No, according the the Wall Street Journal’s summary of economists’ rankings. The article (subcription) opens with a question:
“Can economics save you from losing your shirt in the housing market?”
It goes on:
“Spurred on by the growing concern that America’s housing market is heading for a crash, a number of top economists are producing lists that rank the metropolitan areas most likely to experience a sharp drop in housing prices. The problem is that these studies, which look at factors from local income to lending practices, come to strikingly different conclusions. Even so, the raft of data can provide useful clues for home buyers and investors wary of getting in at the top.”
Here are the rankings. Notice that Albuquerque is not on the list. But if you happen to be moving (say because of high taxes or the living wage) it should give you a clue about where not to buy a home.
Interesting find from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac of Higher Education by Craig Depken at Division of Labour: the nationwide “projection of the percentage increase in the number of high school graduates between now and 2015” looks like this
With New Mexico’s so-called education reform, our new secretary of higher education and heaps of corporate welfare, how can this be? I think I know.
Here is some entertaining and enlightening commentary on the state of education today. Once again I thank Craig Newmark for the link. This may sound somewhat familiar to Albuquerque:
“Ordinarily competition is fierce for our final accolade, the coveted George Orwell Creative Use of Language Award. This year, however, there was no competition. The academy, unanimous in its judgment, presents its Orwell to a British educator for her call to abolish the word “fail” and replace it with “deferred success.” Employing this tactic more broadly would yield immeasurable benefits, instantly rendering war “deferred peace,” poverty “deferred prosperity,” and winter “deferred summer.””
Deferred sucess? Even the Albuquerque education establishment wasn’t imaginative enough to come up with that.
I am a big fan of Tyler Cowen. He always makes me question my own views. But on this one I think he is wrong.
Constitutional limits on taxing and spending are put in place because voters cannot “simply cut spending by voting for anti-spending politiicians.” The reason is that the political process itself leads to outcomes which are biased in favor of bigger government. On that score he could take a lesson from his student.
Tyler may be justifiably “surprised” about whether or not Tax-Expenditure limitation will survive as a long run political equilibrium. The reason for that is clear; and it is the reason mentioned above.
Experience has shown, though, that Colorado’s limits on taxing and spending could have been better designed. New initiatives in other states will anticipate these problems.
Look here to see that NM is in the top half of states ranked by business expenses (even though New Mexico has competitive wages and below average energy costs).
A few thoughts: There is no attempt to capture regulatory burden. There is no measure of gross receipts tax pyramiding. The weighting scheme for each of the 5 elements making up the index is not clear.
Thanks to Ralph Frasca at Division of Labour for the heads up.
The Albuquerque Journal is up to their usual hyperbole about gasoline prices. There is no question that gasoline prices have been going up; and that hurts. We never like it when the price of something goes up; but we enjoy it when the price of something goes down.
The problem with the Journal article is that it provides no context as to your tradeoffs today versus those in the past. Albuquerque’s reported price per gallon of $2.44 is still 85 percent of the inflation adjusted price in 1981. The 1981 price still holds the record in inflation adjusted terms.
More importantly, on average you “empty your wallet” a lot less today than you did in 1981. In 1981 if you “emptied your wallet” of 10 percent of New Mexico’s average annual disposable income of $8,255, you could buy you 611.5 gallons. Today if you “emptied your wallet” of 10 percent of New Mexico’s average annual disposable income of $25,100, you could buy 1,028.7 gallons. In other words, New Mexico’s average annual disposable income can buy 68 percent more gasoline today than it could in 1981!
That’s not all. Vehicles get some 30 percent more miles per gallon than they did in 1981. The result: New Mexico’s average annual disposable income today can buy 117 percent more vehicle miles than it could in 1981!