is so huge and attracts people from other areas as well, so we have not seen the affordability factor at work here. Frankly, I would not mind. I would happily sell my house at an inflated price to a Californian with a boat load of money and get the heck out of this place. This is not MY retirement dream.

Some of us are not as flexible, able or willing to relocate as others may be. In the big picture, quickly turning our place into their place rarely is good thing for the area other than for the Realtor's that enjoy the new clients that are fighting over the real estate.

For those wanting to get out it may be a good thing but I don't think Mike Orr is using that as a selling point for his plan. Not to mention, you sell your current house at an inflated price to a Californian and move to your "retirement dream" location and you're going to find that the Californians are already there and the houses are more expensive than what you just got out of your house here. I know this from first hand experience.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Some of us are not as flexible, able or willing to relocate as others may be. In the big picture, quickly turning our place into their place rarely is good thing for the area other than for the Realtor's that enjoy the new clients that are fighting over the real estate.

For those wanting to get out it may be a good thing but I don't think Mike Orr is using that as a selling point for his plan.

Ha, ha. Well I would be one of those who can't relocate easily. I am stuck, I am afraid. In fairness to Orr, he was not talking about individual Californians moving here, but about being attractive to California businesses that are fed up with the political and tax climate there and are looking for greener pastures. They may want lower taxes and a more conservative approach to governing, but there is probably a limit to that for many of them. Key employees might be hesitant to move into a place increasingly perceived as Mississippi-west. As I pointed out earlier, Texas is attractive because they have the tax and politics environment without all the backwoods education system and bigotry that we are getting a reputation for.

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Ha, ha. Well I would be one of those who can't relocate easily. I am stuck, I am afraid. In fairness to Orr, he was not talking about individual Californians moving here, but about being attractive to California businesses that are fed up with the political and tax climate there and are looking for greener pastures. They may want lower taxes and a more conservative approach to governing, but there is probably a limit to that for many of them. Key employees might be hesitant to move into a place increasingly perceived as Mississippi-west. As I pointed out earlier, Texas is attractive because they have the tax and politics environment without all the backwoods education system and bigotry that we are getting a reputation for.

Unfortunately that isn't what Mike Orr is talking about, he's talking about the "average Californian" being a "market of people" and his approach to economic development of an area is to just attract Californians as they have wealth and will be "economic drivers". I've followed him for years, since researching our move to Arizona, and this has always been his approach. He's a Realtor and that is a great economic development plan for Realtors...here is his quote exactly from the OP, he's talking about "average Californians" not California businesses.

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

Mike Orr, director of the Center for Real Estate Theory and Practice (ASU's W.P. Curry School of Business), said we need to think long and hard about how we look to the average Californian. He explained that the Golden State is the biggest market of people who could move here to become economic drivers. He said we need to realize that right now we are not portraying ourselves as a place Californians would be "proud to move to."