Is it frugality... or extreme cheapskate?

[Rothman]

You keep mentioning costs, but wages are higher in California than in Texas.

You take a look at the top states for doing business, and Texas ranks near the top. Forbes ranks Texas as #2, while California is #31. CNBC ranks Texas as #4, but California as #33. In an extreme case, ChiefExecutive ranks Texas as #1, while Illinois, New York, and California is ranked #48, #49, and #50.

Those rankings are for the corporate side, not the workers' side. They don't matter to most individuals.

Think about it from the business perspective: if same product can be made in a state with $1M homes and in a state with $400k homes, where would end product be more competitive? That's not the only factor, apparently. NY is murdered by teacher's union, for example;

Wut.

You never realized what the cost of K-12 in NY is, right?

You're saying the teachers in NY should be paid less because unions advocate for higher wages...when there's a teacher shortage?

[webny99]

Guess which state my family moved away from in 1977. Ironically, upstate New York near Rose, NY which happened to be about 45 miles away from Rochester. Rochester used to be a great city as well.

Hey, it still is a great city (I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving Rose though)

[kalvado]

You keep mentioning costs, but wages are higher in California than in Texas.

You take a look at the top states for doing business, and Texas ranks near the top. Forbes ranks Texas as #2, while California is #31. CNBC ranks Texas as #4, but California as #33. In an extreme case, ChiefExecutive ranks Texas as #1, while Illinois, New York, and California is ranked #48, #49, and #50.

Those rankings are for the corporate side, not the workers' side. They don't matter to most individuals.

Think about it from the business perspective: if same product can be made in a state with $1M homes and in a state with $400k homes, where would end product be more competitive? That's not the only factor, apparently. NY is murdered by teacher's union, for example;

Wut.

You never realized what the cost of K-12 in NY is, right?

You're saying the teachers in NY should be paid less because unions advocate for higher wages...when there's a teacher shortage?

I am saying that NY is top 1 in K-12 per-student spending; 20% more than CT (second place) and almost 2x US average.  With graduation rates significantly below national average, if you will...

[Rothman]

You keep mentioning costs, but wages are higher in California than in Texas.

You take a look at the top states for doing business, and Texas ranks near the top. Forbes ranks Texas as #2, while California is #31. CNBC ranks Texas as #4, but California as #33. In an extreme case, ChiefExecutive ranks Texas as #1, while Illinois, New York, and California is ranked #48, #49, and #50.

Those rankings are for the corporate side, not the workers' side. They don't matter to most individuals.

Think about it from the business perspective: if same product can be made in a state with $1M homes and in a state with $400k homes, where would end product be more competitive? That's not the only factor, apparently. NY is murdered by teacher's union, for example;

Wut.

You never realized what the cost of K-12 in NY is, right?

You're saying the teachers in NY should be paid less because unions advocate for higher wages...when there's a teacher shortage?

I am saying that NY is top 1 in K-12 per-student spending; 20% more than CT (second place) and almost 2x US average.  With graduation rates significantly below national average, if you will...

Right, so your solution would be to cut costs without consideration of the varied cost of living across the state (Westchester vs. Malone).

ETA:  Also have to wonder about the quality of education.  Take Utah, where almost everyone graduates from high school, but the content of their curriculum is not on the same level as anywhere in New England.

(Of course, quality varied greatly in NY, too)

[kalvado]

You keep mentioning costs, but wages are higher in California than in Texas.

You take a look at the top states for doing business, and Texas ranks near the top. Forbes ranks Texas as #2, while California is #31. CNBC ranks Texas as #4, but California as #33. In an extreme case, ChiefExecutive ranks Texas as #1, while Illinois, New York, and California is ranked #48, #49, and #50.

Those rankings are for the corporate side, not the workers' side. They don't matter to most individuals.

Think about it from the business perspective: if same product can be made in a state with $1M homes and in a state with $400k homes, where would end product be more competitive? That's not the only factor, apparently. NY is murdered by teacher's union, for example;

Wut.

You never realized what the cost of K-12 in NY is, right?

You're saying the teachers in NY should be paid less because unions advocate for higher wages...when there's a teacher shortage?

I am saying that NY is top 1 in K-12 per-student spending; 20% more than CT (second place) and almost 2x US average.  With graduation rates significantly below national average, if you will...

Right, so your solution would be to cut costs without consideration of the varied cost of living across the state (Westchester vs. Malone).

You don't need to be a chef to say that the meal is spoiled. Same here - I am neither a high school teacher nor I sit on BOCES board. What I see is a problem with too much money being  spent inefficiently. What I see as well is a very  strong union opposing any changes other than another raise.
It is probably not about paychecks per se, it may very well be about numerous government mandates used to patch the system and protections for those who shouldn't be protected. (this is how to say "NY" and "union" without saying those words!) 

[hotdogPi]

Having electricity prices too low will just encourage wasting electricity, something California is trying to avoid but Texas doesn't care about. You are aware of global warming, right?

[kalvado]

Having electricity prices too low will just encourage wasting electricity, something California is trying to avoid but Texas doesn't care about. You are aware of global warming, right?

There is some sense in higher prices pushing for more savings; but that is also a handicap for certain businesses where energy costs are significant. Think heavy industry, big data, AI... Water desalination, which may become make-it or break-it for CA...

Oh, and by the way. It is no longer "global warming". It is "climate change".

[Max Rockatansky]

Having electricity prices too low will just encourage wasting electricity, something California is trying to avoid but Texas doesn't care about. You are aware of global warming, right?

There is some sense in higher prices pushing for more savings; but that is also a handicap for certain businesses where energy costs are significant. Think heavy industry, big data, AI... Water desalination, which may become make-it or break-it for CA...

Oh, and by the way. It is no longer "global warming". It is "climate change".

Worth noting, my peak PG&E bill usually is in August and usually is a tick below $300 dollars.  July is the only other consistent month which tops $220 for electricity.  I kept my house at the same temperature in Scottsdale but I was breaking $400 easily for electricity from the Salt River Project a decade ago (which is probably $500 easily now factoring inflation).

Referencing the 2035 EV mandate cited above, I agree the situation doesn't look optimal for California being able to accommodate.  Canyon Diablo is probably going to have a delayed shuttering the best plans the state has for additional capacity is large wind farm concept.  I find that to be an odd contradiction, but taking the last Nuclear Generation capacity out of the grid doesn't seem short term feasible. 

Something interesting I've observed as a California resident that surprised me is the cost of water and how cheap it is.  In Arizona water was super expensive, even if you didn't have a manicured grassy lawn.

[vdeane]

There's frequently a cost to living in low cost-of-living areas.  Certain jobs may not be available (although that may be less of a concern given the greater acceptance, for now, of WFH), fewer desirable recreational activities may be available, the weather may suck, school quality may be crap, culture may be repressive, etc.

I tend to make big decisions with essentially cost-benefit analyses.   However, some of the costs and benefits that need to be considered don't have dollar signs attached.  Evaluating those will depend on you / your family's interests, needs, and preferences.

Living in Connecticut is financially expensive (although not as expensive as a few other places).  However, accepting that expense opens the door to access to multiple potential jobs for my profession, easy access to a variety of recreational activities, a climate I find more comfortable than many other places, etc., etc., etc.

My wife and I have looked at moving someplace less expensive, but the intangible costs of things that we would give up don't have me terribly excited about such a move.

Plus the tax burden can be shifted, other costs can be higher, more fees, etc.  Sure, your income/school/sales taxes may be low or non-existent, but you're probably paying more in fees, private school (whereas public school is just fine in suburban districts in high tax NY), etc.  Case in point: car registration is fairly cheap here in NY (just ~$55 every other year for my Civic), but in several "low tax" states, that same registration could cost hundreds of dollars annually.

[kalvado]

Something interesting I've observed as a California resident that surprised me is the cost of water and how cheap it is.  In Arizona water was super expensive, even if you didn't have a manicured grassy lawn.

I may remember it wrong, but my impression was this is due to CA being very bully during Colorado River negotiations. They basically got the best terms for water - for amount and availability. They will have to evacuate Phoenix and Vegas before CA gets it allocation cut.

[Max Rockatansky]

Something interesting I've observed as a California resident that surprised me is the cost of water and how cheap it is.  In Arizona water was super expensive, even if you didn't have a manicured grassy lawn.

I may remember it wrong, but my impression was this is due to CA being very bully during Colorado River negotiations. They basically got the best terms for water - for amount and availability. They will have to evacuate Phoenix and Vegas before CA gets it allocation cut.

Yes, if I recall correctly Nevada only gets 4% of the Colorado River Watershed allotment.  A good chunk of the California share goes to Ag projects out in Imperial Valley.  I seem to recall the water rights from the Colorado being largely predicated off of population of the states involved in the 1930s. 

Locally the water supply is coming more from the Sierra Nevada Mountains via snowmelt and distribution via the California Aqueduct or related systems.  But the again, San Joaquin Valley is semi-arid for that very reason compared to the actual portion of the Sonoran Desert which is Imperial Valley.

[bing101]

You keep mentioning costs, but wages are higher in California than in Texas.

Wages are higher in California.... because the cost of living is higher in California.

You take a look at the top states for doing business, and Texas ranks near the top. Forbes ranks Texas as #2, while California is #31. CNBC ranks Texas as #4, but California as #33. In an extreme case, ChiefExecutive ranks Texas as #1, while Illinois, New York, and California is ranked #48, #49, and #50.

Those rankings are for the corporate side, not the workers' side. They don't matter to most individuals.

Yes, they do. Creating a friendly business environment creates employment for individuals. And, I feel the opportunities in the DFW area are better than they were in the Sacramento area.

Mind explaining which industries do well in Texas than California? The energy sector, defense contractors and Big Tech are factors that Texas favors OK then.

Biotech, Pharmaceutical industry, "Green Jobs" and legalized pot, Venture Capital sectors are ones that favor California then.

[bing101]

I see this as people claiming to be Frugal and Cheapskates.

They are people from the samples I seen ask questions about retiring at early ages. Well in some industries that could be true but for people who had to go to graduate school or majored in Biology and had a postdoc or MD along the way retiring early is out of the question and not likely.

[J N Winkler]

Living in Kansas, I have to smile as I see people debate the relative affordabilities of California, Texas, New York, and Connecticut.

[Rothman]

You keep mentioning costs, but wages are higher in California than in Texas.

You take a look at the top states for doing business, and Texas ranks near the top. Forbes ranks Texas as #2, while California is #31. CNBC ranks Texas as #4, but California as #33. In an extreme case, ChiefExecutive ranks Texas as #1, while Illinois, New York, and California is ranked #48, #49, and #50.

Those rankings are for the corporate side, not the workers' side. They don't matter to most individuals.

Think about it from the business perspective: if same product can be made in a state with $1M homes and in a state with $400k homes, where would end product be more competitive? That's not the only factor, apparently. NY is murdered by teacher's union, for example;

Wut.

You never realized what the cost of K-12 in NY is, right?

You're saying the teachers in NY should be paid less because unions advocate for higher wages...when there's a teacher shortage?

I am saying that NY is top 1 in K-12 per-student spending; 20% more than CT (second place) and almost 2x US average.  With graduation rates significantly below national average, if you will...

Right, so your solution would be to cut costs without consideration of the varied cost of living across the state (Westchester vs. Malone).

You don't need to be a chef to say that the meal is spoiled. Same here - I am neither a high school teacher nor I sit on BOCES board. What I see is a problem with too much money being  spent inefficiently. What I see as well is a very  strong union opposing any changes other than another raise.
It is probably not about paychecks per se, it may very well be about numerous government mandates used to patch the system and protections for those who shouldn't be protected. (this is how to say "NY" and "union" without saying those words!)

Which changes would increase the graduation rate that the union opposes?

Thank goodness for a strong union for keeping governors from making disastrous decisions that would make the situation even worse.

[mgk920]

Next on This Old House!

Mike

[mgk920]

Having electricity prices too low will just encourage wasting electricity, something California is trying to avoid but Texas doesn't care about. You are aware of global warming, right?

Definitely! We've got to do EVERYTHING that we can to head off that looming new Global Ice Age!!!



Mike

[kalvado]

Which changes would increase the graduation rate that the union opposes?
Thank goodness for a strong union for keeping governors from making disastrous decisions that would make the situation even worse.

As far as I understand, seniority based employment - as opposed to merit based - is one of the big things. Younger teachers were kicked out and would not return.
https://tntp.org/news-and-press/view/new-yorks-outdated-tenure-laws

Any objective evaluation - although that is a tough issue by itself - is another one:
https://www.nysut.org/members/member-guide/appr

That is not the key financial issue; just some examples of why union protecting membes first doesn't necessarily acts in the interest of students and general public. 

[mgk920]

Which changes would increase the graduation rate that the union opposes?
Thank goodness for a strong union for keeping governors from making disastrous decisions that would make the situation even worse.

As far as I understand, seniority based employment - as opposed to merit based - is one of the big things. Younger teachers were kicked out and would not return.
https://tntp.org/news-and-press/view/new-yorks-outdated-tenure-laws

Any objective evaluation - although that is a tough issue by itself - is another one:
https://www.nysut.org/members/member-guide/appr

That is not the key financial issue; just some examples of why union protecting membes first doesn't necessarily acts in the interest of students and general public.

There are many, many reasons why FDR and George Meany *strongly* opposed that creation of public/government employee unions.



Mike

[kphoger]

My wife and I don't even have a credit card.

[Rothman]

Which changes would increase the graduation rate that the union opposes?
Thank goodness for a strong union for keeping governors from making disastrous decisions that would make the situation even worse.

As far as I understand, seniority based employment - as opposed to merit based - is one of the big things. Younger teachers were kicked out and would not return.
https://tntp.org/news-and-press/view/new-yorks-outdated-tenure-laws

Any objective evaluation - although that is a tough issue by itself - is another one:
https://www.nysut.org/members/member-guide/appr

That is not the key financial issue; just some examples of why union protecting membes first doesn't necessarily acts in the interest of students and general public.

There are many, many reasons why FDR and George Meany *strongly* opposed that creation of public/government employee unions.



Mike

Pfft.  I can agree on the tenure program.  My kids had a couple of dud teachers...then again, what student doesn't?

But, like NYSUT says, they are for evaluations in that link you provided.

However, it's not clear how those factor into graduation rates.

Finally, if you're jealous of union benefits, get your own.  No need to tear down everyone else to your level.

[kalvado]

Which changes would increase the graduation rate that the union opposes?
Thank goodness for a strong union for keeping governors from making disastrous decisions that would make the situation even worse.

As far as I understand, seniority based employment - as opposed to merit based - is one of the big things. Younger teachers were kicked out and would not return.
https://tntp.org/news-and-press/view/new-yorks-outdated-tenure-laws

Any objective evaluation - although that is a tough issue by itself - is another one:
https://www.nysut.org/members/member-guide/appr

That is not the key financial issue; just some examples of why union protecting membes first doesn't necessarily acts in the interest of students and general public.

There are many, many reasons why FDR and George Meany *strongly* opposed that creation of public/government employee unions.



Mike

Pfft.  I can agree on the tenure program.  My kids had a couple of dud teachers...then again, what student doesn't?

But, like NYSUT says, they are for evaluations in that link you provided.

However, it's not clear how those factor into graduation rates.

Finally, if you're jealous of union benefits, get your own.  No need to tear down everyone else to your level.

Well, one thing you may or may not realize, school education is VERY EXPENSIVE. It makes total sense to look at costs and deliverables. NY fails on both.
How expensive you may ask? right now, NYS public schools spend $24k per student per year - so by the end of high school (with diploma or not) it is $300k total per kid. Think about it as a loan, similar to college loan, we both are paying off from our taxes. In case you think college loans are expensive....
So if you plan to work for 36 years (3x12), it is currently $8k/year for you or me.  Compared to about $1200/working adult spending of NYSDOT
I would say this is pretty serious amount of money, and at a first glance that spending is inefficient. At a second glance, it is very inefficient....

[Rothman]

Which changes would increase the graduation rate that the union opposes?
Thank goodness for a strong union for keeping governors from making disastrous decisions that would make the situation even worse.

As far as I understand, seniority based employment - as opposed to merit based - is one of the big things. Younger teachers were kicked out and would not return.
https://tntp.org/news-and-press/view/new-yorks-outdated-tenure-laws

Any objective evaluation - although that is a tough issue by itself - is another one:
https://www.nysut.org/members/member-guide/appr

That is not the key financial issue; just some examples of why union protecting membes first doesn't necessarily acts in the interest of students and general public.

There are many, many reasons why FDR and George Meany *strongly* opposed that creation of public/government employee unions.



Mike

Pfft.  I can agree on the tenure program.  My kids had a couple of dud teachers...then again, what student doesn't?

But, like NYSUT says, they are for evaluations in that link you provided.

However, it's not clear how those factor into graduation rates.

Finally, if you're jealous of union benefits, get your own.  No need to tear down everyone else to your level.

Well, one thing you may or may not realize, school education is VERY EXPENSIVE. It makes total sense to look at costs and deliverables. NY fails on both.
How expensive you may ask? right now, NYS public schools spend $24k per student per year - so by the end of high school (with diploma or not) it is $300k total per kid. Think about it as a loan, similar to college loan, we both are paying off from our taxes. In case you think college loans are expensive....
So if you plan to work for 36 years (3x12), it is currently $8k/year for you or me.  Compared to about $1200/working adult spending of NYSDOT
I would say this is pretty serious amount of money, and at a first glance that spending is inefficient. At a second glance, it is very inefficient....

So, now we're back to you cutting funding to our schools...

Why pay for schools when you could be on par with the likes of WV or MS...?

[abefroman329]

Imagine thinking the private sector is one giant meritocracy.

[Scott5114]

As late as 1960, the official position of the state of California was to "...reaffirm the long established principle that state colleges and the University of California shall be free to all residents of the state."