Wages compared to 30 years ago

[ProfJohn]

hmmm more on the idea that illegal immigration might play a part in this...
from Wiki

Paul Samuelson, a Nobel prize-winning economist from MIT, asserts that there is no unitary, singular effect, good or bad, that arises from illegal immigration, but instead a variety of effects on Americans depending on their economic class. Samuelson posits that wealthier Americans tend to benefit from the illegal influx, while poorer Americans tend to suffer.[21]

Research by George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, shows that illegal aliens increasing the supply of low skilled labor had a long-term reduction of wages among American poor citizens during the 1980s and 1990s by 4.8% [17] and, according to an op-ed by him in the New York Times, their wages will reduce much further if border security is reduced[18]. The supply of illegal alien labor has disproportionately affected certain groups of American citizens such as black and Hispanic poor with whom they compete for jobs.

If these 10 million people went *poof* then companies would have to pay more in order to attract workers which means that every company up the line would have to follow suit.

I would guess that this has a far greater impact on income than globalization.

BTW We don't have to send all the illegals home, we just need to greatly reduce the flow of them and with time wages will go up as the labor supply grows tighter.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
hmmm more on the idea that illegal immigration might play a part in this...
from Wiki

Paul Samuelson, a Nobel prize-winning economist from MIT, asserts that there is no unitary, singular effect, good or bad, that arises from illegal immigration, but instead a variety of effects on Americans depending on their economic class. Samuelson posits that wealthier Americans tend to benefit from the illegal influx, while poorer Americans tend to suffer.[21]

Research by George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, shows that illegal aliens increasing the supply of low skilled labor had a long-term reduction of wages among American poor citizens during the 1980s and 1990s by 4.8% [17] and, according to an op-ed by him in the New York Times, their wages will reduce much further if border security is reduced[18]. The supply of illegal alien labor has disproportionately affected certain groups of American citizens such as black and Hispanic poor with whom they compete for jobs.

If these 10 million people went *poof* then companies would have to pay more in order to attract workers which means that every company up the line would have to follow suit.

I would guess that this has a far greater impact on income than globalization.

BTW We don't have to send all the illegals home, we just need to greatly reduce the flow of them and with time wages will go up as the labor supply grows tighter.

I would agree with that assessment of those facts, but for me illegals are basically part of globalization. If the companies can't get the wages they want they will just go overseas for more labor. We have nothing that forces employers to stay here in the U.S. except for work that must be done here. This will then lead to the ones that can leave will leave, and pay will remain where it's at. I could be wrong, but I do not see many companies keeping call center jobs here if they had to pay $14-$20 an hour for those workers. I do think your idea is worth a shot though and I do agree no one has THE answer.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
hmmm more on the idea that illegal immigration might play a part in this...
from Wiki

Paul Samuelson, a Nobel prize-winning economist from MIT, asserts that there is no unitary, singular effect, good or bad, that arises from illegal immigration, but instead a variety of effects on Americans depending on their economic class. Samuelson posits that wealthier Americans tend to benefit from the illegal influx, while poorer Americans tend to suffer.[21]

Research by George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University, shows that illegal aliens increasing the supply of low skilled labor had a long-term reduction of wages among American poor citizens during the 1980s and 1990s by 4.8% [17] and, according to an op-ed by him in the New York Times, their wages will reduce much further if border security is reduced[18]. The supply of illegal alien labor has disproportionately affected certain groups of American citizens such as black and Hispanic poor with whom they compete for jobs.

If these 10 million people went *poof* then companies would have to pay more in order to attract workers which means that every company up the line would have to follow suit.

I would guess that this has a far greater impact on income than globalization.

BTW We don't have to send all the illegals home, we just need to greatly reduce the flow of them and with time wages will go up as the labor supply grows tighter.

Instead, they will just outsource the jobs elsewhere. Companies that hire illegals for less than minimum wage aren't willing to pay minimum wage. The only way to combat Globalization is to make sure that most of our children are college educated. To do that, we need more funding for education. We also need to make sure that our children grow up in a healthy environment, which means more funding for daycare, afterschool, food stamps, and health care.

 

[ProfJohn]

I believe that most of the jobs done by illegals are jobs you can't out source. Such as crop picking, yard work etc etc.

Does anyone have any REAL numbers on outsourcing? I think the whole outsourcing thing is more scare than reality.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe that most of the jobs done by illegals are jobs you can't out source. Such as crop picking, yard work etc etc.

I would agree with this, but my point was if those jobs were available because illegals went *poof* I believe we would see more jobs that are able to be outsourced (usually better paying then farm work) leaving this country because wages would be too high to compete on the global market.

Does anyone have any REAL numbers on outsourcing? I think the whole outsourcing thing is more scare than reality.

Real Data on outsourcing is hard to come by. Companies do not always release the reason a job was eliminated they just say it was eliminated.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe that most of the jobs done by illegals are jobs you can't out source. Such as crop picking, yard work etc etc.

Does anyone have any REAL numbers on outsourcing? I think the whole outsourcing thing is more scare than reality.

I don't have any numbers, but let me give you a personal story. Around 10 years ago, my Grandma used to work in textile "sweat shops" in NYC. They weren't really sweat shops, but they paid minimum wage. Appparently, minimum wage wasn't good enough. The shops closed by the dozens. My grandma soon couldn't find any work. Every textile shop was closing down. Now my grandma is retired, living on SS, but thats just one example of outsourcing draining jobs from the US. In a few years, thousands of jobs in the textile industry in NYC were lost.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Globalization. Globalization is good. However, we need to stop giving out tax cuts to big buisinesses, and start using our tax money to fund programs that will help us combat the job losses that globalization will eventually bring.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe that most of the jobs done by illegals are jobs you can't out source. Such as crop picking, yard work etc etc.

Does anyone have any REAL numbers on outsourcing? I think the whole outsourcing thing is more scare than reality.

I don't have any numbers, but let me give you a personal story. Around 10 years ago, my Grandma used to work in textile "sweat shops" in NYC. They weren't really sweat shops, but they paid minimum wage. Appparently, minimum wage wasn't good enough. The shops closed by the dozens. My grandma soon couldn't find any work. Every textile shop was closing down. Now my grandma is retired, living on SS, but thats just one example of outsourcing draining jobs from the US. In a few years, thousands of jobs in the textile industry in NYC were lost.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Globalization. Globalization is good. However, we need to stop giving out tax cuts to big buisinesses, and start using our tax money to fund programs that will help us combat the job losses that globalization will eventually bring.

I'm not quite sure I get what you mean, could you give an example?

BTW, why was your grandmother working at a low skill job for minimum wage, did she spend her whole life as a stay at home Mom? She must have been more qualified than that, I'd think.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe that most of the jobs done by illegals are jobs you can't out source. Such as crop picking, yard work etc etc.

Does anyone have any REAL numbers on outsourcing? I think the whole outsourcing thing is more scare than reality.

I don't have any numbers, but let me give you a personal story. Around 10 years ago, my Grandma used to work in textile "sweat shops" in NYC. They weren't really sweat shops, but they paid minimum wage. Appparently, minimum wage wasn't good enough. The shops closed by the dozens. My grandma soon couldn't find any work. Every textile shop was closing down. Now my grandma is retired, living on SS, but thats just one example of outsourcing draining jobs from the US. In a few years, thousands of jobs in the textile industry in NYC were lost.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Globalization. Globalization is good. However, we need to stop giving out tax cuts to big buisinesses, and start using our tax money to fund programs that will help us combat the job losses that globalization will eventually bring.

I'm not quite sure I get what you mean, could you give an example?

BTW, why was your grandmother working at a low skill job for minimum wage, did she spend her whole life as a stay at home Mom? She must have been more qualified than that, I'd think.

My grandmother was an immigrant. She immigrated in 1985, and spent 16 years working low skill minimum wage jobs. Her english skills allowed her to hold a very basic level of conversation, but you could hear obvoius grammar and pronounciation mistakes.

As for funding, I'm talking about education. We need to fund education with free community colleges. We need to make sure that our children grow up healthy, with enough food on their tables, and basic health insurance. We need to make sure that they stay off the streets with better afterschool and daycare programs.

There will obviously be job and income loss that will hurt the poor and lower middle class. We can't do much about those jobs. What we can do is make sure that those people have food on their tables, affordable housing, and a hope for thier children.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp
As for funding, I'm talking about education. We need to fund education with free community colleges. We need to make sure that our children grow up healthy, with enough food on their tables, and basic health insurance. We need to make sure that they stay off the streets with better afterschool and daycare programs.

There will obviously be job and income loss that will hurt the poor and lower middle class. We can't do much about those jobs. What we can do is make sure that those people have food on their tables, affordable housing, and a hope for thier children.

All that stuff is great, but there is virtually no way for the government to provide all of it properly.
Look at home much money we spend on education in places like New York City and Washington DC. WAY more than we have to and yet the results we guy suck.

I would like to see the government work to find a way to provide health insurance to lower income Americans. This would be far better than a total government take over of our healthcare system. But I don?t really think this will solve many of the problems in our inner cities.

Finally, the idea that the government can provide ?hope for their children? is foolish. The parents have to provide the hope; the government can?t replace the job of parents when it comes to that. The reason so many of our poor inner city youths are failing is because their parents are failing them. We have a HUGE cultural problem in our poor black communities and it will take years if not a generation or more to fix these problems.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
As for funding, I'm talking about education. We need to fund education with free community colleges. We need to make sure that our children grow up healthy, with enough food on their tables, and basic health insurance. We need to make sure that they stay off the streets with better afterschool and daycare programs.

There will obviously be job and income loss that will hurt the poor and lower middle class. We can't do much about those jobs. What we can do is make sure that those people have food on their tables, affordable housing, and a hope for thier children.

All that stuff is great, but there is virtually no way for the government to provide all of it properly.
Look at home much money we spend on education in places like New York City and Washington DC. WAY more than we have to and yet the results we guy suck.

I would like to see the government work to find a way to provide health insurance to lower income Americans. This would be far better than a total government take over of our healthcare system. But I don?t really think this will solve many of the problems in our inner cities.

Finally, the idea that the government can provide ?hope for their children? is foolish. The parents have to provide the hope; the government can?t replace the job of parents when it comes to that. The reason so many of our poor inner city youths are failing is because their parents are failing them. We have a HUGE cultural problem in our poor black communities and it will take years if not a generation or more to fix these problems.

The New York City education system is horribly underfunded. Thats because the taxes we pay help other counties with their schools. Recently, judges have ordered the state to pay billions back to NYC, to help refund our school system. The government has only given us a fraction of that amount.

Also, you can't ignore the fact that jobs are going to go, especially low skill jobs. You are going to see increased unemployment. Thats just how it works. Wealth is eventually going to be redistributed to places like India, China, and other developing countries. There will be families that will go to ruin because they won't be able to find jobs. We can choose to help these families, or we can choose to ignore them. And, no, giving big corporations tax breaks won't help these families. Corporations are now global. Every cent givent to them isn't a cent for the US economy. Its a cent for the global market.

 

[Craig234]

ProfJohn, if you really want to know why, read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed". Are you willing to buy and read a book for this info?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp
The New York City education system is horribly underfunded. Thats because the taxes we pay help other counties with their schools. Recently, judges have ordered the state to pay billions back to NYC, to help refund our school system. The government has only given us a fraction of that amount.

Your joking with that line right?

New York spends more per student than nearly every other city in the country.
Link

New York spends an average of $14,119 a year on each student, more than any other state in the nation ? and local school districts beat even that.

According to the most recent U.S. Census data, the Empire State spent 62 percent more than the national per-pupil spending average of $8,701.

In 2004-2005 (last year numbers are available) NY was third in the nation in per pupil spending.
They were highest in the nation in "instruction' spending at $9,722 per student, compared to the national average of $5,303.
And amongst the highest in 'support services' at $4,079 per student, verse $3,043 average for the entire country.

I don't think the problem here is money.

(All this data is for the entire state of New York, not the city.)
I can't find recent data on the city, but in 2000 the city was spending over 30% more than the average of the next largest 99 school districts.
Furthermore, the city had about as many students in 2000 as it did in the 1950s, yet it has 3 times as many teachers and 24 times as many 'support staff' as it did in 1950.
The problem isn't having enough money, the problem is how that money is spent and the power the school unions have over the system.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
The New York City education system is horribly underfunded. Thats because the taxes we pay help other counties with their schools. Recently, judges have ordered the state to pay billions back to NYC, to help refund our school system. The government has only given us a fraction of that amount.

Your joking with that line right?

New York spends more per student than nearly every other city in the country.
Link

New York spends an average of $14,119 a year on each student, more than any other state in the nation ? and local school districts beat even that.

According to the most recent U.S. Census data, the Empire State spent 62 percent more than the national per-pupil spending average of $8,701.

In 2004-2005 (last year numbers are available) NY was third in the nation in per pupil spending.
They were highest in the nation in "instruction' spending at $9,722 per student, compared to the national average of $5,303.
And amongst the highest in 'support services' at $4,079 per student, verse $3,043 average for the entire country.

I don't think the problem here is money.

(All this data is for the entire state of New York, not the city.)
I can't find recent data on the city, but in 2000 the city was spending over 30% more than the average of the next largest 99 school districts.
Furthermore, the city had about as many students in 2000 as it did in the 1950s, yet it has 3 times as many teachers and 24 times as many 'support staff' as it did in 1950.
The problem isn't having enough money, the problem is how that money is spent and the power the school unions have over the system.

He did say that the city schools were losing funding so the state can fund education in other cities in the state. If your data is not broken down to city data it doesn't really prove his statement false.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, Stunt, your desperation is showing. Housing prices have obviously gone up much faster than wages, particularly in the last 7-8 years. And what people are paying on their mortgage on average doesn't reflect what it costs to buy today.

I was an adult during the whole time in question. My ex-wife and I looked at housing in 1976- 1920's vintage 3 bedroom brick bungalows in SE Denver were going for ~$40K, I was making the princely sum of $6.34/hr. Guys with the same job classification in my company now make $20/hr, but the same bungalows sell for over $250K... Back then, healthcare was paid by our employer, but today we each put in $300/mo out of our pockets, for reduced benefits, to boot...

And the very high interest rates of the early 80's were temporary, everybody knew it, and prices were correspondingly depressed. Opportunities to refinance came up, and were quickly taken advantage of. Exactly the opposite situation exists today, with interest rates still quite low and prices outrageously high. Chances for today's prices to hold and today's buyers to refinance advantageously down the road are virtually non-existent, and that's obvious to even the least savvy among us. It'll take many years for such buyers to develop any equity at all in a falling market... not to mention those caught in the creative financing scams that have become so prevalent over the last several years.

Much of the so-called "growth" in GDP over the last several years is the result of mortgage refinancing at lower rates, and an upturn in consumer spending as a result. Lots of those folks have done so to pay off other debt as well, or to allow purchases that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. Yeh, sure, it looks good, and some people did so wisely, but they're the exception rather than the rule. Unlike previous times, few of today's refi deals are for the balance outstanding, but rather for more, sometimes a lot more.

Basically, it often amounts to liquidating assets to have cash in hand, equity being an asset. Lots of people will shortly have negative equity as a result of that and unsustainable prices. What happens the next time the economy takes a nosedive, and there's no equity to cash in? Low rates won't mean much without equity to borrow against...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
The New York City education system is horribly underfunded. Thats because the taxes we pay help other counties with their schools. Recently, judges have ordered the state to pay billions back to NYC, to help refund our school system. The government has only given us a fraction of that amount.

Your joking with that line right?

New York spends more per student than nearly every other city in the country.
Link

New York spends an average of $14,119 a year on each student, more than any other state in the nation ? and local school districts beat even that.

According to the most recent U.S. Census data, the Empire State spent 62 percent more than the national per-pupil spending average of $8,701.

In 2004-2005 (last year numbers are available) NY was third in the nation in per pupil spending.
They were highest in the nation in "instruction' spending at $9,722 per student, compared to the national average of $5,303.
And amongst the highest in 'support services' at $4,079 per student, verse $3,043 average for the entire country.

I don't think the problem here is money.

(All this data is for the entire state of New York, not the city.)
I can't find recent data on the city, but in 2000 the city was spending over 30% more than the average of the next largest 99 school districts.
Furthermore, the city had about as many students in 2000 as it did in the 1950s, yet it has 3 times as many teachers and 24 times as many 'support staff' as it did in 1950.
The problem isn't having enough money, the problem is how that money is spent and the power the school unions have over the system.

The data is state only. New York City schools are horribly underfunded. Also, the city might spend more overall than any other city because it is the most populated city in the United States. We have around 8-9 million people. Compare that to LA, which has 3-4 million people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Jackace, I agree with your math...except your incomes are off;here your 2004 income is off.

Median income was $11,197 in 1974, and $44,334 in 2004.
This means 31% in 1974, 35% in 2004.

Keep in mind that 2004 was the peak of a housing bubble and right after a recession (incomes lagged, housing prices accelerated). Also, a mere 6 years later and the interest rates were 15%; same math in 1980 it's 55% of people's incomes (based on $17,700 income, 15% interest, $64,600 avg. house cost); much much higher than 1974/2004.

Needless to say, housing prices haven't inflated faster than incomes.

Originally posted by: jackace
Here is a look at rental costs. As you can see they are adjusted for inflation and 2000 is still higher then any of the previous years. You will also notice that the change from 1990-2000 was not very much. The reason....interests rates had changed and it was now affordable to buy again.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...storic/grossrents.html

Basically other then factoring in the HIGHLY inflated interest rates of 1979-1985 housing costs have been going up as a percentage of median income and not down as you claim stunt.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Stunt, your desperation is showing.

Housing prices have obviously gone up much faster than wages, particularly in the last 7-8 years. And what people are paying on their mortgage on average doesn't reflect what it costs to buy today.

I was an adult during the whole time in question. My ex-wife and I looked at housing in 1976- 1920's vintage 3 bedroom brick bungalows in SE Denver were going for ~$40K, I was making the princely sum of $6.34/hr. Guys with the same job classification in my company now make $20/hr, but the same bungalows sell for over $250K... Back then, healthcare was paid by our employer, but today we each put in $300/mo out of our pockets, for reduced benefits, to boot...

And the very high interest rates of the early 80's were temporary, everybody knew it, and prices were correspondingly depressed. Opportunities to refinance came up, and were quickly taken advantage of. Exactly the opposite situation exists today, with interest rates still quite low and prices outrageously high. Chances for today's prices to hold and today's buyers to refinance advantageously down the road are virtually non-existent, and that's obvious to even the least savvy among us. It'll take many years for such buyers to develop any equity at all in a falling market... not to mention those caught in the creative financing scams that have become so prevalent over the last several years.

Much of the so-called "growth" in GDP over the last several years is the result of mortgage refinancing at lower rates, and an upturn in consumer spending as a result. Lots of those folks have done so to pay off other debt as well, or to allow purchases that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. Yeh, sure, it looks good, and some people did so wisely, but they're the exception rather than the rule. Unlike previous times, few of today's refi deals are for the balance outstanding, but rather for more, sometimes a lot more.

Basically, it often amounts to liquidating assets to have cash in hand, equity being an asset. Lots of people will shortly have negative equity as a result of that and unsustainable prices. What happens the next time the economy takes a nosedive, and there's no equity to cash in? Low rates won't mean much without equity to borrow against...

Multiple people showing hard data facts to a foriegner clearly showing how wrong he is yet he continues to stand by his wrong garbage and spew more.

Did he post why he posts false economic data for a country he is not even in and what is the agenda for doing so???

 

[GoPackGo]

You forget the crap factor.

In 1974, there wasn't as much crap to buy or as many stores to buy them in.

There was no Internet.
Most didn't have cable TV.
Almost all didn't have a cellphone.


They call the 80's the decade of excess...well the 2000's I think has it beaten down pretty hard.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp
The data is state only. New York City schools are horribly underfunded. Also, the city might spend more overall than any other city because it is the most populated city in the United States. We have around 8-9 million people. Compare that to LA, which has 3-4 million people.

All the numbers I quoted are per student. So the size and number of students does not matter. And according to the numbers I did find the city spends about as much as any place else in New York, just a little bit less than the state average and still more than any other large city in the country. (The state average is high due to all the rich counties around NYC spending TONS of money.)

Also you can't deny the fact that the school system has way to much 'support staff.'

Finally, I totally disagree with the liberal mindset that if there is a problem just throw more money at it. NYC and DC have been throwing money at their education systems for years and have never seen results. The problem isn't a money problem, it is a mindet problem where the unions control the system and all they care about is protecting their jobs.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
The data is state only. New York City schools are horribly underfunded. Also, the city might spend more overall than any other city because it is the most populated city in the United States. We have around 8-9 million people. Compare that to LA, which has 3-4 million people.

All the numbers I quoted are per student. So the size and number of students does not matter. And according to the numbers I did find the city spends about as much as any place else in New York, just a little bit less than the state average and still more than any other large city in the country. (The state average is high due to all the rich counties around NYC spending TONS of money.)

Also you can't deny the fact that the school system has way to much 'support staff.'

Finally, I totally disagree with the liberal mindset that if there is a problem just throw more money at it. NYC and DC have been throwing money at their education systems for years and have never seen results. The problem isn't a money problem, it is a mindet problem where the unions control the system and all they care about is protecting their jobs.

Would you please post those numbers? I highly doubt NYC has as much support staff as you would think. Currently, in NYC high schools, the average class size is around 35-40.

Everyone says NYC doesn't have enough money. Mayor Bloomberg, a billionare who has run a successful company, is saying that NYC doesn't have enough money. Currently, his appointed Chancellor is running the school system. Guess what? We don't have enough money. I highly doubt that Bloomberg would be spending on trivial expenses, and leave our class sizes at 35-40.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Today everyone can buy 2-3 cars and the vehicle represents about a third of their income;

Everyone? I want to live where you do!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Multiple people showing hard data facts to a foriegner clearly showing how wrong he is yet he continues to stand by his wrong garbage and spew more.

Did he post why he posts false economic data for a country he is not even in and what is the agenda for doing so???

I fail to see the relevance of this "Stunt is a foriegner!" line of reasoning. IF he is wrong, then let the facts reflect that, but constantly bringing up the fact he's Canadian is of no use.
Personally, I think Canada is a fine neighbor, and I've met almost no Canadians who aren't fine people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Multiple people showing hard data facts to a foriegner clearly showing how wrong he is yet he continues to stand by his wrong garbage and spew more.

Did he post why he posts false economic data for a country he is not even in and what is the agenda for doing so???

I fail to see the relevance of this "Stunt is a foriegner!" line of reasoning. IF he is wrong, then let the facts reflect that, but constantly bringing up the fact he's Canadian is of no use.
Personally, I think Canada is a fine neighbor, and I've met almost no Canadians who aren't fine people.

Are you his Ambassador?

Can you personally explain his agenda for spewing false U.S. economic data?

Do you see anyone spewing false economic data on Canada?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Would you please post those numbers? I highly doubt NYC has as much support staff as you would think. Currently, in NYC high schools, the average class size is around 35-40.

Everyone says NYC doesn't have enough money. Mayor Bloomberg, a billionare who has run a successful company, is saying that NYC doesn't have enough money. Currently, his appointed Chancellor is running the school system. Guess what? We don't have enough money. I highly doubt that Bloomberg would be spending on trivial expenses, and leave our class sizes at 35-40.

I'll post some of the links that I found, sadly none of them are very recent, but I doubt the system has seen any type of cuts in the last few years.
Link
This link shows spending per student adjusted for inflation. In 1983 they spent just over $6,500 per student in 2002 it was over $10,500 per student.
The article also points out that between 1995 and the time it was written (2002) the system added over 13,500 support jobs, despite the fact that enrollment is flat. And teachers salaries and benefits are rising at three times the rate of inflation.

NY Post article from 2000
Yes it is old, but it provides some background info on the school system and how much it spends.

2001 article about spending
This is a good link, although old info.

A link to the school systems own account of class sizes
According to the school system itself class sizes range for 20 for K to 27-28 for high scool, a far cry from the 35-40 you mention. Now maybe the school is playing with the numbers to look better, or your source is playing with the numbers to get more money.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hacp
Would you please post those numbers? I highly doubt NYC has as much support staff as you would think. Currently, in NYC high schools, the average class size is around 35-40.

Everyone says NYC doesn't have enough money. Mayor Bloomberg, a billionare who has run a successful company, is saying that NYC doesn't have enough money. Currently, his appointed Chancellor is running the school system. Guess what? We don't have enough money. I highly doubt that Bloomberg would be spending on trivial expenses, and leave our class sizes at 35-40.

I'll post some of the links that I found, sadly none of them are very recent, but I doubt the system has seen any type of cuts in the last few years.
Link
This link shows spending per student adjusted for inflation. In 1983 they spent just over $6,500 per student in 2002 it was over $10,500 per student.
The article also points out that between 1995 and the time it was written (2002) the system added over 13,500 support jobs, despite the fact that enrollment is flat. And teachers salaries and benefits are rising at three times the rate of inflation.

NY Post article from 2000
Yes it is old, but it provides some background info on the school system and how much it spends.

2001 article about spending
This is a good link, although old info.

A link to the school systems own account of class sizes
According to the school system itself class sizes range for 20 for K to 27-28 for high scool, a far cry from the 35-40 you mention. Now maybe the school is playing with the numbers to look better, or your source is playing with the numbers to get more money.

I actually guessed the numbers based on the average class size of the NYC high school I attended. It seems that the class size of 32 is above average, while I assumed it was below average.

 

[jackace]

Here is another cost that has gone up when adjusted for inflation and thats gasoline. Aside from the peek in the late 70's and early 80's gas prices have also gone up. I have been looking but I have yet to find anything that once adjusted for inflation actually costs less today then it did in 1974. I'm sure there is something, but I have not found it yet.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

So from what I have found our income has gone down after accounting for inflation, but the costs of basic things like housing have gone up after accounting for inflation. The numbers point toward a squeezing of middle Americans. They make less and basic items cost more of their total income then they did 30 years ago.

Doesn't look good for America and prospering when on average we are actually losing ground.