California may have high income inequality, but economic mobility is not as bad as in many other parts of the US, according to http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/ . Overall, the highest economic mobility was found in the plains and much of the mountain west, while the lowest was in the southeast and parts of the midwest.
Heck Louisiana is spending its money on really really important things like suiing Move On over its billboards. Maybe that is why it doesnt have enough money for education
Again, before you start giving CA policies a big pat on the back for “not as bad” economic mobility, consider that economic mobility, or lack thereof, has a strong racial component to it. Since @dstark didn’t like my “libertarian” previous link, here’s a more “centrist” Brookings Institution link:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2013/08/28-social-mobility-race-opportunity-reeves
Now, compare the map in The Equality of Opportunity Project study you linked:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/mobility_geo.jpg
vs. a U.S. Census map of percentage of a county’s population identifying as AA:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif
Very similar pattern. Note that even un-dysfunctional states like VA which have a high percentage of AAs score poorly for economic mobility. The county that includes Detroit (>80% AA) also really sticks out like a sore thumb for poor economic mobility.
We get it that you think CA is doing everything great, and LA is a total ****up. Of course CA doesn’t spend money on stupid things, too. <>
Maybe you should actually look at some data before you make these sweeping, biased statements regarding CA vs. LA. The reality is that both states spend more, per capita, than the national average. Until recently, since 2003 LA has been spending more per capita on higher education than CA.
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=81&year=2011&level=nation&mode=graph&state=0
FYI
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2013/05/tops_has_cost_louisiana_nearly.html
This is not about California This is about Louisiana. The problem is simple. The california per capita tax contibution is almost twice as much as LA. 3465 to 1992. No truer real life example of you get what you pay for
No kidding. So why are your offering one dysfunctional state’s policies as the solution for another dysfunctional state?
You seem to have conveniently overlooked the discussion in this thread that until the recent state budget shortfall, LA has been outspending CA per capita on higher education.
State and Local Support for Higher Education Operating Expenses Per Capita
CA spending
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/trendline.php?submeasure=81&year=2011&state=6
LA spending
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/trendline.php?submeasure=81&year=2011&state=22
I think we need to post the first link in this thread…
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/lsu_bonds_state_budget.html
GMT what are talking about ? LA has a few years of spending more than california on education. Thats it!!! But how about the 50 years before 2000. If you dont have a good infra structure it is pretty easy for everything to crumble especially when your per capita tax revenue is 50 per cent of other states. There is no pot to take money from in LA .This is basic econ They are serving espresso not tea at the party in todays reality
This is a sad situation for LSU
A Ivy League college recruiter told me that Jindal, as a graduate of Brown University, is decimating public higher ed in LA to finally put an end to the never-ending debate about whether it’s better to go to a state flagship or an elite university, at least in LA.
There’s right wing hostility to any type of public secular education.