Economic Competitiveness

[brick]

Gee. What a statement! I live in RI and send my kids to public school. You're telling me and thousands of other parents in RI that we don't care about our kids' education? You are quite mistaken. We care deeply.

In the end, I would say that a student's academic level is 50% student, 30% environment, and 20% teaching. Maybe the percentages are a little off, but whatever. So sure it's possible for very good students to roll through the system. And for the record I think this side debate is interesting. But what none of what you guys are posting addresses is how the low education level of RIer's as a whole (not just specific schools, people, or jurisdiction) affects the ability of the state as a whole to remain ecnomically competitive with other states. That's the only reason I even brought it up.

[Cotuit]

But what none of what you guys are posting addresses is how the low education level of RIer's as a whole (not just specific schools, people, or jurisdiction) affects the ability of the state as a whole to remain ecnomically competitive with other states. That's the only reason I even brought it up.

Business leaders have expressed that they have no problems filling high level jobs that require a specific quality education (there are plenty of well-educated people in Rhode Island). And they have no problem filling low-level menial jobs (there are plenty of people with limited skills). Where they have a problem is finding people for mid-level jobs. They need to pick up the education slack by sending people to remedial classes. It's hard to find an administrative assistant for instance that can write properly and has good computer skills and good phone skills.

[Baines]

This is a well-intentioned rant, I guess, but in the end you come to basically the same conclusion. RI has potential but also has several obstacles.

Also, I've lived in 3 countries and 5 U.S. states. I'm guessing I have a wider breadth of knowledge about the world outside RI than you do, so I'd thank you for not pushing forward a condescending argument based on a completely incorrect assumption. I'm not even a native of RI.

Is a change in attitude going to change the fact that RI schools, in general, do suck? They are ok in general from grades K-4 where the delineation between states is less pronounced, but above that they are bad. Yes, you can go to Barrington or East Greenwich or a few other select communities and still get a good education. It still doesn't compare to the best school systems in the surrounding states. This is not a RI self-lamentation. This is the well-documented opinion of every expert that weighs in on the subject, and if you believe in the NAEP, it is a well documented fact. In 2003, RI ranked 37th in the nation in NAEP combined scores both at 4th and 8th grade levels. Now, it's fine if you think the NAEP is worthless, and if you think that every expert in the field is wrong, but don't go around making your argument based on seeing no evidence. Google "RI education" "RI development", etc. You will find plenty of articles about the generally sorry state of the educational system.

FWIW, other NE rankings: MA 1, NH 3, VT 5, CT 10, ME 13, NJ 16, NY 21, PA 28, DE 29, MD 31. I stand by my statement.

Rather than tossing around ad hominem insults, it might be worth taking the time to actually think about an issue or at least do the first bit of research.

Easy there...no one needs to be reprimanded here. I have lived in 2 nations and 3 other states and am not a RIander...There was no ranting or condensending tone or insults; just a spirited comment.

It should comfort you to know I have 20 years of governmental and educational research. I simply did not have the same facts in front of me at the moment but other indexes (some dated, some limited scope, some quite encouraging) and was trying to make a larger point - one of perspective and attitude driving the issue itself. This issue is in fact a complicated one that is full of interpretations (Florida, where I am an educator now, is a great example) that can have many conclusions and solution strategies.

My simple point was that an attitude change towards education is required before an across the board change can take place. Sorry to walk into your path.

[brick]

Business leaders have expressed that they have no problems filling high level jobs that require a specific quality education (there are plenty of well-educated people in Rhode Island). And they have no problem filling low-level menial jobs (there are plenty of people with limited skills). Where they have a problem is finding people for mid-level jobs. They need to pick up the education slack by sending people to remedial classes. It's hard to find an administrative assistant for instance that can write properly and has good computer skills and good phone skills.

Yeah, I think the real gap is in "blue-collar" workers. We have talked in the past about how blue collar nowadays is cubicle jobs, at least in areas where manufacturing/industrial is no longer a big employer. One of the big differences between clerical blue collar and shop floor blue collar is that you need to have a basic set of literacy and math skills to really do clerical work. 50 years ago, anyone with a strong back and a work ethic could get a job. Now it's a little more difficult. This ties into the problem with non-English speaking residents as we discussed in other threads.

[MikeR]

It's refreshing to see many individuals on this board talk about this - it's good to see people get involved in this - my advice to all is this: educate yourself as much as possible. The report by the Education Partnership I've referred to in the link in my previous post is an excellent place to start. Inform your local state senator/representative your feeling on the matter (the General Assembly has more power over the Governor on this issue). Tell them you want real reform, and don't be afraid to let them know your knowledge on the matter. You'll be surprised how much elected officals will react once they know citizens have educated and empowered themselves on the matter. You'll read and hear a lot more on this subject very soon, as local communities are feeling the pain. I'll be involved in starting the budget review process in Tiverton again in about 10 days...and look at what I have to start with!

http://www.projo.com/eastbay/content/projo...6.1d1fb4c8.html

[Cotuit]

http://www.projo.com/eastbay/content/projo...6.1d1fb4c8.html

and a tax increase to meet it would exceed the state-mandated cap.

Well that says it all right there. The state and the feds lay down their mandates and when it comes to funding...

[runawayjim]

a problem that's occurring in CT (or at least was around the time i moved to RI) is that schools are doing away with competitiveness for the students. the high school in my hometown of branford (an upper-middleclass suburb of new haven) did away with class rank and class divisions (honors classes for example). the elementary school i attended, which is a private, catholic school, recently did away with people getting honors and high honors for their grades. while i was there, they used to do it for everyone in grades 3-8, but switched it to 6-8 because it "made kids feel bad". they also started giving out awards to 8th graders to the top several kids in each subject instead of just the kid with the highest grade (what they did when i was there). children these days are being babied, it's ridiculous. they need to learn to suck it up if they got a bad grade. grades mean nothing now.

[Cotuit]

Do you think the mayor has been lurking in this thread?

ProJo article about the Mayor's letter to the Governor

Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal countered Cicilline's comments by saying that Rhode Island "spends with the best but often performs with the worst,"

Yes Mr. Neal, that's the problem. Tell your boss to get a man on this performing with the worst issue.

This year, he said, the city will benefit from the sale of the Dunkin' Donuts Center, which will provide about y$28 million that the city could spend on education.

And next year? And what should Pawtucket sell to pay for education? What should Woonsocket sell?

Shouldn't be surprised, this is exactly the way the state funds RIPTA, year-to-year crisis-to-crisis. Shows that the Governor really cares about poor people.

[gregw]

You go, Cotuit!

ProJo article about the Mayor's letter to the Governor

Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal countered Cicilline's comments by saying that Rhode Island "spends with the best but often performs with the worst,"

Yes Mr. Neal, that's the problem. Tell your boss to get a man on this performing with the worst issue.

This year, he said, the city will benefit from the sale of the Dunkin' Donuts Center, which will provide about y$28 million that the city could spend on education.

And next year? And what should Pawtucket sell to pay for education? What should Woonsocket sell?

Shouldn't be surprised, this is exactly the way the state funds RIPTA, year-to-year crisis-to-crisis. Shows that the Governor really cares about poor people.

[Garris]

a problem that's occurring in CT (or at least was around the time i moved to RI) is that schools are doing away with competitiveness for the students.

This is happening in New York too, according to family members who are teachers. NY used to have a Board of Regents that set educational standards, and there used to be "standard" high school diplomas and "Regents" level high school diplomas, with higher standards.

Several years ago, New York decided (appropriately) that all students should graduate with the more stringent Regents diplomas. When it became clear that, during a transition period, many students weren't going to do well with this, they just decided to water down the Regents standards. Magically, those students now do much better and no feelings are hurt. Many teachers are angry about this and similar changes.

Editorialist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is fond of telling a representative story from a teacher that on her teacher-parent conference night, she had three parents come in. The first set of parents are Russian-born and tell the teacher that they are disappointed that the school isn't giving enough homework and that the education isn't nearly as good as the best Russian preparatory schools. The second parents are Chinese-born, and tell the teacher the same thing. The third set of parents are American-born, and are complaining that their son has way too much homework and is too busy doing it, having insufficient time for sports, "chilling out," and "finding himself."

This is going to take a huge cultural shift in the US, and especially in traditionally educationally underperforming states like Michigan and Rhode Island. The only way to economic success is through rigorous standards, hard work, and top flight education. Anything less is consigning ourselves and our kids to a third world future.

- Garris

[Recchia]

Edward Achorn article about RI "refusing to improve"

http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/co...ho.d777b0b.html

[MikeR]

Edward Achorn article about RI "refusing to improve"

http://www.projo.com/opinion/columnists/co...ho.d777b0b.html

His ending sentence is right on:

"If your elected officials insist on keeping Rhode Island among the lowest-performing states, this November is the time to flunk them, by making a change."

Recchia - great article. Thanks for posting!!!

[gregw]

One thing's for sure: the Report has a discernible pro-business and anti-labor slant.

One of the faults of RI, according to the Report, is that the minimum wage at $6.75 is "too high."

Another strike against Rhode Island is that personal incomes above $319,000 are taxed at 9.9 percent. According to PBN, in Massachusetts and Connecticut the personal income tax that level stands at 5.3 percent and 5 percent respectively.

I don't see how anyone in RI can survive on less than $6.75 an hour or why anyone earning over 319K can't cough up 9.9% on income in excess of this amount to pay for public services.

[runawayjim]

One thing's for sure: the Report has a discernible pro-business and anti-labor slant.

One of the faults of RI, according to the Report, is that the minimum wage at $6.75 is "too high."

Another strike against Rhode Island is that personal incomes above $319,000 are taxed at 9.9 percent. According to PBN, in Massachusetts and Connecticut the personal income tax that level stands at 5.3 percent and 5 percent respectively.

I don't see how anyone in RI can survive on less than $6.75 an hour or why anyone earning over 319K can't cough up 9.9% on income in excess of this amount to pay for public services.

i don't see how anyone otehr than high school and college kids can survive on anything less than $10 an hour. you certainly can't rent on your own for that.

and those who make $319k think it's unfair for them to pay out 9.9%. so for someone who makes $319k a year, $30k is a joke to them. i think they can handle it pretty well... of course then you get the "other" argument that says that their living expenses are higher... HA!

[Garris]

and those who make $319k think it's unfair for them to pay out 9.9%. so for someone who makes $319k a year, $30k is a joke to them. i think they can handle it pretty well...

30K isn't a joke to anyone.

And the editorial (which was outstanding, BTW... It's already in my saved file) makes the point about competitiveness. If your salary was the threshold at which neighboring states (some of which might be as short a drive away as 5-10 minutes from your workplaced) taxed it at a rate of 4-5% less, where would you live?

I'd rather have those people making 350K a year living here to pay those taxes, at any rate, to RI rather than to MA or CT or NH.

You can make the same argument for anything... Business taxes, sales taxes, etc. At some point, you have to give up the fairness argument and compete.

- Garris

[Jerry2]

One thing's for sure: the Report has a discernible pro-business and anti-labor slant.

One of the faults of RI, according to the Report, is that the minimum wage at $6.75 is "too high."

Another strike against Rhode Island is that personal incomes above $319,000 are taxed at 9.9 percent. According to PBN, in Massachusetts and Connecticut the personal income tax that level stands at 5.3 percent and 5 percent respectively.

I don't see how anyone in RI can survive on less than $6.75 an hour or why anyone earning over 319K can't cough up 9.9% on income in excess of this amount to pay for public services.

Rhode Island does need someone who can shake it up here and bring real tax and infrastructure reform. Carcieri is not as aggressive as I had hoped he would be....and the fact is that many people in that upper tax bracket scrutinize every penny that goes out. Many have accumulated their wealth, assets, and income from years of sacrifice. In a state 24 miles wide and 48 miles long, it is very easy for business executives to think of other places( Massachusetts)to set up shop. There are other options, esp. when 1/10 of the ENTIRE U.S. population live within 250 miles of Providence.. What really needs to be done here in order to change? I'm an independent as I don't believe in political parties, but I think there are a few ways that we could cut taxes to be more competitive with neighboring states and not feel a loss.

1.) End ESL and bilingual ed in R.I.

2.) Payment-in-lieu-of taxes for all non-profits(hospitals, colleges,etc.)

3.) True welfare abolishment

4.) Mortgage tax on all refinances and purchases like in N.Y. (curbs predatory lending, over-appreciated markets, equity flipping, and ultimately brings lower taxes...They pay up front,but are compensated w/ lower property taxes.)

5.) Terminate all state office leases on properties all over Prov. metro to combine them into 1 building. It would initially cost $$, but the funds would pay for themselves quickly.

6.) Cut state income tax to 4% ..

7.) End pension plans for all city employees. Plans still in existence could be rolled over to a 401K.

Any thoughts?

[brick]

30K isn't a joke to anyone.

If my salary were going to jump into levels where I was paying significantly more in RI than I do in MA, I would move over the border in a flash.

If I were starting a company and needed to attract high salaried people, they would look at that fact and I would have to pay them extra to compensate. So then I may as well set up shop in Attleboro.

These are relevant facts to RI's competitiveness.

[Baines]

If my salary were going to jump into levels where I was paying significantly more in RI than I do in MA, I would move over the border in a flash.

If I were starting a company and needed to attract high salaried people, they would look at that fact and I would have to pay them extra to compensate. So then I may as well set up shop in Attleboro.

These are relevant facts to RI's competitiveness.

Those are very real triggers to employee recruitment and retention; and thus corporate re-location decisions.

The only "saving grace" Providence (and northern part of its metro) has is that employees can live in the MA part of the metro and commute. But that is a poor fall back position in the absence of the attitude change I have cited in the past.

Providence (and by extension and necessity, RI) is full of enormous potential being minimized by that RI mentality - is there a hope of political and cultural change?

Imagine a tax structure that tips the scale - just enough to draw attention.

[gregw]

First of all, 30K is chump change for some people. And besides, someone in RI earning 319,000 doesn't pay 10% of their income in state taxes. The 10% marginal rate only kicks in on money earned above that amount.

Second, rich people got to where they are through hard work and sacrifice. Hmm. In some cases, but how about Paris Hilton? Man, is she sacrificing!

So some are saying that because RI has a higher marginal tax rate than MA, RI clearly needs to lower its rate because rich people will flee across the border and take their money with them.

I dunno. Driving around Jamestown, Newport, Bristol, Little Compton, Barrington, the East Side, it doesn't look as though this is exactly happening.

Why? Because people don't base their actions on purely economic terms. If so, no one--I mean no one-- would live in Providence with its high property and excise taxes. We'd all be leaving in droves for Alabama!

Now, should RI cut taxes on those people who earn >319,000?

If you say so, you must also accept the consequences of this. You are endorsing cutting money that might otherwise be earmarked for heating assistance to the poor, money to provide counseling for abused children in DCYF, money for RIPTA, money to pay for art and music for kindergarteners, money to enforce environmental laws, money for the state police to patrol the highways, etc.

Someone said it's not about fairness. I guess fairness is just one of those quaint ideas that has no place in the society that people like Grover Norquist are trying to create in America.

[Garris]

So some are saying that because RI has a higher marginal tax rate than MA, RI clearly needs to lower its rate because rich people will flee across the border and take their money with them.

I dunno. Driving around Jamestown, Newport, Bristol, Little Compton, Barrington, the East Side, it doesn't look as though this is exactly happening.

Why? Because people don't base their actions on purely economic terms. If so, no one--I mean no one-- would live in Providence with its high property and excise taxes. We'd all be leaving in droves for Alabama!

You are right, people don't base actions on purely economic terms. That's perhaps the primary thing keeping people in the RI towns you list, and often through gritted teeth. I know one physician who lives on the East Side whose wife is driving him nuts wanting to move them to MA where they've have better schools and, with their calculations, some more disposable income. I know someone else whose husband is driving her nuts wanting to move from Lincoln to Wrentham, MA for much the same reason. I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of my head who have moved to MA from RI for tax and/or cost of living/quality of living reasons.

When was the last time you heard someone saying something like, "I live in Taunton, but crunching the numbers, with the tax structure, business opportunities, and schools in RI, we're planning to move there soon." I've never heard this personally...

That's the point of many on the board. RI and Providence have fabulous beauty, architecture, institutions, higher ed, culture, restaurants, history, etc. But it isn't manifest destiny... This is a competition for dollars, and with corrections to our cost structure and education systems, this place could just explode with potential rather than just being merely "attractive."

Oh, and people are flocking in droves to places like Alabama (a former co-worker of mine just moved there from NY... It cut her costs of living by 60% with a 20% higher salary), Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, etc for purely economic reasons. We're loosing companies, tax dollars, and perhaps most importantly, House seats to those states. With those lower cost structures they have, I don't think with this influx that they're having trouble funding the poor, counseling for abused children, mass transit, the arts, the state police, etc. You need flourishing and growing companies and communities to fill those coffers, not static populations of small affluent ghettos.

Now, should RI cut taxes on those people who earn >319,000?

If you say so, you must also accept the consequences of this.

Someone said it's not about fairness. I guess fairness is just one of those quaint ideas that has no place in the society that people like Grover Norquist are trying to create in America.

If surrounding states are killing us on this issue, than absolutely cut that tax rate, and I accept in full the consequences (in part because if the state grows as a result, I don't think they'll be many). Listen, I'm as progressive and Left as they come, but I have a rudimentary understanding of economics and realize we have to compete. I love fairness, but we do the nation as a whole no favors (and certainly not ourselves) if we hold out on principle and get clobbered in the marketplace.

My father used to be a human resources exec for a Fortune 500 company in the 80's and later for high tech concerns in the 90's and I watched him ache to try to recruit talent to the high cost NYC metro area while companies in North Carolina, Kansas, Florida, Dallas, etc were able to offer people more money and 40-70% lower costs of living (and without sacrificing "sophistication" either, in places like Chapel Hill, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Tampa, etc). It used to kill him, and he used to rail against NY state economic policy regarding taxes, energy costs, school costs, credentialing (for professionals) hurtles, etc... Those other states, regions, etc could just easily offer better packages and were far more nimble and aggressive in recruiting companies, talent, and capitol.

Listen, we collectively decide our fate in a democracy and we the people have allowed "the wealthy" to run to the bank while allowing ourselves to be distracted by conservative hot button issues like abortion and family values. I think it was Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT who said that history will see as sheer genious the Republican strategy of convincing the vast majority of Americans to vote for politicians who represent principles diametrically opposed to their own economic self interest. The answer to this is always the answer in a democracy. But until CT, MA, and NH vote out their own, we're stuck...

- Garris

[brick]

Listen, we collectively decide our fate in a democracy and we the people have allowed "the wealthy" to run to the bank while allowing ourselves to be distracted by conservative hot button issues like abortion and family values.

Being socially progressive and being econmically socialist are two different things. I think it is a fallacy to associate free market economics with conservative social policies. There are plenty of libertarians who would like to pay a lot less taxes and also not have the government telling them what they can and can't do all the time.

I find it funny, no offense, that most doctors and lawyers end up liberal, even though they take just about the most advantage of free market systems. (I know there are entertainers and the like) I mean, imagine if someone came out with a system and said, if we cap doctor pay at $100K and apply all of tha tsavings to the working poor, they won't have to pay health insurance. That would be an amazingly great social program...and noone would go to med school.

[runawayjim]

saw a report on abc6 tonight...

top 3 worst cities for children or children in poverty or something. i know it was related to poverty.

1. hartford

2. brownsville, texas

3. providence tied with new orleans

[gregw]

You're right, Garris, that RI must not rest on its laurels and that it needs to be competitive.

There are things that RI can do to be competitive (which I mention below) and some things that it cannot do.

It cannot compete with Alabama in terms of cost of living/housing.

Paul Krugman in the NY Times differentiates between zoned land and flat land. In flat land, where Alabama is or for that matter Las Vegas, the cost of buying a house pretty much parallels the cost of construction. RI, like MA, CT, NY or much of CA, is zoned land: it's built out; what isn't built out is in short supply because of zoning and so the housing market reflects low supply/high demand. That's not going to change any time soon. Anyone who looks at things on a purely economic level, whether a person or Honda Motors, is going to set up in cheap flatland. Zoned land has quality of life and other less tangible benefits.

Back to RI's poor competitiveness relative to its peers in zoned land: I don't buy that it is in any significant way tied to too-high top-rate marginal income tax rates, which are fair and considerably lower than they were a decade ago. Statistically speaking, few taxpayers in RI or even in MA fall into this category.

Instead, I see RI's problems being more tied to other and more burdensome forms of taxation, a state government dominated by special interests, and underperforming public education.

If you want to introduce effective tax relief to RI, you have to do it through property tax, sales tax, and excise tax reductions.

These forms of revenue are either less progressive (real estate/excise) or outright regressive (sales) compared to income tax. They impact the average (and even affluent) taxpayer much more than the 10% hit on incomes over 319K.

Lowering these taxes stands the potential of putting more money back into the economy as opposed to giving tax breaks to the wealthiest who are inclined to put it in assets.

In addition to lowering these more regressive taxes, the state could find some ways to save money:

The state could be far more proactive in encouraging municipalities to pool resources in order to cut costs and avoid duplicating services. There is in my mind no reason for RI to have 38 different school districts when the state has a smaller population than many large cities.

The state ought to renegotiate employee pension and healthcare packages and to use its leverage to force municipalities to do likewise (such as holding back state dollars if local contracts are not tied to a state formula that defines acceptable copays, colas, etc.)

Although some complaints of gross govt inefficiency are overstated, the state could make a greater short-term investment in IT (such as migrating more DMV services to the web) while reaping a long-term reduction in HR costs. In Michigan, you can go to a kiosk at almost any mall and get all your DMV paperwork done.

As far as improving competitiveness on the education front, a few useful steps:

The state needs to establish an equivalent of the MCAS, which will hold students to a standard in order to graduate. This will undoubtedly cost more in the short run as the state will have to commit more money to education but the state will benefit from a long term increase in the education of its workforce.

Also the state should truly revitalize vocational education. Not everyone has to go to college. Train kids in careers that are technical/blue-collar but unlikely to be outsourced.

Part of the problem with low performance and high drop-out rates is that a lot of kids are not that interested in learning for its own sake. Do we let them drop out and work at Wendy's or become street pharmacists or do we appeal to their practical senses by offering them training to be mechanics, beauticians. etc?

A lot of them might then own their own business some day and contribute to the state by being taxpayers as opposed to costing the state by filling up cells at the ACI. They'll be complaining about taxes rather than costing taxpayers money!

There should be no quota on the number of charter schools in the state. While there is truth in the concern that charters skim off a lot of the cream of the public system, they also provide affordable competition which gives parents and kids more options and a greater chance of getting a decent education.

Obviously much of this is easier said than done.

The General Assembly is beholden to special interests. Towns will jealously guard their control over their own school districts. State workers will complain about any modest hit to their benefit packages/working conditions. Teacher unions will resist any change or reforms. The Governor still acts like he's running for office rather than actually governing. I think a lot of the solutions to RI's poor performance are pretty straightforward on paper. But putting them into effect is very, very difficult.

[Recchia]

RI adds 3,800 jobs in 2005, mostly in education and health services

[CtownMikey]

Did anyone read the governor's 2 speeches on Projo.com?

They seemed very encouraging