Study: Nevada losing business-friendly status
By Brian Deka, Las Vegas Sun
A cable news channel this week released its rankings of the nation’s top states for business, and the results were not kind to Nevada.
The state fell 16 places to No. 45 in this year’s CNBC rankings, which evaluate states based on factors such as infrastructure, education, quality of life, economy and the cost of doing business. The study ranked Nevada 46th overall in 2013 and 29th last year.
“The Silver State offers a ready supply of employees, but the workforce is tarnished by the worst education system in the country,” the report said.
This is what happens when you don’t have a tax structure that properly invests in infrastructure or its citizens. The Governor plan to raise taxes and invest in education is a step in the right direction.
Sooo, raising taxes helps the state become more business friendly..right?
No but neither does having a terrible school system. Low taxes alone does not attract business investment. It’s reasonable taxes that are spent well on infrastructure, education and training.
Sandoval is no fool he knows that if he does not improve the education system and reform the tax system Nevada will be left behind other states in the west.
‘The workforce is tarnished by the worst education system in the country’? The very worst, huh? Somehow I doubt that. Also, the fact is, most of that ‘workforce’ was not educated in Nevada. They all moved here from California! Now you’re talking about a lousy education system!
Dog, you once again try and score points with a false narrative by a quick quip, instead of providing some thoughtful analysis. California has one of the largest economies in the world, based on its significantly educated workforce, some of which come from out of state, but much is homegrown.
Now I will be the first to say that California, as does much of the US school system, needs improvement. California and Nevada are below the national average in per student spending, CA is 34 and Nevada is 42. There is a strong correlation with $$ spent over a period of time and education ranking. $$ do mater.
Even with the lack of spending in California, our high schools are ranked 2nd in the nation as far as the % of high schools reaching gold or silver medal status – that is the number of students that are prepared for college. Does that make California perfect, no simply for a significant segment of the population they are doing pretty well. The school systems in this state and across the nation need some retooling – I, as to many others welcome innovated ideas. See http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/how-states-compare
Rick
Rick, your patience is remarkable.
The fifth largest economy in the world (California) also has the largest state university system in the country. The high school graduation rate in California is about 80% (2013-2014), in Nevada about 70%. (Governing.com) Yes there are more people in the Great State of California, but there is more opportunity through higher education which Nevada just can’t match. This leads to better jobs, obviously.
There are 30 undergraduate State universities in California, compared to two in Nevada. Cal and UCLA are excel at every level compared to Nevada. Spend the money on Education like Sandoval is trying to do, improve the business environment. Do you think Austin, Texas would be where it is without UT? Yet Dog loves to shoot from the hip without facts, no more taxes, although we pay less than in the 70’s. It shows in infrastructure, services, and enforcement of laws.
Dogula, this is exactly why measure F was so important. Education is the back bone of economic development. With out it, you have nothing.
Dogula is looking for Mister Mad Max in Libertarian Land.
Correlation does not equal causation. If spending more money guaranteed better results, New York would have the best educated kids in the world. Alaska’s second, and they’re always cryin’ the blues. ‘Lack of spending’ is NOT the problem. They spend plenty. Especially if you look into how much less it costs to go to most private primary schools.
Regarding measure F, I wonder how anybody ever learned to read before there were public community colleges, public universities, public primary schools? Gee, without government we’d all be illiterate? *snort*
It’s not how much you spend, it’s how you allocate your resources.
Expenditures and educational outcomes is complex, and many older studies have been flawed in their analysis. If anyone wishes to review this 72 page PowerPoint, you might become exposed to the complexities of unraveling monies and education. In the end, spending money for quality teachers seems to be well supported by the research. This is chapter 12 of someones research and provides all footnotes of the research papers that were cited to develop the analysis:
“With research clearly affirming that school funding carefully targeted on enhancing teaching quality, designing appropriate school organization, and providing comfortable facilities make a measurable difference in student achievement, communities and school leaders find serious challenges to finding additional resources to support public education”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEgQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.odu.edu%2F~wowings%2Fschool%2520finance%2520ppt%2FChapter%252012%2520-%2520Spending%2520Student%2520Achievement.ppt&ei=7sSRVfWiIpKqogSG65rICg&usg=AFQjCNGrefRsW4KeOecJBA8j6YClMltjcw&bvm=bv.96783405,d.cGU
So yes, spending money in the right way, does make a difference.
Rick
Rick, Great post! and Thanks.