Alaska’s Engineering Colleges Prepare to Slash Programs, Lay Off Faculty(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Alaska’s Engineering Colleges Prepare to Slash Programs, Lay Off Faculty
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/education/alaskas-engineering-colleges-prepare-to-slash-programs-lay-off-faculty
126 comments
While this may be true, Alaska, unlike almost all other states, basically operates without any income or sales taxes. They depend almost entirely on oil revenue and property taxes which obviously isn't sustainable long term.
https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-alaska.as...
https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-alaska.as...
Agreed, it is not sustainable. Alaska put themselves in this situation by growing government whenever oil prices were high without any regard to oil prices dropping. There was an opportunity to build Alaska wealth without taxes but I feel the time has passed. If Alaska had instead taken the 75% share of oil revenue allocated to government and invested it the same as the people's portion they wouldn't be in this situation. The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money.
Edit: 75% for government not 25%. 25% is for the dividend fund.
Edit: 75% for government not 25%. 25% is for the dividend fund.
>The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money.
I think they are incentivized to mismanage money. Voters want low taxes and government programs more than they want a balanced budget.
I think they are incentivized to mismanage money. Voters want low taxes and government programs more than they want a balanced budget.
>The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money.
This is not true everywhere. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is doing quite well. Libya was once the most prosperous African nation before the US demolished their government. Sovereign wealth funds are an effective management strategy for the resource curse, if western nation backed multinational corporations don't find a way to seize control of it and/or block you from accessing the global marketplace.
This is not true everywhere. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is doing quite well. Libya was once the most prosperous African nation before the US demolished their government. Sovereign wealth funds are an effective management strategy for the resource curse, if western nation backed multinational corporations don't find a way to seize control of it and/or block you from accessing the global marketplace.
> Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is doing quite well.
20% of Norway's GDP comes from oil revenues (the government owns the oil extraction business). It remains to be seen how things would go if their oil revenues ceased.
20% of Norway's GDP comes from oil revenues (the government owns the oil extraction business). It remains to be seen how things would go if their oil revenues ceased.
From what I heard, it’s own people got tired of Ghadaffi’s crap and revolted, but let e know if that is just western media bias.
Check out the Adam Curtis documentary/social commentary film 'Bitter Lake' for more on this
An Alaska wealth fund is what I had alluded to. It would have been a prudent investment in the wealth of Alaska. But, that didn't happen when the money was there. Now, there isn't the necessary time or money to build a wealth fund. Maybe the pain of the coming cuts will be enough to encourage building a fund for the future. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it will but, I can dream.
It is really good to read that there is at least one country that built a wealth fund to provide for the government and citizens.
It is really good to read that there is at least one country that built a wealth fund to provide for the government and citizens.
Property, income, and sales taxes are all part of the cost of living and doing business. Raising property taxes won't hurt the general public any more than raising the other two. Taxes aren't a menu where you need a little of column A and a little of column B, just because. It's all money coming from the economy in some form and the important part is what you're incentivizing or disincentivizing.
In fact, there's a minor but respectable economic school of thought that property taxes should be greater than 100% of all taxes, and the excess should be redistributed to the disadvantaged. Property taxes disincentivize hoarding and wasteful use of valuable property, which is A Good Thing.
In fact, there's a minor but respectable economic school of thought that property taxes should be greater than 100% of all taxes, and the excess should be redistributed to the disadvantaged. Property taxes disincentivize hoarding and wasteful use of valuable property, which is A Good Thing.
Different taxes affect different people differently. Sales tax primarily hits poor people for example - there’s only so much the rich can spend their money on. Bracketed income tax can be made to have low impact for lower income while boosting revenue. Property taxes tax the permanent residents but misses out the opportunity of, let’s say, taxing the tourists. Those are all levers.
There was a recent article on economist that compared the tax models of California and Texas. One has a progressive income tax but crippled property tax and the other has no income tax but a steady property tax. Everything from the risk to revenue and the impact it has on the people vary so much. Neither is good in a way. The best system will use all three in the right proportion.
> Property taxes tax the permanent residents but misses out the opportunity of, let’s say, taxing the tourists.
Tourists pay real property taxes because those taxes are factors into accommodation prices, and into the prices of goods and services sold to tourists.
Tourists pay real property taxes because those taxes are factors into accommodation prices, and into the prices of goods and services sold to tourists.
> those taxes are factors into accommodation prices
Citation needed. Accommodation pricing is typically set by supply and demand. Which is why, last minute hotel deals at steep discounts are a thing.
> Tourists pay real property taxes
Then states/counties should be recovering delinquent property taxes from them
Citation needed. Accommodation pricing is typically set by supply and demand. Which is why, last minute hotel deals at steep discounts are a thing.
> Tourists pay real property taxes
Then states/counties should be recovering delinquent property taxes from them
> Accommodation pricing is typically set by supply and demand.
Obviously, but taxes directly effect supply (supply is not the quantity of units available, it's the function mapping price to the quantity of units people are willing to provide at that price; likewise with demand with “pay for” in place of “provide”; taxes directly paid by the party providing a good or service as a consequence of providing it shift upward the price at which they are willing to provide any given number of units of the good or service.)
Obviously, but taxes directly effect supply (supply is not the quantity of units available, it's the function mapping price to the quantity of units people are willing to provide at that price; likewise with demand with “pay for” in place of “provide”; taxes directly paid by the party providing a good or service as a consequence of providing it shift upward the price at which they are willing to provide any given number of units of the good or service.)
There is no citation needed. Property taxes are one of the base costs in determining the revenue needed for keeping the accommodation provider open. It then follows that that cost must be paid by the customers if the establishment is to be profitable. If the business is being operated at a loss on purpose then this doesn't apply.
The tourists in aggregate are therefore paying the property taxes of the establishment.
The tourists in aggregate are therefore paying the property taxes of the establishment.
> It then follows that that cost must be paid by the customers ..
It absolutely does not follow at all. When costs are disconnected from pricing, the business undergoes a loss. For instance, many rural Texas cities have high property taxes, and low demand for hotel rooms. In many of these places hotels are unviable, because the market would never pay enough to eke out a profit.
In such places, Airbnb is surprisingly effective, as the renter typically sees AirBnB income as a bonus, and doesn't rely on it to make a living.
It absolutely does not follow at all. When costs are disconnected from pricing, the business undergoes a loss. For instance, many rural Texas cities have high property taxes, and low demand for hotel rooms. In many of these places hotels are unviable, because the market would never pay enough to eke out a profit.
In such places, Airbnb is surprisingly effective, as the renter typically sees AirBnB income as a bonus, and doesn't rely on it to make a living.
tourists can still end up paying for property taxes. They occupy physical space.
Best system is a pure land value tax. You can sprinkle in pigovian taxes to taste.
Sure, but the issue isn't the fact that property tax is the sole source of tax, it's that oil absolutely dwarfs everything else in the state budget. They have property taxes but they don't really cover anything.
[deleted]
If it is unsustainable, then how come New Hampshire hasn't been forced at some point during its 200-year history to adopt an income tax or a sales tax?
ouch. Would expect Alaska is boned — all the shale-related production is cheaper to produce and closer to consumers than Alaskan stuff.
I think that you're underselling the size of the PFD relative to the state budget when you say "akin to digging through [the] couch cushions for change". Here's a comparison of the numbers:
> the PFD that isn't constitutionally protected
> pay residents what is constitutionally granted
[pfd_applicants] https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/Annual-Reports
[pfd_projections] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Annual_i...
[state_budget] http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/reports/AnnualRe...
// (expected - actual) * valid applicants
// ($2,300 - $1,100) * 666,047
PFD withheld 2017: $ 687M
Total state revenue 2017: $1,018M
> the PFD that isn't constitutionally protected
> pay residents what is constitutionally granted
[pfd_applicants] https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/Annual-Reports
[pfd_projections] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Annual_i...
[state_budget] http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/reports/AnnualRe...
The phrase was meant to illustrate that the fund isn't for the legislators to spend regardless of its size. It is the people's money. The whole thing looks like the Grasshopper and the Ant. The ant(people) established investments to benefit themselves and their descendants. The grasshopper(legislators) spent damn near every penny of oil revenue. Now the grasshopper has stolen part of the ant's cache and is begging for more.
You also cut my quote in a bad spot. There are two parts of how Alaska residents get a check. There is an investment account that by constitution gets 25% of oil revenue to invest. Part of investment gains are rolled back in to the investment account. The other portion are put in the earnings fund that checks are paid from. The earnings fund is not constitutionally protected.
Correction, the amount of a check is in statue not constitution. The fund itself is in constitution.
[PFD Statutes] https://pfd.alaska.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KRSQ6VCpO_Q...
You also cut my quote in a bad spot. There are two parts of how Alaska residents get a check. There is an investment account that by constitution gets 25% of oil revenue to invest. Part of investment gains are rolled back in to the investment account. The other portion are put in the earnings fund that checks are paid from. The earnings fund is not constitutionally protected.
Correction, the amount of a check is in statue not constitution. The fund itself is in constitution.
[PFD Statutes] https://pfd.alaska.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KRSQ6VCpO_Q...
Sorry for clipping out the 'neighbors' bit, but my point is that "stopgap measure", "couch cushions for change", and "is a distraction" imply that the size of the PFD is insignificant compared to state revenue. Or, the PFD size should at least be considered sacrosanct.
Rereading your comment though, it's clear that you're mainly focusing on the legislators not dealing with the budget to your satisfaction. Closing the deficit caused by low oil prices/production will require more revenue or lower expenditures.
However, I would note that governor Walker made a "hard choice" increasing revenue from the PFDs given that it caused voter outrage with people such as yourself. All of the money the legislature manages is the "people's money" since the government should be answerable to, and working for the residents of Alaska.
---
Tangent, reading the statutes, it's painful to be reminded that Alaska was the first state in the US to pass a constitutional amendment denying marriage to gay people.
> AS 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.
> (a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.
> (b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage. (§ 2 ch 21 SLA 1996)
Rereading your comment though, it's clear that you're mainly focusing on the legislators not dealing with the budget to your satisfaction. Closing the deficit caused by low oil prices/production will require more revenue or lower expenditures.
However, I would note that governor Walker made a "hard choice" increasing revenue from the PFDs given that it caused voter outrage with people such as yourself. All of the money the legislature manages is the "people's money" since the government should be answerable to, and working for the residents of Alaska.
---
Tangent, reading the statutes, it's painful to be reminded that Alaska was the first state in the US to pass a constitutional amendment denying marriage to gay people.
> AS 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.
> (a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.
> (b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage. (§ 2 ch 21 SLA 1996)
[deleted]
On the flip side if they just continue to run at a deficit for extended periods then they have to cut even more as they will no longer be able to fund what they have.
I get that this isn't an ideal situation but it seems like so often whenever anyone wants to cut anything its the end of the world. I mean what would you cut in order to reduce the deficit? Welfare services? Health services? Emergency services?
It may not be a particularly popular move but I imagine this was part of people evaluating all the places the cuts could come from trying to figure out how to cut things to minimize disruption to existing services and then taking action consistent with a plan.
But I could be wrong, maybe internet commentators that read a 10 minute article actually have a much deeper and penetrating insight into the finances of the state of Alaska then the accountants and budget people that spend their lives doing this? Maybe it is part of an evil plan by the governor to do.... something nefarious. Or maybe it is part of a widespread governmental budget cuts throughout Alaska designed to try and minimize impact while still trying to allow them most essential services to remain intact.
I get that this isn't an ideal situation but it seems like so often whenever anyone wants to cut anything its the end of the world. I mean what would you cut in order to reduce the deficit? Welfare services? Health services? Emergency services?
It may not be a particularly popular move but I imagine this was part of people evaluating all the places the cuts could come from trying to figure out how to cut things to minimize disruption to existing services and then taking action consistent with a plan.
But I could be wrong, maybe internet commentators that read a 10 minute article actually have a much deeper and penetrating insight into the finances of the state of Alaska then the accountants and budget people that spend their lives doing this? Maybe it is part of an evil plan by the governor to do.... something nefarious. Or maybe it is part of a widespread governmental budget cuts throughout Alaska designed to try and minimize impact while still trying to allow them most essential services to remain intact.
They need to raise taxes. Alaska has been riding the oil money for a long time, but that's being reduced every year. Since they didn't invest it wisely, they have nothing to fall back on. The only way to reduce the deficit is a combination of eliminating government services and raising taxes.
If/when oil is done, Alaska will probably depopulate rapidly; they will have much larger problems than needing to raise taxes.
The governor is doing this not to fill in gaps in the budget, but to increase the Alaskan dividend all residents get every year. Crazy stuff.
The governor is doing this not to fill in gaps in the budget, but to increase the Alaskan dividend all residents get every year. Crazy stuff.
It's very possible that the majority of Alaskans support the governor's plan.
http://midnightsunak.com/2019/07/08/dunleavys-already-low-ap...
Dunleavy promised a $6700 dividend without significantly cutting the University or major operations of the ferry system. Now we're talking about homeless shelters closing and old folks losing their monthly pittance. Believe me, people's minds have changed on this very rapidly.
Dunleavy promised a $6700 dividend without significantly cutting the University or major operations of the ferry system. Now we're talking about homeless shelters closing and old folks losing their monthly pittance. Believe me, people's minds have changed on this very rapidly.
Yeah, I doubt that most people support Dunleavy. A lot of people are very angry with him. A few years ago the state could barely afford to repair roads, which get very rough after freezing and thawing every year. Also, cutting the ferry system essentially cuts off some people's only means of transportation out of small towns for months at a time. And there was already not enough space in homeless shelters in Anchorage.
I doubt the Inuits do, but probably most of the people in Anchorage/Fairbanks.
I'm not sure about Alaska, but if you look at voter turn out demographics in California - it's very skewed by senior citizens.
Who, unsurprisingly, aren't that excited about education or higher taxes.
Who, unsurprisingly, aren't that excited about education or higher taxes.
We have systems that give equal weight to a vote made by somebody with 5 years left on the planet and somebody with 50 years left. That's a huge incentive divide and it favors short term thinking. In many ways it's unfair and sub-optimal, but I don't foresee it changing.
Indeed, a teenager should have triple the voting power of a 40 year old
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I see little reason that somebody over 70 at the oldest should be allowed to vote at all (let alone do something even more serious like hold public office!)
If you and your friends were trying to decide what to do next weekend, would you give a vote to the friend who was going to be out of town that weekend? People should not have a say in matters they won't be around for. I'm not allowed to vote in Canada, nor should I be, because I don't live there. Similarly if I am near death, I should not be allowed to cast a vote on matters pertaining to the future because I won't be there.
If you and your friends were trying to decide what to do next weekend, would you give a vote to the friend who was going to be out of town that weekend? People should not have a say in matters they won't be around for. I'm not allowed to vote in Canada, nor should I be, because I don't live there. Similarly if I am near death, I should not be allowed to cast a vote on matters pertaining to the future because I won't be there.
That's a fair point, but you can also flip it the other way: someone with 5 years left on Earth might be much more interested in improving things for future generations. Thinking about how your impact will live on after your death is an enduring human strategy for dealing with the terror of impending nonexistence. Another way to flip it: someone who's 40 has plenty of time left to live hedonistically without having to face really long-term consequences of their actions.
It's also worth noting that short-vs-long-term planning is just a paradigm for thinking about your politics; in practice, absolutely horrible things can arise from both strategies. Long-term thinking can manifest as clinging to tradition (since you now feel ownership over future generations and want to impose your own world-views on them). It can manifest as early optimization. Both of these things can be good (maintaining culinary/aesthetic culture, infrastructure investment) or bad (maintaining brutal and oppressive traditions, prematurely and hence inefficiently optimizing things at tremendous economic/social cost).
I'm not saying the status quo is anywhere near optimal. I think it's a very interesting (read: hard) and probably culturally-dependent question of what age groups are able to minimize the societal happiness cost function (and of what that cost function even is). It's incredibly difficult to say anything generally meaningful about how you might do this well. The one-person-one-vote system is at least a simple solution that seems acceptable to most, which is an important feature (not that each person's vote counts the same in practice in USA, but that's a whole other problem).
It's also worth noting that short-vs-long-term planning is just a paradigm for thinking about your politics; in practice, absolutely horrible things can arise from both strategies. Long-term thinking can manifest as clinging to tradition (since you now feel ownership over future generations and want to impose your own world-views on them). It can manifest as early optimization. Both of these things can be good (maintaining culinary/aesthetic culture, infrastructure investment) or bad (maintaining brutal and oppressive traditions, prematurely and hence inefficiently optimizing things at tremendous economic/social cost).
I'm not saying the status quo is anywhere near optimal. I think it's a very interesting (read: hard) and probably culturally-dependent question of what age groups are able to minimize the societal happiness cost function (and of what that cost function even is). It's incredibly difficult to say anything generally meaningful about how you might do this well. The one-person-one-vote system is at least a simple solution that seems acceptable to most, which is an important feature (not that each person's vote counts the same in practice in USA, but that's a whole other problem).
The assumption that age comes with wisdom is a gross oversimplification. Age is strongly correlated with dementia. Rather than they elderly having greater than normal lucidity, they often lack it, sometimes completely.
We don't let teenagers vote because they're known for being hotheads, but when an 90 year old man forgets the names of his children, we still let him vote. That's nuts, and it shows that what we have right now is not a 1-person-1-vote system. We already have a system of selective enfranchisement, but it's not been configured in a rational way. It's not been configured in a way designed to give good results. In fact, it's proven itself quite harmful. Go ask any climate scientist what our future on this current trajectory looks like. Trying to stay the course is suicide.
We don't let teenagers vote because they're known for being hotheads, but when an 90 year old man forgets the names of his children, we still let him vote. That's nuts, and it shows that what we have right now is not a 1-person-1-vote system. We already have a system of selective enfranchisement, but it's not been configured in a rational way. It's not been configured in a way designed to give good results. In fact, it's proven itself quite harmful. Go ask any climate scientist what our future on this current trajectory looks like. Trying to stay the course is suicide.
> That's nuts, and it shows that what we have right now is not a 1-person-1-vote system.
How does that show any such thing? Unless you're defining someone with dementia as "not a person".
> Go ask any climate scientist what our future on this current trajectory looks like. Trying to stay the course is suicide.
Ah. You're against old people voting because they don't vote the way you want on your hot-button issue. And you're willing to sacrifice the right to vote on the altar of climate change. No thanks. (But it makes me wonder what else you're willing to sacrifice there...)
How does that show any such thing? Unless you're defining someone with dementia as "not a person".
> Go ask any climate scientist what our future on this current trajectory looks like. Trying to stay the course is suicide.
Ah. You're against old people voting because they don't vote the way you want on your hot-button issue. And you're willing to sacrifice the right to vote on the altar of climate change. No thanks. (But it makes me wonder what else you're willing to sacrifice there...)
> "How does that show any such thing? Unless you're defining someone with dementia as "not a person"."
Are 17 year old people "not persons"? Of course not. Who is talking about non-personhood?
We currently forbid 17 year olds from voting (while allowing them to sign up for the military..) but where are the objections when a 75 year old with dementia and the mentality of a 5 year old votes? The 17 year old is unquestionably more qualified to vote than a senile pensioner who thinks Jimmy Carter is still in office and forgets to walk to the bathroom when nature calls. That's the case even if you disregard the "skin in the game" argument, or even if you somehow convince yourself that democracy is more important than bracing humanity for catastrophic climate change.
Are 17 year old people "not persons"? Of course not. Who is talking about non-personhood?
We currently forbid 17 year olds from voting (while allowing them to sign up for the military..) but where are the objections when a 75 year old with dementia and the mentality of a 5 year old votes? The 17 year old is unquestionably more qualified to vote than a senile pensioner who thinks Jimmy Carter is still in office and forgets to walk to the bathroom when nature calls. That's the case even if you disregard the "skin in the game" argument, or even if you somehow convince yourself that democracy is more important than bracing humanity for catastrophic climate change.
Somebody over 70 has seen some things in their life. For a concrete example: There are people alive who experienced the Great Depression. Should none of them be allowed to vote? Is that really a good idea? Should people who lived through World War II not be allowed to vote?
Or would it be better to have some of those people, as voters, to be able to say "wait a minute" to some stuff that sounds good to people who haven't been through similar things?
Or would it be better to have some of those people, as voters, to be able to say "wait a minute" to some stuff that sounds good to people who haven't been through similar things?
I think his point is that "old people" won't live with the outcome of their votes. It's not a generally correct point, but it makes sense from the perspective that they don't have skin in the game.
Right, all old people are for killing their children.
It's almost like black and white statements are just bad stereotypes.
It's almost like black and white statements are just bad stereotypes.
The results speak for themselves and public opinion polling confirms it (https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-y...). Old people voting is disastrous for the environment.
Are they malicious? Maybe, maybe not. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if they're malicious, senile, or just plain old apathetic.
(Perhaps you can find a political issue for which young people throw caution to the wind and old people exercise appropriate caution, but I can guarantee you that the impact of that issue will not be as severe as climate change.)
Are they malicious? Maybe, maybe not. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if they're malicious, senile, or just plain old apathetic.
(Perhaps you can find a political issue for which young people throw caution to the wind and old people exercise appropriate caution, but I can guarantee you that the impact of that issue will not be as severe as climate change.)
> But I see little reason that somebody over 70 at the oldest should be allowed to vote at all (let alone do something even more serious like hold public office!)
On the other hand, someone over 70 might be more likely to vote for the general good rather than their selfish interests.
Evolutionarilly speaking, the reason humans have old people at all is that they contribute wisdom. Otherwise, people would tend to die soon after their children reach adulthood. There's no incentive for evolution to favor useless organisms that aren't able to reproduce - so old people aren't useless.
On the other hand, someone over 70 might be more likely to vote for the general good rather than their selfish interests.
Evolutionarilly speaking, the reason humans have old people at all is that they contribute wisdom. Otherwise, people would tend to die soon after their children reach adulthood. There's no incentive for evolution to favor useless organisms that aren't able to reproduce - so old people aren't useless.
Raise taxes? They need to stop giving free money to residents first, that is the direct cause of this budget crisis.
There are several reasons why alaska wants badly to maintain low taxes and it's not entirely because the leaders are all fiscally conservative ideologues.
Please list some of them. We're not all well-versed in US politics.
Well for one thing its not like people are already dying to move there. You're not going to help that with California style taxes.
Nobody needs a “deeper and penetrating insight into the finances of state of Alaska” to see the problem here.
Cutting a stem program should not be on the top of any budget cut proposal. That’s the problem.
Cutting a stem program should not be on the top of any budget cut proposal. That’s the problem.
I'd love to see a comparison of the sizes of cuts across the UA system - if STEM is being cut disproportionately that's really messed up. But as far as I can tell, it's the UA administration choosing what to cut, and I wouldn't put it past people choosing the worst places to cut in order to score political points.
Dunleavy released a 15 page budget proposal which notes that UAF's spending is the sum of the problem: UAA and the community campuses are fine, UAF is way out there. This is actually true; the UAF campus has over 2x the spending per student of the rest of the system.
Unfortunately, his staff doesn't seem to have been educated enough to realize that that spending is on graduate & research programs. Since that's where the money you can effectively cut is, that's what will get cut.
Unfortunately, his staff doesn't seem to have been educated enough to realize that that spending is on graduate & research programs. Since that's where the money you can effectively cut is, that's what will get cut.
A big chunk of this problem can be solved by eliminating the oil dividend given to all residents.
Many people would probably leave Alaska altogether if that was the case, which would be much worse for the tax base. The subsidy is crucial to keeping Alaska populated at all. They still collect various other taxes despite the subsidy.
They'd leave over the removal of a $1-2k subsidy?
Imagine the benefits if they'd done that from the beginning.
(We don't even have to imagine. There's an existing example: Norway's socked away $200k per citizen for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...)
(We don't even have to imagine. There's an existing example: Norway's socked away $200k per citizen for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...)
I talked with one of the people who's job it is to forecast the effects of cuts. The new administration's response was basically "we don't wanna hear about it and don't want to know, prepare to be reassigned."
This is not driven by accountants and budget people. This is driven by politics. Feel free to read Dunleavy's promises and budgets before election, and what he's doing now. He claimed there was hundreds of millions of easy money to be reclaimed without cutting important services. Turns out he was wrong, so he's going back on everything he said about the University and the ferry system.
He even cut funding to the courts because he didn't like one of their decisions.
This is not driven by accountants and budget people. This is driven by politics. Feel free to read Dunleavy's promises and budgets before election, and what he's doing now. He claimed there was hundreds of millions of easy money to be reclaimed without cutting important services. Turns out he was wrong, so he's going back on everything he said about the University and the ferry system.
He even cut funding to the courts because he didn't like one of their decisions.
"I mean what would you cut in order to reduce the deficit? Welfare services? Health services? Emergency services?"
Why would those be untouchable"
Why would those be untouchable"
From the discussion 10 days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20384388
Didn't click summary: After the cut, Alaska will still spend 3x more than average per student. And tuition rates are comparatively low.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20384388
Didn't click summary: After the cut, Alaska will still spend 3x more than average per student. And tuition rates are comparatively low.
Can that 3x cost be attributed to just being in Alaska?
Also economy of scales sucks since they aren’t educating many students. Still, I think their costs are lower than Wyoming.
I understand a well off nation ruled by democracy due to distributed table-stakes, and a poor nation ruled by a dictator due to centralized table-stakes, but I've never known a well off nation to intentionally sabotage its own table-stakes in order to surrender to dictatorship. Why is this happening? Who supports it? Why do they think it is necessary?
Alaska has a basic income distributed to all residents (oil dividend). Alaskans want that increased regularly, despite falling oil revenue. That money has to come from somewhere, and it's going to be the voting minority. This is not dictatorship, this is pure democracy in action - the popular vote. Tyranny of the majority.
> That money has to come from somewhere, and it's going to be the voting minority. This is not dictatorship, this is pure democracy in action - the popular vote. Tyranny of the majority.
This is a little like discussion of frictionless surfaces and spherical cows in high school physics. In reality, a lot of laws are written for the rich minority.
This is a little like discussion of frictionless surfaces and spherical cows in high school physics. In reality, a lot of laws are written for the rich minority.
I agree that there is a lot of regulatory capture in lawmaking. However, this is a case of exactly the opposite. The cuts are happening to a relatively wealthy minority in Alaska (academics, college attendees, the engineering community, and oil corporations that depend on engineering schools) while more popular welfare and training programs go untouched.
But this is good. Those who the cuts impact will relocate to better states, and Alaska will be left holding that bag as oil revenues continue to decline.
Market forces at work.
Market forces at work.
What is kind of interesting is - does it make sense for the environment to actually grow the population of Alaska? Its not like its an easy environment to live in without using an increasing amount of greenhouse gases.
The population should migrate toward areas where the temperature/humidity does not require resources just to be comfortable. The population should also migrate toward where energy that is renewable and trending toward free cost/free carbon (wind/solar) is prevalent.
Alaska is part an artifact of the fossil fuel industry and part a need to maintain the US border.
The population should migrate toward areas where the temperature/humidity does not require resources just to be comfortable. The population should also migrate toward where energy that is renewable and trending toward free cost/free carbon (wind/solar) is prevalent.
Alaska is part an artifact of the fossil fuel industry and part a need to maintain the US border.
Alaska is not nearly the cold wasteland you think it is. Its largest city, Anchorage, shares the same weather pattern that keeps Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland warm and wet. Though by being 1000 miles further north, it is much colder than any of those cities. However, compared to some continental cities, it actually has milder weather. For example, Anchorage's average January low is higher than Minneapolis's, and its average July high is lower, so you need both less heat and less A/C to live in Anchorage than Minneapolis.
Alternatively, let people live where they'd like to.
Oh yes, certainly. I just don't want my money going to them to incentivize things. So I don't want the government to subsidize living in flood plains or in Alaska or even in coastal California.
We will all pay a carbon tax and we'll all live with the results of our actions. Let the chips fall where they may.
We will all pay a carbon tax and we'll all live with the results of our actions. Let the chips fall where they may.
Because most of the benefits of the former are getting concentrated into the hands of educated and urban dwellers. So people want change, but end up stupidly sabotaging.
Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter.
Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter.
Note that only 9% of rural residents support Dunleavy right now, especially since he is cutting ferry service by 2/3, which will be catastrophic for the many towns which rely on it and are not accessible by road.
http://midnightsunak.com/2019/07/10/poll-dunleavys-approval-...
His reputation is utterly trashed across the whole state right now.
http://midnightsunak.com/2019/07/10/poll-dunleavys-approval-...
His reputation is utterly trashed across the whole state right now.
I don't think that holds water. In the article, these are the urban dwellers being sabotaged.
More accurately, very wealthy urban dwellers.
And most of these urban dwellers did not vote for Trump or this vindictive Governor.
brookhaven_dude isn't agreeing with what he's saying. He's just trying to explain why people are acting the way they are. He even calls their sabotage stupid.
Sell off assets? Cut administrators? Drop the presidents pay?
No! Think of their families!
The stem guys have it good anyways, lets just cut that!
The stem guys have it good anyways, lets just cut that!
They are doing those too. The budget cuts are quite significant.
Maybe it has something peripherally to do with having chosen a governor who does things like cutting funding to the Alaska Supreme Court when they issue a pro-choice abortion ruling.
As a fairly new tenure-track faculty (not in Alaska), this disturbs me.
Try to find a private university with a nice endowment. My employer is sitting on $7.5B. I feel pretty comfortable knowing that.
This is in some ways a preview of why the theory of basic income replacing other government spending (and therefore being fiscally conservative and libertarian) is false. Alaska is redirecting money from universities to basic income (the oil dividend) and it’s considered an outrage. The same thing would happen for any government program.
Well, in theory, people can use that basic income to pay for school... or they could, if the school wasn't so bloated and overpriced, which the school has been getting away with because the government has been giving it so much money.
True, federal subsidies and loans responsible for inflating tuitions nationwide have reached a total of $120 billion per year.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2017report/fsa-repo...
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2017report/fsa-repo...
Not at all, the permanent fund dividend is immensely popular in Alaska. Additionally, it is actually money from the PFD that is used to fund the state government because the last democratic governor was unable to push through tax increases.
What Alaska needs is a balanced package of raised taxes and budget controls, what we have is political gridlock and dysfunction.
What Alaska needs is a balanced package of raised taxes and budget controls, what we have is political gridlock and dysfunction.
There weren't tax increases, we don't have taxes to increase. We use oil tax and PF revenue to fund our government almost exclusively. Some municipalities and cities have sales/property taxes, but most don't.
I agree that we need a balanced package, but we also need to stop paying billions a year in tax credits and incentive to oil companies.
I agree that we need a balanced package, but we also need to stop paying billions a year in tax credits and incentive to oil companies.
Replacing government services with cash seems to be fairly libertarian: decrease the size of government, increase freedom for consumers who would be served by the market instead of these services, no?
[deleted]
[deleted]
51.4% voted for this governor in 2018, so I have to conclude that this is the outcome that most voters wanted. When you vote for a party that wants smaller government, it should be no surprise when you get fewer government services.
I'm troubled that we equate 51.4% with "most" (especially since voter participation tends to be even lower than that). As long as we have to live with first-past-the-post voting, we need to get rid of this "the voters have spoken!" mindset - a 1.4% win isn't some kind of democratic mandate.
That said - I too see this mindset that a lot that people will make arguments about what is and isn't government's business, but will only stick by it when it suits them. It either shouldn't be an argument in the first place, or it should be a principle you stand by regardless. None of this "small government" when it costs you money but "strong leadership" when it puts money back in your pocket.
That said - I too see this mindset that a lot that people will make arguments about what is and isn't government's business, but will only stick by it when it suits them. It either shouldn't be an argument in the first place, or it should be a principle you stand by regardless. None of this "small government" when it costs you money but "strong leadership" when it puts money back in your pocket.
We are entering a new dark ages ruled by the priests of austerity, unable to value anything but short-term money.
The general austerity theory is contradicted by the fact that government budgets in most of the US haven't been reduced.
The problem is the largest programs that already eat most of the budgets continue to expand to consume everything that's left. We dramatically increase taxpayer-funded healthcare spending while doing nothing about underlying healthcare costs and then wonder where all the money went.
The problem is the largest programs that already eat most of the budgets continue to expand to consume everything that's left. We dramatically increase taxpayer-funded healthcare spending while doing nothing about underlying healthcare costs and then wonder where all the money went.
Such a big issue. We all see the high healthcare and education costs and want healthcare and higher education for all, but our healthcare (current system) is way more expensive than other developed nations' and college prices have only increased over time, turning student loans into college administrators. We'll have to address this inflation either way.
This is why these universal programs are coupled with monopsony leverage. Healthcare prices have exploded because the government has been intentionally hobbled at the bargaining table, legislatively blocked from using its weight to negotiate better deals for prescription drug prices. Tuition has exploded because a system of credit has been created that is untouchable by bankruptcy.
These are solvable problems.
These are solvable problems.
> This is why these universal programs are coupled with monopsony leverage. Healthcare prices have exploded because the government has been intentionally hobbled at the bargaining table, legislatively blocked from using its weight to negotiate better deals for prescription drug prices.
"Monopsony leverage" and "bargaining" is just price controls. You don't even need single payer for that if you want to do it, you can just legislate prices.
The problem is price controls have a long record of being problematic, because everybody wants lower prices but if you set the price too low you get shortages. This is complicated in this case by the fact that most of the cost is R&D, so the thing that isn't supplied isn't pills for already-developed drugs, it's research into new drugs. And then comparisons to other countries fall flat because it's a global market, so as long as anyone (i.e. the US) is paying a lot to create a return for R&D spending, the research gets done and the other countries get access to it.
So one of the reasons we pay so much more than everybody else is that we subsidize medical R&D for the rest of the world. Solving that isn't just a matter of us paying less, it also has to somehow involve them paying more, unless we want a lot less R&D.
Moreover, a lot of the costs basically amount to regulatory capture or drug companies outsmarting the government. It's them finding ways to limit competition for things that should be cheap commodities, or get patents on things that are only marginally better than the status quo, and use that to raise prices. So you have to find ways to distinguish that stuff from real medical advances that are actually worth paying higher costs to get. But if you can do that then you can restrain that type of behavior without actually regulating prices, so that genuine medical advances continue to get the funding they require to be developed. Which is really what we need to do, but easier said than done.
"Monopsony leverage" and "bargaining" is just price controls. You don't even need single payer for that if you want to do it, you can just legislate prices.
The problem is price controls have a long record of being problematic, because everybody wants lower prices but if you set the price too low you get shortages. This is complicated in this case by the fact that most of the cost is R&D, so the thing that isn't supplied isn't pills for already-developed drugs, it's research into new drugs. And then comparisons to other countries fall flat because it's a global market, so as long as anyone (i.e. the US) is paying a lot to create a return for R&D spending, the research gets done and the other countries get access to it.
So one of the reasons we pay so much more than everybody else is that we subsidize medical R&D for the rest of the world. Solving that isn't just a matter of us paying less, it also has to somehow involve them paying more, unless we want a lot less R&D.
Moreover, a lot of the costs basically amount to regulatory capture or drug companies outsmarting the government. It's them finding ways to limit competition for things that should be cheap commodities, or get patents on things that are only marginally better than the status quo, and use that to raise prices. So you have to find ways to distinguish that stuff from real medical advances that are actually worth paying higher costs to get. But if you can do that then you can restrain that type of behavior without actually regulating prices, so that genuine medical advances continue to get the funding they require to be developed. Which is really what we need to do, but easier said than done.
>"Monopsony leverage" and "bargaining" is just price controls. You don't even need single payer for that if you want to do it, you can just legislate prices.
No, monopsony leverage is not the same as a price control. The minimum price that monoposony can give you is the cost to produce the given drug. Price controls allow you to mandate a price lower than their cost to produce, hence the negative effects you mention.
>This is complicated in this case by the fact that most of the cost is R&D
This is also false. Marketing outweighs the R&D budgets at most private pharmaceutical companies.
>a lot of the costs basically amount to regulatory capture or drug companies outsmarting the government
It sounds like you’re advocating for the dismantling of the drug patent system, which is a far more radical proposal. I agree that regulatory/market failure also contributes to high costs, it’s why I believe the free market poorly maps onto the problem of providing healthcare.
No, monopsony leverage is not the same as a price control. The minimum price that monoposony can give you is the cost to produce the given drug. Price controls allow you to mandate a price lower than their cost to produce, hence the negative effects you mention.
>This is complicated in this case by the fact that most of the cost is R&D
This is also false. Marketing outweighs the R&D budgets at most private pharmaceutical companies.
>a lot of the costs basically amount to regulatory capture or drug companies outsmarting the government
It sounds like you’re advocating for the dismantling of the drug patent system, which is a far more radical proposal. I agree that regulatory/market failure also contributes to high costs, it’s why I believe the free market poorly maps onto the problem of providing healthcare.
Agreed, they look pretty solvable and semi-obvious to me, but the pace of government has been slow (assuming they're not being incentivized against fixing these problems through lobbying in the first place). It's very sad to watch.
It's more than austerity here - their governor also punitively cut their state Supreme Court budget for upholding abortion rights.
What was it Sagan said, "The 21st Century will mark the final battle between religion and science, who will win?"
But their might be more priesthoods than he thought of.
But their might be more priesthoods than he thought of.
Austerity. That's laughable. Where would this be?
Nope, just plain old basic million year old human nature. Always been there, always will.
I have yet to see a government that believes in Austerity for all. And almost all governments i've seen believe in Austerity for someone else, just not their voter base.
I always remind myself, when I say "The government ought to X" that is someone else's money that I am using the might of the state to forcibly extract from them and spend on _my_ priorities.
I always remind myself, when I say "The government ought to X" that is someone else's money that I am using the might of the state to forcibly extract from them and spend on _my_ priorities.
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
Lack of new information plus grandiose ideological rhetoric guarantees a generic, predictable discussion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Lack of new information plus grandiose ideological rhetoric guarantees a generic, predictable discussion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
narrator(1)
tracer4201(2)
er, nice choice of governor there Alaskans, try again
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've done it repeatedly, and we're trying for a bit better than internet default here.
The media focusing on Dunleavy wanting to pay residents what is constitutionally granted is a distraction. Alaska is in dire financial straits. Without severe budget cuts or a way to dramatically increase revenue Alaska will be bankrupted.
For clarity, the Permanent Fund (the investment fund), is constitutionally protected and fed by oil revenue. The Permanent Fund Earnings Fund (that PFD checks are paid from) is not constitutionally protected and is what politicians raided.