AARoads Forum

Quote from: KTUL News ArticleProposed bill increases teacher pay by raising tax on gas

TULSA, OK (KTUL) – Lawmakers will address a bill that would increase teacher pay by increasing taxes on gas.

"My bill is giving teachers a four percent raise this year and a four percent raise next year,"  said Stanislawski, who claims tax on gas has not been raised in 20 years.

"So my proposal is to raise diesel tax seven cents from 14 cents to 21 cents. Raise regular unleaded from 17 cents to 23 that's six cents raise. That should bring in approximately 178-million dollars of new revenue. That is enough to pay for the teacher pay raise,"  said Stanislawski.

He says the plan would mean consumers paying more for fuel. He will introduce his bill during Education Day at the Capitol.

There's no denying teachers in Oklahoma are among the lowest paid in the nation. I personally know a couple teachers who left for schools in Texas, effectively getting over $10,000 more annually in pay for moving. However, I think the idea of hiking fuel taxes to fund pay raises for teachers is just a lousy idea. I believe fuel taxes should be spent only on building and maintaining roads. Oklahoma's funding mechanism for its roads is already badly under-funded and badly out of date by more than 20 years. Our highway system has gone without any funding increases despite the fact it's far more expensive now to build and maintain roads than it was in the early 1990's. The idea that fuel taxes would be hiked for the first time in a generation, but the new funding would get misdirected elsewhere is just crazy. If the state needs to raise taxes to fund teacher pay raises they ought to look elsewhere.

Here in Illinois, in the last election, citizens voted on a proposal to make sure that gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be for roads anyway, are to be used for roads only.  If I recall correctly, the measure passed, but it wasn't binding.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Many other government bodies in the backwards state I live in said that money should go wherever it's needed (Illinois is in terrible financial shape, hence  why they were opposing this bill,) but as I posted in the Illinois notes thread, I-55 SW of Chicago was widened to three lanes 6 years ago, and already it's deteriorated very badly. If road funds can be diverted elsewhere, we could be driving on the country's first unintentional gravel interstate.

Money is fungible.  One of the big lies, perhaps the biggest lie, of government is the idea that some tax increase is "for" this or that idea that most people are for.  No.  In fact government has plenty of money to do whatever you want done, it simply has wasted it on other things. 

Thus so, the proper way to analyze ANY tax proposal is not the supposed purpose, but in light of the MOSTpointless and worthless thing government currently does.  The tax increase is to continue doing that.  Otherwise, simply cut that and use that moeny for proper things.

Do the teachers start telling the kids how dangerous it is to be on those school buses?  This will encourage the kids to get their parents to drive them to school...thus buying more gas...thus giving them more money!!

Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2017, 09:22:52 AM
Money is fungible.  One of the big lies, perhaps the biggest lie, of government is the idea that some tax increase is "for" this or that idea that most people are for.  No.  In fact government has plenty of money to do whatever you want done, it simply has wasted it on other things. 

Thus so, the proper way to analyze ANY tax proposal is not the supposed purpose, but in light of the MOSTpointless and worthless thing government currently does.  The tax increase is to continue doing that.  Otherwise, simply cut that and use that moeny for proper things.

I get this argument for the federal and to lesser extent state government, but not local government.

At least wherever I've lived, school districts are an entirely independent governmental entity that oftentimes is actually underfunded - they have no power to take money from the county or the state or whatever beyond what the county/state is willing to give them.

Because of that, the money from the "Obnoxious Bureaucratic Regulatory Commission" that your county has that doesn't do anything can't possibly be redirected to the schools. You can make the argument that said commission should go away, but you can't take their money and give it to the schools because they aren't the same entity and have completely different elected officials. That may be annoying but unless you don't want the local school board to be independent and want it even more beholden to the county/state government, which I'm guessing you don't, there's no way around that.

Quote from: inkyatari on March 21, 2017, 09:11:35 AM
Here in Illinois, in the last election, citizens voted on a proposal to make sure that gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be for roads anyway, are to be used for roads only.  If I recall correctly, the measure passed, but it wasn't binding.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

It's very binding.  It's an amendment to the state constitution.

Quote from: Brandon on March 21, 2017, 12:02:36 PM

Quote from: inkyatari on March 21, 2017, 09:11:35 AM
Here in Illinois, in the last election, citizens voted on a proposal to make sure that gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be for roads anyway, are to be used for roads only.  If I recall correctly, the measure passed, but it wasn't binding.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

It's very binding.  It's an amendment to the state constitution.

I thought it was just a proposal to start things rolling on getting an amendment..

I need to re- read the Illinois constitution.

Quote from: SP CookMoney is fungible.  One of the big lies, perhaps the biggest lie, of government is the idea that some tax increase is "for" this or that idea that most people are for.  No.  In fact government has plenty of money to do whatever you want done, it simply has wasted it on other things.

Plenty of money to do whatever? That greatly assumes the state government is bothering to collect enough revenue to pay its bills. Anything deemed "wasteful spending" really depends on one's perspective (and hard lined, goose-stepping ideology) these days. Here in Oklahoma lawmakers got into the habit of pandering to voters with tax cuts along with giving all sorts of tax breaks/credits to various industries (like oil & gas). The tactic has done very little to grow the state's economy. Instead the state's budget is badly busted. Oklahoma cannot by law get into deficit spending. So things like public education are going through very deep, very painful and ultimately harmful cuts. There's less money to keep criminals locked up in prison. OK Highway Patrol troopers can drive no more than 100 miles per day.

If Oklahoma can't maintain good quality public school systems, good infrastructure, effective law enforcement, etc. families are going to be leaving in droves. They'll even be leaving if they have to sell homes at a loss or just walk away from the mortgage. The Sooner State's current trend line is that of a sinking ship.

QuoteAt least wherever I've lived, school districts are an entirely independent governmental entity that oftentimes is actually underfunded - they have no power to take money from the county or the state or whatever beyond what the county/state is willing to give them.

Lawton Public Schools is one example of a large yet badly under-funded school district. Many of the city's biggest earners live in developments outside of the city limits or in other districts like Cache or Elgin. That leaves mostly lower and middle income earners making up the property tax base in town. LPS has lots of military dependents from Fort Sill in its schools. Yet the DOD doesn't give LPS squat for Impact Aid funding. LPS is more dependent on state and federal funding than other far more prosperous districts like Edmond. Unlike Edmond it practically takes a miracle for voters in Lawton to pass any bond measure. Most of the people who show up for any vote are older people, many of them retired military. They don't feel like paying taxes for anything at all.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 01:03:50 PM

Plenty of money to do whatever?

Exactly.  Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.  Then it lies to you and tells you that the nest tax increase, and the next, and the next, are "for" things it already was doing BEFORE it decided to start doing other things.

Don't fall for it.  Take the most wasteful item in the budget and understand that THAT is what the tax increase is really for.  Thirty seconds of moral courage solves most any tax shortfall.  Unfortuantly, too few have that moral courage. 

Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2017, 01:49:01 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 01:03:50 PM

Plenty of money to do whatever?

Exactly.  Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.  Then it lies to you and tells you that the nest tax increase, and the next, and the next, are "for" things it already was doing BEFORE it decided to start doing other things.

Don't fall for it.  Take the most wasteful item in the budget and understand that THAT is what the tax increase is really for.  Thirty seconds of moral courage solves most any tax shortfall.  Unfortuantly, too few have that moral courage. 

Lets say that money is spent on watching grass grow.  You'd have the EPA claiming they're cutting their funding.   Or it's spent on expensive surf and turf dinners.  You'll have the beef, cattle and fishing industries claiming they are being hurt.

No matter how wasteful that spending it, some group(s) will lie claim to that the funding is hurting them. 

Quote from: SP CookGovernment, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.

"Other things" is a vague term. Here in Oklahoma what specifically are the "other things" the state is wasting money on so that essential departments like Public Education and Dept. of Corrections are being forced to weather steep budget cuts year after year?

Anyone can talk broad and vague about "wasteful spending" and other popular stances like "they're lining their pockets with our tax dollars!" Anyone can spin these stories without having all the specifics of the state's actual budget and specifically how much tax revenue is being collected.

I'll bet the average American doesn't realize that discretionary spending makes up a tiny part of the government budget. Health care, defense, social security, medicare, medicaid and interest payments on the national debt eat up so much of the budget there is little left for anything else. Eliminating the EPA, NEA, etc. will net very little budget savings at all. Those program eliminations are all about serving ideology rather than saving money. The same goes for efforts to undermine or even eliminate public education. Between the high, rising cost of health care and the generally high cost of raising kids we're already ushering in a trend of negative population growth in the United States. Without public schools America's birth rates would fall off precipitously. Only a small minority of people can afford sending their kids to private schools.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
Without public schools America's birth rates would fall off precipitously.

Now who is spinning a story?  Do you have some sort of data to support your assertion that people's decision about whether to have kids or not is based on the availability of public education?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
Only a small minority of people can afford sending their kids to private schools.

My wife and I are people of limited means, and we have two school-aged children (and one 2½-year-old).  We don't send our children to public school, but we don't send them to private school either.  You figure that one out; those aren't the only two options.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 21, 2017, 01:49:01 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 01:03:50 PM

Plenty of money to do whatever?

Exactly.  Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.  Then it lies to you and tells you that the nest tax increase, and the next, and the next, are "for" things it already was doing BEFORE it decided to start doing other things.

Don't fall for it.  Take the most wasteful item in the budget and understand that THAT is what the tax increase is really for.  Thirty seconds of moral courage solves most any tax shortfall.  Unfortuantly, too few have that moral courage. 

What does your local school district, an entirely independent entity, spend money on that isn't related to education?

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.

This is a personal opinion stemming from my experience...which is considerable.

Quote from: kphogerNow who is spinning a story? Do you have some sort of data to support your assertion that people's decision about whether to have kids or not is based on the availability of public education?

Lack of public education would increase the high cost of raising children. That would add negative incentive to already emerging downward trends of population growth in the United States.

The fertility rate in the United States declined from 3.65 births per woman in 1960 to 1.88 births per woman in 2012. The US is now hitting new all-time lows in fertility rate. For the past 30 years the United States has netted most of its population growth via immigration from less developed nations and the higher birth rates of those immigrants. Our government hasn't exactly been rolling out the welcome mat lately. Developing nations like India are going through the demographic transition as they improve, pushing down their own birth rates in the process. India had a fertility rate of 5.87 births per woman in 1960 to 2.5 per woman in 2012. Many already developed nations have regressive growth among their native-born population.

The US is now showing record growth in percentages of women who don't have children. In 2014 the US Census said 47.6% of women between age 15 and 44 never had children, up from 46.5% in 2012. More women are choosing not to have kids for very obvious reasons. Health care costs a ridiculous fortune. Day care is expensive. Other industries catering to kids have parents over a barrel. Many women are pursuing professional careers and don't want to perform double duty raising kids at home. Divorce rates have fallen to a 40 year low, but people are waiting longer to get married and there is less social stigma on co-habitation. The government is working to cut funding for various childhood programs. That makes parenthood look less desirable and increases the financial burden for those who have unplanned pregnancies.

Fewer people are having unplanned pregnancies. Look at America's teen pregnancy rate. In 1991 the rate was 61.8 births per 1000 for females ages 15-19. In 2014 that number dropped to 24.2 births per 1000.

There's not much in the way of regulations for what private schools and charter schools can charge for tuition. Vouchers don't cover all the cost, whatever the hell that might be. Anyone deliberately considering parenthood is absolutely going to be doing a lot of financial math. One of my co-workers took a second job for a year to pay for medical bills from his wife's pregnancy. Not everyone is willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

Undermining public schools or eliminating them entirely would be a stupidly self-destructive move for this nation. Public schools literally make the difference between America being a developed country or a third world country.

Quote from: kphogerMy wife and I are people of limited means, and we have two school-aged children (and one 2½-year-old).  We don't send our children to public school, but we don't send them to private school either.  You figure that one out; those aren't the only two options.

Not all parents are honestly qualified to home-school their children. Of those who can do an effective job, not all can fit the tasks of educating their kids into their schedule. You pretty much need at least one stay at home parent. Not every family can afford to have just one bread winner.

How many states have schools as independent governmental agencies that answer to the state vs. schools as arms of the city or county government?

In Kentucky, school districts are independent of any local government and get funding from state (and I presume federal funding passes through the state) and local sources. Around here, real estate taxes for schools are the highest of any taxing body (state, county, city if applicable, library board, etc.).

Oklahoma has a budget problem, but it's not because of waste, fraud or abuse (although I'm sure there's examples of that). It's because 23rd & Lincoln* has slashed revenues by offering tax breaks for all sorts of things. Oklahoma's oil and gas industry is doing quite well, but the state is not seeing any of that money because of tax incentives extended to those industries. Which begs the question–what are they going to do if they don't have the subsidy? Leave the oil in the ground? They didn't do that during the Henry or Keating administrations.

We had a SQ back in November that wanted to raise the state sales tax by 1% to fund teacher pay. I voted against it–in Newcastle, where I work, sales tax is already 9%, and it's 8.75% here in Norman. Sending sales taxes up to 10% is not something I'm okay with, although I'm okay with tax increases of other types (due to the fact that sales tax is the most inherently regressive form of taxation). The SQ failed, although I don't know what part of that was because of people thinking like me, and how much of it is people who just hate all tax increases.

I definitely support raising the gas tax, but if and only if that money goes to ODOT. Education should be funded through the traditional means–property tax. If the general fund needs more cash, that should come from income tax increases, not raising the sales tax ad nauseum. And cut it out with the carveouts for special interests.

I'm quite fortunate to live in Norman. Voters here are willing to agree to tax increases to keep the city funded. 0.5% of the 8.75% sales tax we pay goes to the Norman Forward program, which is a slate of improvements to expand and maintain the parks & rec system, build roads, and build us a new library branch. Our roads may be questionably designed (and are wanting in terms of walkability), but they are generally in good repair. Overall, I tend to feel that the money we send down to Gray Street is being spent well, and that Norman's government is generally on our side, which is more than I can say for 23rd & Lincoln.

*This is the intersection the state capitol is located at. This is a common metonym for the Oklahoma state government. "Oklahoma City" is not used much as a metonym because the OKC government in many ways is the antithesis of the state government, and the two are at odds most of the time.

This is somewhat paralleled in Texas.  Our constitution dedicates one quarter of the fuel tax to schools.  It's been that way since at least 1946.

Answering the question just asked, in Texas schools are all independent districts.  The districts have the highest property tax rates and receive state and federal funding, including one quarter of the state fuel taxes.  There is one exception, the Stafford Municipal School District.  The city of Stafford separated from a larger district and formed their own city-run district.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2017, 09:13:16 PMOklahoma has a budget problem, but it's not because of waste, fraud or abuse (although I'm sure there's examples of that). It's because 23rd & Lincoln* has slashed revenues by offering tax breaks for all sorts of things. Oklahoma's oil and gas industry is doing quite well, but the state is not seeing any of that money because of tax incentives extended to those industries. Which begs the question–what are they going to do if they don't have the subsidy? Leave the oil in the ground? They didn't do that during the Henry or Keating administrations.

I don't follow Oklahoma politics closely, but this all sounds like the situation Kansas was in following the 2014 election.  Our state budget has been structurally unbalanced (by roughly $600 million) as a result of the 2012 tax cuts (not just the nationally infamous LLC tax cut, but also a flattening of tax brackets), but it is only now that the Legislature has accumulated a majority (though not veto-proof) in favor of complete rollback of the tax policy changes.  Those of us who saw from the start that the tax cuts were a disastrous, anti-Keynesian mistake have had to wait through the 2012 ultraconservative landslide in the Legislature, Brownback's re-election in 2014, and "the biggest tax increase in Kansas history" in 2015 when Brownback and the Legislature unsuccessfully attempted to stabilize the budget by hiking consumption taxes.

Voters, taken as a large group, are not usually especially far-sighted, nor do they have the intellectual equipment to see opportunities to get from point A to point B by taking the third side of the triangle instead of the other two sides.  It took four years of shortfalls almost every month, bottom-of-the-nation economic growth, and school districts making progressively harder and harder cuts before voters' patience finally started to fray.  In the Wichita public schools this year, for example, many students are now in class longer than their parents are at work, for the sole purpose of reducing the number of days school is in session each year and thus the cost of keeping buildings open.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2017, 09:13:16 PMI definitely support raising the gas tax, but if and only if that money goes to ODOT. Education should be funded through the traditional means–property tax. If the general fund needs more cash, that should come from income tax increases, not raising the sales tax ad nauseam. And cut it out with the carveouts for special interests.

The worm will turn, but it will take time.  I think you are going to be hearing a lot more about sales tax increases because consumption taxes are ideologically aligned with income tax cuts and business incentive tax cuts, and it will take a while (and some economic stagnation) for the politicians who push all three to exhaust their support.  Capital investments of all kinds are easy cuts when things are down to the wire and the budget has to be balanced; in Kansas we have already seen this with repeated cuts to planned KDOT lettings.  Brownback's current budget proposal, which has now died in committee, calls for the KDOT FY 2019 construction budget to be less than half that of FY 2015, with maintenance and local support essentially kept flat.

Up here we have been hearing a lot about a flat income tax.  What is telling (especially in contrast to the past several years) is the way in which it is spoken of:  the ultraconservatives left in the Legislature describe it as an alternative they can suggest so that they aren't just saying No, while the rest say it is basically DOA.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2017, 09:13:16 PM*This is the intersection the state capitol is located at. This is a common metonym for the Oklahoma state government. "Oklahoma City" is not used much as a metonym because the OKC government in many ways is the antithesis of the state government, and the two are at odds most of the time.

This also seems to be a natural consequence of OKC also being the biggest city in the state, with a robust and diversified economy in which the state government is a relatively small player.

Up here "second floor" has become a shorthand reference to the current central problem in Kansas politics, which is Brownback's stubborn determination to resist rollback of his tax policies.  That is, of course, the floor of the Capitol on which his offices are situated.

Quote from: wxfree on March 21, 2017, 09:31:19 PM
This is somewhat paralleled in Texas.  Our constitution dedicates one quarter of the fuel tax to schools.  It's been that way since at least 1946.

That's interesting. And yet TxDOT isn't totally broke, AFAIK...

Quote from: Scott5114We had a SQ back in November that wanted to raise the state sales tax by 1% to fund teacher pay. I voted against it–in Newcastle, where I work, sales tax is already 9%, and it's 8.75% here in Norman. Sending sales taxes up to 10% is not something I'm okay with, although I'm okay with tax increases of other types (due to the fact that sales tax is the most inherently regressive form of taxation). The SQ failed, although I don't know what part of that was because of people thinking like me, and how much of it is people who just hate all tax increases.

I, too, voted against the sales tax for teacher pay. Lawton's sales tax would have been hiked to 10% if the measure passed. That high rate would drive even more shoppers online or make others sitting on the fence about a purchase decide not to buy.

Online-based merchants are killing brick and mortar retail and inflicting pain on any other kind of business vulnerable to online competition. We've had a few different stores in Lawton close in the past couple years. Sears is shutting down in Central Mall at the end of this month. We're lucky our JCPenney location survived the latest round of store closings. Funny thing, as of March 1 Amazon is now collecting sales tax at the time of purchase for orders in Oklahoma. Plenty of other online merchants are selling goods tax free.

Property tax is the better way to go funding teacher pay.

J.N. Winkler–all insightful points, as per usual. Although things have been bad enough in Kansas that they occasionally make national headlines, I don't follow Kansas politics closely enough to get more than a birds-eye view of the problems. My guess is that Fallin is much like a "Brownback lite", although I think that Oklahoma's slightly larger tax base and more diversified economy has allowed her to coast a lot longer than Brownback was able to. Most local media focuses on the education crisis; while other parts of the state budget have seen drastic cuts as well, the call to fix education funding has reached a fever pitch.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2017, 01:55:29 AM
Funny thing, as of March 1 Amazon is now collecting sales tax at the time of purchase for orders in Oklahoma. Plenty of other online merchants are selling goods tax free.

Don't buy what Fallin is selling–she is more than happy to take credit for this, and has presented it as a personal victory, as if she was able to negotiate with Amazon to remit sales taxes to Oklahoma. Amazon is in the process of building a distribution center in southwest Oklahoma City. That gives them nexus in Oklahoma and they are therefore required to collect Oklahoma sales tax. It has nothing to do with Fallin and is purely a logistical move.

If Oklahoma were smart, we would leverage our central location and hub status on the Interstate system to make our state (and OKC-Norman in particular) a hub for the ecommerce industry. I own a (minuscule) ecommerce company, and shipping from Oklahoma means I have competitive shipping times and rates to both coasts and, because I have no nexus in any state but OK, for 99% of the country I don't have to collect sales tax. Being here has some decent perks for an ecommerce company.

As time goes on and more and more of the retail sector goes online, I think the concept of sales taxes in general will need to be radically overhauled. More and more cities will start to suffer from lack of sales tax revenue due to businesses with no nexus in the state. Theoretically, customers are supposed to remit use taxes on out-of-state sales, but compliance on this is extremely low. (Quick, how much did you spend online in 2016? yeah, I have no idea either.) It would require auditing a large number of returns to force compliance, and the amount recovered is likely to be less than that spent doing the auditing. Multiply this problem by every municipality in the US that collects sales taxes. So I think some sort of interstate system is going to be required to collect all sales taxes at the national level and send them to where they need to go. Obviously that is going to be very complex and very difficult to implement (How do you make sure the right rate is charged? Do you stop people from renting a PO box in a city with a lower tax rate to have their packages delivered to?) In addition to the regressive nature of sales taxes, that makes me think that, in the long term, sales tax is going to become an untenable concept and will be phased out in favor of a taxation system that's easier to administer. So something like income or property taxes.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 07:35:38 PM

Quote from: kphogerNow who is spinning a story? Do you have some sort of data to support your assertion that people's decision about whether to have kids or not is based on the availability of public education?

Lack of public education would increase the high cost of raising children. That would add negative incentive to already emerging downward trends of population growth in the United States.

The fertility rate in the United States declined from 3.65 births per woman in 1960 to 1.88 births per woman in 2012. The US is now hitting new all-time lows in fertility rate. For the past 30 years the United States has netted most of its population growth via immigration from less developed nations and the higher birth rates of those immigrants. Our government hasn't exactly been rolling out the welcome mat lately. Developing nations like India are going through the demographic transition as they improve, pushing down their own birth rates in the process. India had a fertility rate of 5.87 births per woman in 1960 to 2.5 per woman in 2012. Many already developed nations have regressive growth among their native-born population.

The US is now showing record growth in percentages of women who don't have children. In 2014 the US Census said 47.6% of women between age 15 and 44 never had children, up from 46.5% in 2012. More women are choosing not to have kids for very obvious reasons. Health care costs a ridiculous fortune. Day care is expensive. Other industries catering to kids have parents over a barrel. Many women are pursuing professional careers and don't want to perform double duty raising kids at home. Divorce rates have fallen to a 40 year low, but people are waiting longer to get married and there is less social stigma on co-habitation. The government is working to cut funding for various childhood programs. That makes parenthood look less desirable and increases the financial burden for those who have unplanned pregnancies.

Fewer people are having unplanned pregnancies. Look at America's teen pregnancy rate. In 1991 the rate was 61.8 births per 1000 for females ages 15-19. In 2014 that number dropped to 24.2 births per 1000.

There's not much in the way of regulations for what private schools and charter schools can charge for tuition. Vouchers don't cover all the cost, whatever the hell that might be. Anyone deliberately considering parenthood is absolutely going to be doing a lot of financial math. One of my co-workers took a second job for a year to pay for medical bills from his wife's pregnancy. Not everyone is willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

Undermining public schools or eliminating them entirely would be a stupidly self-destructive move for this nation. Public schools literally make the difference between America being a developed country or a third world country.

You threw a bunch of statistics in there, but I don't see any support for your assertion that less access to public education causes people to have fewer children.  You said it would, but then merely posted stats about birth rates.  What about Europe, where public education is famously more free than here, but birth rates have been declining for just as long as ours?  (Germany is a decent example, where even public universities are tuition-free but the birth rate is 1.38 compared to the US 1.88.)

I should also correct your assertion that the birth rate declined from 3.65 in 1960 to 2.5 in 2012.  Our birth rate crossed the 2.5 threshold clear back in 1968, and in 1974 reached 1.74–lower than 2012's rate.  Our birth rate has been at a rough plateau since the mid 1970s, and that's the same for most of the developed western world.

USA:  1.77 in 1975, 1.88 in 2012
Canada:  1.82 in 1975, 1.61 in 2012
UK:  1.81 in 1975, 1.90 in 2012
France:  2.09 in 1975, 2.01 in 2012
Sweden:  1.77 in 1975, 1.91 in 2012
Switzerland:  1.61 in 1975, 1.52 in 2012

Some developed western countries have been declining even more:
Italy:  2.17 in 1975, 1.40 in 2012
Portugal:  2.33 in 1975, 1.28 in 2012
Hungary:  2.35 in 1975, 1.34 in 2012

This is not about free public education.  It's a product of industrialization and economic growth.  Nations follow the trend I've drawn below as they become more developed.



On the left end of the graph is a less-developed nation.  These societies are largely agricultural and require much labor, therefore people find it advantageous to have a lot of children to help them.  Some random examples here:  Central African Republic, 4.45 birth rate; Honduras, 3.05; Laos, 3.11; Mozambique, 5.26.  Pick a less-developed nation, and the figures should be on the high end.

On the right end of the graph is a more-developed nation.  These societies rely less on agriculture and labor, therefore people no longer find it advantageous to have a lot of children.  I've listed some random examples above.  Pick a well-developed nation, and the figures should be on the low end.

But in the middle is what you described in India.  The nation has been on the upward trend of development for some time, but the birth rate hasn't quite dropped off yet.  It takes time for the cultural attitude towards having children to change, even after a society becomes more developed.  India, you may know, actively campaigns for family planning and birth control, which does help explain why its birth rate isn't even higher than it is.  This part of the graph is when people are having more children than are actually advantageous to them.  It happens, but it eventually evens out again.  Take Mexico, for example, where birth rates didn't start to fall until the early 1970s, even though its economic development began dramatically improving in the 1940s; nowadays, it's leveling out toward what you see in more-developed nations.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2017, 07:35:38 PM

Quote from: kphogerMy wife and I are people of limited means, and we have two school-aged children (and one 2½-year-old).  We don't send our children to public school, but we don't send them to private school either.  You figure that one out; those aren't the only two options.

Not all parents are honestly qualified to home-school their children. Of those who can do an effective job, not all can fit the tasks of educating their kids into their schedule. You pretty much need at least one stay at home parent. Not every family can afford to have just one bread winner.

My wife stays home, but we are not a single-bread-winner household.  She works from home.  I'm not trying to say that everyone is qualified to home-school, but I do want to debunk the notion that only wealthy people can afford to.  My family is right around the food stamps line on that scale:  some months we qualify, some months we don't.  Childcare for more than one kid isn't doesn't cost all that much less than minimum wage, so staying at home isn't necessarily as much of a disadvantage as people make it out to be.

Quote from: kphogerYou threw a bunch of statistics in there, but I don't see any support for your assertion that less access to public education causes people to have fewer children.

It's plainly simple financial math. Private schools are expensive. Those tuition costs are rising at inflation rates that outstrip that of average wage growth (just like what's happening with college tuition by the way). Many conservatives ultimately want to eliminate public schools. They only want to offer help to parents in the form of vouchers, which is nothing more than a coupon to pay for part of the expensive yearly tuition fees. There's very little regulation on what these schools can charge.

Home schooling is an alternative. Your own family might be doing fine with home-schooling. Very few families are honestly cut out for that for reasons I previously described. I would love it if home-schooling could be a mainstream option. But, putting it bluntly, we have a lot of idiots in our country who have no business teaching smaller versions of themselves.

It costs a shit-ton of money to raise children. There is already enough incentive for young, child-bearing age people to avoid having kids. Elminating public schools would create another tremendous incentive against parenthood on top of all the other valid reasons to avoid it. Law-makers can counter with lots of pro-life/anti-abortion legislation to trap all the people who have unplanned pregnancies. But I think such legislation will only result in a lot of child-less people choosing preemptive sterilization (vasectomies, tugal ligations, etc.) to avoid the financial catastrophe that parenthood could become.

QuoteYou said it would, but then merely posted stats about birth rates. What about Europe, where public education is famously more free than here, but birth rates have been declining for just as long as ours? (Germany is a decent example, where even public universities are tuition-free but the birth rate is 1.38 compared to the US 1.88.)

The cost of living is expensive as hell in those European countries. I don't know much about the public education systems and how they are funded over there. I'm sure there are other socio-economic factors at work to explain those low birth rates. The "Demographic Transition" is one part of it, like in the graph you showed between nations transitioning from impoverished, undeveloped countries into more affluent developed countries. But, like your graph shows, that downward trend on fertility is supposed to level off at around 2.0 births per woman, achieving population stability. Different factors, like making it expensive as hell to raise kids, will push that rate lower. France has improved its fertility rate into positive territory by offering more generous programs to mothers, like paid maternity leave. America ain't too big on any of that right now.

Quote from: kphogerI should also correct your assertion that the birth rate declined from 3.65 in 1960 to 2.5 in 2012.  Our birth rate crossed the 2.5 threshold clear back in 1968, and in 1974 reached 1.74–lower than 2012's rate.

The fertility rate in the US did dip below 2.0 in the early 70's, but since then it has been hovering at or above 2.0 until late last decade when the housing industry bubble exploded. Since then it has been on a downhill slide. In terms of births per 1000 women ages 15-44 the birth rate fell to an all time low of 59.8 per 1000 in 2016. During the peak of the post-war baby boom in 1957 the rate was 122.9 births per 1000 women. Our nation's birth rate is definitely trending downward.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2017, 12:45:51 PM

Quote from: kphogerYou threw a bunch of statistics in there, but I don't see any support for your assertion that less access to public education causes people to have fewer children.

It's plainly simple financial math. Private schools are expensive.

Do 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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2017, 12:45:51 PM
The "Demographic Transition" is one part of it, like in the graph you showed between nations transitioning from impoverished, undeveloped countries into more affluent developed countries. But, like your graph shows, that downward trend on fertility is supposed to level off at around 2.0 births per woman, achieving population stability. Different factors, like making it expensive as hell to raise kids, will push that rate lower. France has improved its fertility rate into positive territory by offering more generous programs to mothers, like paid maternity leave. America ain't too big on any of that right now.

The number 2 is nowhere on on that graph.  You 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?

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.

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.

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.

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 (https://www.denexa.com) (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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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-( 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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)

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.

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.

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)

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

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?...

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2017, 04:14:58 PM

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.

Washington's parents are asked to supply these items.  In elementary schools, either the parents are asked to bring in a long list worth about $50 at the beginning of the year, or asked to send a check and the school does the shopping and generally makes better deals.  However, kids are not disenrolled if parents don't send items or checks.  Teachers end up picking up the slack.  PTAs may, also, although there are a lot of other things PTAs pay for that should be provided, even teachers' salaries in some cases.

Lawton Public Schools teachers constantly have to go into their own pockets to provide school supplies and other materials for students, quite a few of whom are low income. But I suspect there are plenty of parents who can afford the supplies but are happy to let the teacher take the financial hit instead of them. This is despite the disgraceful fact of how badly our teachers are paid compared to teachers in nearly every state outside Oklahoma.

This situation has been bad enough for so long that a charity group called the Lawton Public Schools Foundation was established years ago to raise funds to help teachers. Dozens of local businesses and hundreds of individuals donate money and materials to LPSF. They have an annual breakfast every September at Golden Corral that raises quite a bit of money. But there is still a big gap between what LPSF raises versus what teachers actually need. The skeptic in me wonders if people use LPSF efforts as a reason to justify further cuts in education funding and more tax cut candy being handed out to us selfish, blind, spoiled brat, soiled diaper taxpayer children.

Apparently Dallas ISD is poaching teachers from Oklahoma, passing around brochures boasting starting pay $20,000 per year higher than that of starting pay in Oklahoma. And that's on top of a fatter benefits package.

Oklahoma's state government is just getting ever more disgusting as it presses down on the accelerator in our race to the bottom. Our federal representation isn't any better. The only thing these guys are going to achieve if they make Oklahoma an entirely 100% pure, hard line conservative state is making Oklahoma a dirt poor, sausage festival populated with only old, dying white men.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 30, 2017, 01:45:49 PM


Apparently Dallas ISD is poaching teachers from Oklahoma, passing around brochures boasting starting pay $20,000 per year higher than that of starting pay in Oklahoma. And that's on top of a fatter benefits package.

And TX is still in the bottom 10 states for per-student spending...

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 30, 2017, 01:45:49 PM
This is despite the disgraceful fact of how badly our teachers are paid compared to teachers in nearly every state outside Oklahoma.

According to link (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2017/02/which_states_pay_teachers_the_.html), the only one below Oklahoma is Mississippi. SD is the third lowest; a lot of the teachers I know have a second job. Granted, the cost of living here (unless it's in the Hills) is dirt cheap, so that makes up for a little.

Quote from: kalvado on March 30, 2017, 02:09:46 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 30, 2017, 01:45:49 PM
Apparently Dallas ISD is poaching teachers from Oklahoma, passing around brochures boasting starting pay $20,000 per year higher than that of starting pay in Oklahoma. And that's on top of a fatter benefits package.

And TX is still in the bottom 10 states for per-student spending...

I'm not sure if per-student spending is the best way to look at things. Kids don't need the newest flashiest trend to be successful.

Quote from: SD Mapman on March 30, 2017, 11:18:31 PM
I'm not sure if per-student spending is the best way to look at things. Kids don't need the newest flashiest trend to be successful.

They don't need the flashiest tech to be successful, but most of a school district's expense is teacher salaries.  Teaching is a labor-intensive business and attempts at automating it have been dismal failures.  So trying to save money generally mean any of:  Settling for the teachers who did worse and can't get hired by a better-off school.  Settling for teachers without a master's in teaching but some alternative certification.  More students per classroom, which results in less feedback from the teacher, less ability to help the students who are behind and less ability to challenge the students who are bored.

Tech at my daughter's schools has mostly been installed at the insistence of BMGF who want all the students to take additional computerized adaptive standardized tests and send them the results.  That means lots of networking and computers in every school and heavy duty servers downtown.  Even at that, there aren't enough for all the students to take the test at once, not enough computers, not enough rooms to put more computers in if they had them, so each tests stretches on for weeks.  Did I mention that the computers tend to crash halfway through the test, so the students have to start all over again another day?

Quote from: inkyatari on March 31, 2017, 09:05:50 AM

Whenever cutting money comes into play, the politicians always threaten those who really make peanuts compared to those who are really overpaid. 

That's my wife's complaint - "They always cut the peons' pay, never the pay of the executives that are making multi-million dollar salaries and/or bonuses." (yes Blue Cross, I'm looking at you!)

A high school stadium doesn't have to be fancy.  Grass, bleachers at both sides, done.  (Not like college or pro, don't get me started on those.)  At least in high school there's many sports, and students can be participants in at least one if they want to, not just sitting on their butts watching.  Eliminating stadiums wouldn't even put a dent in the K-12 funding crisis.  Probably not even most colleges.

Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2017, 12:58:06 PM
A high school stadium doesn't have to be fancy.  Grass, bleachers at both sides, done.  (Not like college or pro, don't get me started on those.)  At least in high school there's many sports, and students can be participants in at least one if they want to, not just sitting on their butts watching.  Eliminating stadiums wouldn't even put a dent in the K-12 funding crisis.  Probably not even most colleges.

In particular, Union High School in Tulsa OK was mentioned. Here are some photos:
http://www.maxpreps.com/news/AfHq4HohlEe3BpvPo0Agyg/photos--the-incredible-facilities-of-tulsas-union-high-school.htm
I am not sure if that is good enough for 4300 enrolled students..
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uyfa.org%2Ftuttle2.jpg&hash=89cbf9208ca2ab2e31386ca34862928a19f5fb67)

Jeez louise

Not to mention their SECOND turf field (probably practice/JV) on the other side of the building (with a seven?!? lane track).

Their second field would be a state-of-the-art facility for a solo high school in SD (we have slightly nicer ones, but they're either shared between multiple high schools or a high school and college).