News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Bill to raise OK Teacher Pay via Fuel Tax Hike

Started by Bobby5280, March 20, 2017, 04:40:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

Quote from: kphogerDo a poll of the parenting-aged couples you know, and ask them if the availability of affordable public education played a part in their decision to have kids or not. You might be surprised when nobody says yes.

You are only observing current conditions. Public education is still available and (to a certain extent) "free." Current parents take the local school systems for granted to a certain degree. The situation I am describing is what may happen if public school systems are dismantled. The way the winds are currently blowing in politics (a very conservative one) plans to eliminate public schools are a very real possibility.

Quote from: kphogerThe number 2 is nowhere on on that graph.

No, but it is on other graphs showing what is needed to sustain a stable population level and stationary population pyramid.

Quote from: kphogerYou assume it's in a society's best interest to maintain the current level of population. I'm not convinced that's necessarily true. It might be that a country is overpopulated for its actual needs, and a birth rate of lower than 2 would be perfectly sustainable. IIRC, France was offering a full-blown stipend to parents who chose to have a third (?) child; my memory is a little fuzzy there. But what is inherently wrong with parents in general choosing to have fewer than two children?

First of all, couples should have children because they want to be parents, not because the condom broke. Likewise, it's pretty messed up for couples to avoid parenthood because they simply cannot afford it. But that's where we are headed. In the case of the United States the financial math of population regression can be disastrous, both in terms of our government and our economy. Certain unique conditions here, like extreme costs of our so-called "free market" health care system, will dramatically worsen the consequences.

During the post World War II boom the United States had an expansive population pyramid. There was a lot more young Americans being born into the world than elderly ones dying off. We had a far better ratio of workers paying into systems like Social Security to provide for a smaller ratio of retired people. And those retired people weren't living very long after retirement. So they drew less from the system. Our health care system back then wasn't the over-priced orgy of greed model that it is today. My parents paid $200 to have me delivered in the late 60's. A complication-free natural child birth now runs nearly $9000. That's just delivery and a day's stay at the hospital.

A developing country that completes the Demographic Transition will go from an Expansive Population Pyramid to a Stationary Pyramid with equal numbers of people in various age groups until the pyramid starts tapering off in the elderly brackets. That's typical for developed nations with high qualities of life.

Developed nations can see their populations regress into a Constrictive Pyramid, even one that is inverse of an Expansive Pyramid. A greater portion of the population is elderly. Smaller numbers of young people are being born. In this type of pyramid things like pension systems can go broke since there won't be enough workers to fund the pensions of too many retirees. Health care for elderly people and end of life care is very expensive, especially here in the United States. Smaller numbers of young people will lessen our economic and cultural influence around the globe. It can even affect our nation's ability to defend itself. Japan's population has been stuck in a Constrictive Pyramid for many years. It's one of the factors that led to them having the world highest debt load ($10.5 trillion, more than 2X Japan's annual GDP). The Bank of Japan and Japanese government are doing some pretty tricky and risky things trying to get out of that crushing debt load.


kkt

At about 10% sales tax, consumers begin to seek non-taxed alternatives more aggressively... electronics from B&H Photo, books from Powell's, etc.  But it's hard to source your gasoline from a different state.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Scott5114I don't think the majority of people buy online to avoid sales taxes (though I'm sure that exists). By and large, they do it because it's more convenient. Say I want to buy a hat with a dragon on it. I can go to a hat store, look through their inventory hoping they have one that I like (keeping in mind most stores selling hats do not sort them by "alphabetical listing of what is on the hat"), then hope it's in my price range, possibly having to deal with someone standing vacantly in front of the display staring into space and waiting for them to move their cart, possibly having to track down a sales clerk and have them see if they know if they have something I might like in stock. Then I might walk out the store empty handed and have to try this at several different hat-selling places around town.

...Or I could go to Amazon and type in "dragon hat" and instantly see dozens of hats with dragons on them, their prices and availability all listed for me. It's a no-brainer.

Some people, like most women in particular, enjoy getting out of the house to go shopping. They're not going to be doing much of that at all if "main street" is wiped out. Then again, most of us (myself especially) won't even have a damned job if "main street" is wiped out. This online-only crap is very simply race to the bottom economics. It's high time for policy makers to wake up to that fact. If they don't they're going to have a hell of a lot of unemployed constituents.

I, for one, think life would really suck horribly badly if we were all doing everything from our homes via the Internet. I hate having to stay home when I am sick. It's extremely boring. But that's the very thing we're asking for with this uncontrolled transition to online-only business. At the extreme end of it we'll be socially detached, cocooned in our digital existence and rarely ever stepping outside to see the light of day.

Back to just shopping, I also recognize many local stores aren't going to stock expensive products for a niche market. I'm into graphic arts and photography. Lawton has very little in the way of local retail that serves that market. So I have no choice to buy some of those items online. But for other more mainstream items, like a big new Ultra HD big screen TV, that can be bought local. And sales tax can make a giant difference in the price of such items. A $2000 TV set ordered online only costs $2000. If you buy it at a local retailer in Lawton you'll add another $200 to the price. That's a big freaking difference. It's exactly why electronics stores like Best Buy have been reeling or why other stores like Circuit City are dead.

Scott5114

Brick-and-mortar shopping is never going to go away entirely. Like I mentioned before, there are some things that just aren't a good fit for online sales. You're never going to buy an avacado on Amazon.

But do keep in mind that for every Amazon there's thousands of small online businesses too. My business sells plastic playing cards (shameless plug). I could not operate this business without ecommerce. Full stop. There is precisely one brick and mortar store carrying my cards. I have approached others and simply can't make a deal because, as a small business, my margins are small enough that I can't offer a wholesale price under MSRP enough to make it worth a retailer's time. If I get the price to where they want it, I lose money. This won't always be the case, but until I can justify large enough orders to make economies of scale work for me, the only place I can sell my stuff is on my own website. Main Street? I am Main Street.

Not everyone sees B&M shopping as enjoyable. It's not supposed to be; it's a transaction. I give someone money and they give me something else for it. There's no inherently joyous experience there. I can tolerate it if I have the place to myself, but if I have to say "excuse me" to one person glaciating down the aisle my blood pressure starts rising. I, for one, thought life sucked horribly badly when we had to drive to the Best Buy out front of Crossroads Mall when we wanted electronics, when our food choices were dictated by what Bentonville chose to bestow on us, when if you didn't know what store might carry a particular thing you had to ask your friends and hope they knew some place that carried it.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

MNHighwayMan

I fully agree... fuck self-checkout. I refuse to use those POS machines, even if there's a wait for an actual cashier. The day when a store moves to self-checkout only is the day I stop shopping there.

hotdogPi

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 23, 2017, 06:51:45 AM
I fully agree... fuck self-checkout. I refuse to use those POS machines, even if there's a wait for an actual cashier. The day when a store moves to self-checkout only is the day I stop shopping there.

It has already happened. One CVS switched to self-checkout only on Christmas, and then switched back the next day.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

MNHighwayMan

Eh, the Des Moines area only has a handful of CVS locations and TBH I've never been inside one–Walgreens has been more than adequate for those purposes and is closer to where I live.

inkyatari

For a topic that's already gone wildly astray, I stopped using self checkouts after reading this...

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/02/more-on-bluetooth-ingenico-overlay-skimmers/
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

kkt

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 23, 2017, 04:35:17 AM
Brick-and-mortar shopping is never going to go away entirely. Like I mentioned before, there are some things that just aren't a good fit for online sales. You're never going to buy an avacado on Amazon.

Bad example :)
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=lp_16319281_nr_n_2?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A10329849011%2Cn%3A16310101%2Cn%3A!16310211%2Cn%3A6506977011%2Cn%3A16319281%2Cn%3A6872643011&bbn=10329849011&ie=UTF8&qid=1490292973&rnid=10329849011

Actually I've noticed several small restaurants around here get a lot of their ingredients from Amazon, daily deliveries.  I guess the quality must be reasonable and saves them from having to get a buyer to go to the wholesale market.

sparker

The Walmart "neighborhood grocery" store I regularly patronize here in SJ opened up four self-service lines about 6 months ago -- but they quickly became just another congestion point because (a) SJ has a "pay for disposable bag" law that was coded into the checkout machines; if the customer indicated that they didn't need a bag, the system for that line would lock up until a store employee verified that the customer brought his/her own bag -- that was reprogrammed within a few weeks! (b) the card-readers kept fucking up, requiring store management to reset them on a regular basis.  Later on, customers with sizeable purchases would clog the self-serve section, causing management to first rope off a bank-style "single line" system, which resulted in conflicts between customers with small and large amounts of items to check out.  About two weeks ago they decided to limit self-serve to 20 items or less -- and there's now a dedicated clerk standing by to deal with technical problems or conflicts. 

In this case, self-serve seemed to be self-defeating in terms of efficiency!  X-( 

Duke87

Quote from: Rothman on March 21, 2017, 04:20:17 PM
The idea that state governments are awash with cash is not founded in reality.  Here in NY, we have enough to slow the decline of pavement or bridge conditions, but not stem them or improve them.  In fact, our available funding would need to grow by 150% to achieve a state of good repair.

I don't know how the situation is in Oklahoma. But New York is chock full of redundant layers of government and random state agencies assigned to oddly specific tasks which have little justification for their existence as separate agencies other than to create redundant administrative positions for patronage purposes. New York is definitely in a position where it could solve its funding problems by cutting waste, except for political reasons it won't.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 25, 2017, 11:22:10 AM
I think the majority of people on this forum who haven't grown up in either Oregon or New Jersey prefer to pay a little extra to pump their own gas, just to avoid the principal-agent problems involved in instructing a pump jockey on how to do it correctly.

That and the principle of the thing. I like H.B.'s way of putting it:
Quote from: hbelkins on March 25, 2017, 03:37:07 PMthey pump your gas because they think you're too stupid to do it for yourself.

If I am capable of doing something myself, I want to do it myself. Having someone else do it for me represents needless complication, and being told I cannot do it myself even if I want to is emasculating and an insult.

Meanwhile I'm not sure where this whole idea of "paying more to do the gas station's job for them" comes in. Gas prices are lower in New Jersey than in adjoining states, sure, but this is due to them having a lower gas tax and a lot of local refining capacity, not due to them having exclusively full service statewide. In places where it isn't mandatory, full service is always priced higher than self service.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

hbelkins

Quote from: Duke87 on March 25, 2017, 07:44:57 PM
Meanwhile I'm not sure where this whole idea of "paying more to do the gas station's job for them" comes in. Gas prices are lower in New Jersey than in adjoining states, sure, but this is due to them having a lower gas tax and a lot of local refining capacity, not due to them having exclusively full service statewide. In places where it isn't mandatory, full service is always priced higher than self service.

I wonder how much New Jersey gas would be if the station owners didn't have the added personnel expense?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Scott5114

Quote from: Duke87 on March 25, 2017, 07:44:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 21, 2017, 04:20:17 PM
The idea that state governments are awash with cash is not founded in reality.  Here in NY, we have enough to slow the decline of pavement or bridge conditions, but not stem them or improve them.  In fact, our available funding would need to grow by 150% to achieve a state of good repair.

I don't know how the situation is in Oklahoma. But New York is chock full of redundant layers of government and random state agencies assigned to oddly specific tasks which have little justification for their existence as separate agencies other than to create redundant administrative positions for patronage purposes. New York is definitely in a position where it could solve its funding problems by cutting waste, except for political reasons it won't.

This isn't really the case in Oklahoma. Like I said, I'm sure that there are a few instances of such inefficiencies that could be corrected, but Oklahoma's problem is revenues consistently falling short of what is needed to run the government. Part of this can't be helped–the recent trough in oil prices hit the energy sector pretty hard and things were kind of tight from that–but a good deal of it is entirely avoidable due to industry-specific tax breaks.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

vdeane

NY's problem is in large part due to NY elected officials wanting to spend lots of money on flashy big-ticket items that look good but may or may not be needed (the Tappan Zee is needed; LaGuardia costs twice as much and is being done because Biden hurt Cuomo's ego) while letting their successors figure out how to pay for it; meanwhile, "boring" projects get neglected under the assumption that everything is fine and that the money can't be spared to pay off the debt from the previously mentioned big-ticket projects.  Just look at the last budget debate; Cuomo actually decided to give more money to NYSDOT and the legislature was obsessed with finding out what specific, visible, projects would be funded, incapable of comprehending that NYSDOT needs more money just to maintain the system as it is now.

(personal opinion emphasized)

New Jersey's gas, meanwhile, would likely be 5-10 cents a gallon CHEAPER if self-serve was allowed, judging by the price difference between "full-serve" and self-serve elsewhere.  I do find it pretty ironic that Baloo seems to have forgotten that different states have different gas tax rates in a thread about Oklahoma proposing to raise its state gas tax.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Rothman

NYSDOT goes through the MOU process every budget cycle.  NYSDOT has provided reports on the projects selected for each MOU and how the program evolves, since there's this thing called "time" that means NYSDOT's program is in a constant state of flux.  So, any concentration on new money going to specific projects is nothing new.  It's been the case ever since I've been working at NYSDOT.

Remember that the Tappan Zee was essentially being financed out of the Wall Street settlements and other one-off special fund sources.  It really hasn't had an impact on the usual funding for NYSDOT's capital program. 

If anything, what I've seen is that any "extra" or "new" money that comes NYSDOT's way is peanuts compared to the investment that is needed.  If one year of NYSDOT's program is around $1.5B, a one-time slug of $500m or so actually doesn't mean much given the needs as defined by NYSDOT's SOGR (State of Good Repair) analyses.  In terms of the Sheridan, certainly some money is being set aside for it, but instead of being some sort of "flashy" project that sucks money away from "boring" projects, it is just one of many that vie for the same part of funds.  It really isn't flashy versus boring.  Even the flashy projects still need to be done. 

Keep in mind that NYSDOT's program was cut significantly over the past few years and is only getting some chunks of money sent its way recently.  Back in SFY 07-08 or so, when I started in my current role at NYSDOT, the capital program was more around $2B a year.

The fact of the matter is that it still comes back down to not having enough money all around that is devoted to the capital program. 
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

All I know is that I keep seeing Cuomo drop $4 billion on project after project in the NYC area with no identified means of paying for it, and wonder where the money is gonna come from, given the 2011 layoffs that nearly happened and the constant push to cut our health insurance.  In any case, laying the blame entirely on Cuomo is not what I'm trying to convey; every governor has spent massive amounts of money on highly visible projects, all the way back to Rockefeller.  That's why NY sends the majority of its gas tax money to service the debt.

It seems weird to me to give the legislature a list of projects that will get done when that list isn't finalized, especially since our planning is done based on anticipated funding.  How can one pick out projects when the amount of money available isn't known?

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

kalvado

Quote from: vdeane on March 27, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
It seems weird to me to give the legislature a list of projects that will get done when that list isn't finalized, especially since our planning is done based on anticipated funding.  How can one pick out projects when the amount of money available isn't known?

(personal opinion emphasized)
Well, prioritizing things is what most of us do anyway. I don't see why that cannot be done on state level.

Rothman

#42
The MOUs are always based upon agreed-upon anticipated funding levels with DOB.  NYSDOT's capital program shifts over time for a whole host of reasons (conditons found to be worse, found to be better, locals losing interest, scoping changes, etc., etc.).

Not sure what you're getting at with Cuomo and NYC, though.  A lot of the special projects you hear about from him do not affect NYSDOT's budget and are not even under its purview (e.g., MTA and PANJNY projects).

...

I suppose this thread is supposed to be about Oklahoma, so, back to my main point:  There isn't enough money to go around to meet all the needs in the transportation system.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

Quote from: Rothman on March 27, 2017, 01:14:29 PM
Not sure what you're getting at with Cuomo and NYC, though.  A lot of the special projects you hear about from him do not affect NYSDOT's budget and are not even under its purview (e.g., MTA and PANJNY projects).
But how will those projects affect the overall state budget?  The ENTIRE Wall Street settlement in its original amount would only have paid for one of them, and that was BEFORE the feds asked for part of it back.  It wasn't that long ago that Cuomo was asking the agencies for steep cuts because the state was broke.  He's still asking the unions for cuts, even though he's currently quiet about the agencies (the is the reason why CSEA still doesn't have a contract).  According to the comptroller, we're still broke.  How long before they start going after people's jobs again?  I'm in a title/series that was targeted to be wiped out the last time and in an agency where nobody has seniority, even people close to retirement.  So naturally, this is something I think about often.

Keep in mind that one reason there's not enough money to go around is because more than half of NYSDOT's gas tax revenue goes to pay interest on the state's debt.  If the debt hadn't been taken out, there would be a lot more money available now.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

The problems New York's state government is having do not really compare in any meaningful way to those Oklahoma is having.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kalvado

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 28, 2017, 08:44:49 AM
The problems New York's state government is having do not really compare in any meaningful way to those Oklahoma is having.
Looks like we have a fairly interesting NY discussion in a wrong place.. Which makes it difficult for me to comment..
Can we move it into NY thread?...

Brandon

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 28, 2017, 08:44:49 AM
The problems New York's state government is having do not really compare in any meaningful way to those Oklahoma is having.

And both pale in comparison to Illinois.  Pardon me while I laugh at both your troubles as you both have some sort of money and a state budget.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

vdeane

In any case, I don't think the issue of "buy expensive impressive thing now to get reelected and let my successor figure out how to pay off the debt" is an issue unique to any one state.  I was reading an article last night that talked about the differences between project financing (the initial up-front cost) and project funding (how the initial debt/private investment is paid back over time).  Right now all the debates are about how to handle financing when funding is the real problem.  It's as if the politicians don't really want to solve the problem but know they can't get away with ignoring it, so they say things that sound good but are don't actually solve it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Rothman

Quote from: Brandon on March 28, 2017, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 28, 2017, 08:44:49 AM
The problems New York's state government is having do not really compare in any meaningful way to those Oklahoma is having.

And both pale in comparison to Illinois.  Pardon me while I laugh at both your troubles as you both have some sort of money and a state budget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ab9uFLHJM
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Scott5114

#49
Quote from: Brandon on March 28, 2017, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 28, 2017, 08:44:49 AM
The problems New York's state government is having do not really compare in any meaningful way to those Oklahoma is having.

And both pale in comparison to Illinois.  Pardon me while I laugh at both your troubles as you both have some sort of money and a state budget.

If the money that teachers have to spend out of their own pocket so that their classrooms are adequately supplied with things like paper, pencils, and Kleenex counts as "having some sort of money", then sure.

It is hard to overstate how much of a crisis the Oklahoma education situation has become. We have had teachers resign en masse and, just to get someone in the classroom to watch the kids, the state has had to lower standards to issue emergency credentials to wannabe educators.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.