OT: Latest (July 2022) county population estimates are out

[mstateglfr]

Improving teacher pay and district funding would do basically nothing to help population growth. There are probably fewer than 50k teachers in Mississippi. Even if every teacher with an alternative certification was pushed out of school be degreed teachers that otherwise would have lived in another state, that won't move the needle.

For school spending, there are probably some schools that would be better with more spending, but most of our good schools aren't good and bad schools aren't bad because of the amount of money they do or don't have. It's all basically SES of the students' families and to a lesser extent, the community at large.

Universal preschool, if we did it in a way that reasonably affluent people felt comfortable sending their kids there (spoiler, we won't do it that way), would be a huge boon to working families with young kids. Not sure if it would move the population needle though because I don't think many people are going to plan around that. Even if you have three kids, paid preschool would cover at most 6 years of daycare costs. Pretty significant, but not something most people are going to be thinking about when they select a place to live.

If we went big on universal school choice with a voucher system, it would at least make Jackson affordable and practical (assuming reliable water and trash service eventually comes back) for families to live there. It would make a lot of Mississippi with poor public schools much more desirable. Give a chance to places like the Delta where they don't have a lot of jobs that can support paying for private school for multiple children.

Improving teacher pay and district funding may not immediately help population growth, but those are two(of many) drivers of population growth/decline so its pretty absurd to argue against them, given reality.

Higher pay helps attract more talent.
Higher pay helps retain talent.
Higher pay helps incentivize going to an area that one may not otherwise consider.
More district funding gives students more personalized learning opportunities.
More district funding allows more infrastructure improvements.

These things, and more, are what make a district or state school system attractive to people on the outside looking in.
This isnt some quick fix, and I said as much when I mentioned it will look better over a generation.

Universal preschool has been shown to close the gap between the have and have not kids. The earlier kids can get into school and learn all those evil SEL skills that help create nice people(manners, how to express frustration in a healthy way, patience, responsible decision making, build relationships, etc), the better off kids are as they advance in grades. This absolutely will help population in the long term because more prepared students can make a school district more attractive to enter into or stay in. Again- outside looking in. Further, those students will become parents and if they see they had a complete education and have turned out well, they are more likely to seek out such an education for their kids...which means they stay in state. Better behaving kids who turn into better educated and adjusted adults that in turn send their kids to similar schools also makes for a better workforce. This means more jobs.

All this is connected and while there is no single magic fix, since everything is connected, one thing can help improve other issues.

As for a voucher system- Public tax funding should not pay for schools that can turn students away due to physical or mental limitations. Public tax funding should not pay for schools that can turn away students due to beliefs. Public tax funding should not pay for schools where there is no oversight into how the funding is spent.
If private schools are willing to take on the financial cost of educating everyone, are willing to accept all students regardless of belief, and are willing to follow established procurement procedures and be audited, then cool- voucher away.

 

[mstateglfr]

These things you mention will certainly help, but they aren't going to be primary drivers to overall population growth....We increased the percentage of teacher pay last year higher than any other state in the union, and just added another $180 Million to our education budget on Saturday (yes, two days ago)....these things help....Personally, I dont agree with government throwing more and more money in certain areas and expecting things to change drastically.....example: medicaid expansion needs to happen, but its not going to keep rural hospitals open.

A sad reality for tax loving socialists is that you have Texas, Tennessee, and Florida eliminating state income taxes and Arkansas and Alabama toying with the idea (along with MS)....that is a big economic driver whether you like it or not....if we could find a reliable way to eliminate our state income tax, that would help losing folks to neighboring states. (i know a family who lived and worked in east memphis who moved to desoto county for two years thinking it would lower her cost of living who subsequently moved back bc it was costing them more).

The % of teacher pay was increased higher than any other state last year. Cool. You do realize how meaningless that comment is though, right?

If state A starts at $65,000 and increases 4%, then teachers are getting $67,600.
If state B starts at $33,000 and increases 6%(50% more increase!), then teachers are getting $34,900. Their pay was increased at a higher % and it was actually a 50% higher increase! Wowzers, right? Oh, but they are still receiving nearly half the actual pay as state A.
^ made up numbers meant to highlight that % increase in a given year is hardly meaningful. Its great that it happened, but it doesnt mean teachers in that state are being paid well.

Which states pay teachers the most and least?

Overall, New York and Massachusetts K-12 teachers are paid more, relative to other earners and cost of living, than teachers in the rest of the country. Public teacher pay is the lowest in Florida and Arizona.

usafacts.org

Mississippi has the lowest average pay. And when adjusted for cost of living, it is the 3rd lowest average pay.

Strong public schools matter when it comes to a place being attractive or not. This goes for a town, metro, and state. Its historically well documented. Strong public schools help retain residents and help bring in new population.



ETA- infrastructure is another huge driver of growth. Rural internet, quality roads, reliable sewers, safe parks, library, etc. All these things matter in addition to the couple things I did mention- teacher pay and district funding.

 

[Beretta.sixpack]

The % of teacher pay was increased higher than any other state last year. Cool. You do realize how meaningless that comment is though, right?

If state A starts at $65,000 and increases 4%, then teachers are getting $67,600.
If state B starts at $33,000 and increases 6%(50% more increase!), then teachers are getting $34,900. Their pay was increased at a higher % and it was actually a 50% higher increase! Wowzers, right? Oh, but they are still receiving nearly half the actual pay as state A.
^ made up numbers meant to highlight that % increase in a given year is hardly meaningful. Its great that it happened, but it doesnt mean teachers in that state are being paid well.

Which states pay teachers the most and least?

Overall, New York and Massachusetts K-12 teachers are paid more, relative to other earners and cost of living, than teachers in the rest of the country. Public teacher pay is the lowest in Florida and Arizona.

usafacts.org

Mississippi has the lowest average pay. And when adjusted for cost of living, it is the 3rd lowest average pay.

Strong public schools matter when it comes to a place being attractive or not. This goes for a town, metro, and state. Its historically well documented. Strong public schools help retain residents and help bring in new population.



ETA- infrastructure is another huge driver of growth. Rural internet, quality roads, reliable sewers, safe parks, library, etc. All these things matter in addition to the couple things I did mention- teacher pay and district funding.

I think you missed my point, or i didnt do a good enough job of explaining it....the point is that MS is doing all the right things in everything you mentioned and headed in the right direction. But if you doubled the teacher pay and district funding, that's not going to all of a sudden make this state a destination to work and relocate to.

Infrastructure, schools, teacher pay, internet, etc....all are necessary things, but if all those things made up population growth, or kept people from leaving the state, then people would be packing their bags and moving to California.

 

[thatsbaseball]

As I grow older Sharkey and Issaquena counties look better every day.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

As I grow older Sharkey and Issaquena counties look better every day.

You enjoy floods and F4 tornadoes?

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Mississippi's population is declining because of a lack of opportunities for desirable careers. People are leaving for better career opportunities and we don't come back because we want to raise our kids somewhere that they don't have to leave behind when they go to work.

It's not isolated to Mississippi, most places have this happen within it's own borders though. East Texas towns are losing their kids to Houston, Dallas, and Austin. Mississippi kids are not going to Jackson though, they're going to Atlanta, Huntsville, Memphis, Dallas, Houston, etc..

I always see people getting excited about a new plant coming to some town in Mississippi, but that's not what is needed to stop the exodus. The state needs a real modern industry. Mississippi needs white collar jobs and lots of them in a specific geographic area. If you look at places like North Alabama and NW Arkansas, you see huge growth engines for their respective states build around aerospace and Walmart respectively. That's what Mississippi needs if it doesn't want to continue to shrink.

It's always about jobs. Good jobs that people are willing to move for... Not just the blue collar jobs that only take local residents from some other local employer.

 

[thatsbaseball]

You enjoy floods and F4 tornadoes?

About as much as I do people these days.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I may be wrong, but I think you can get an A rating now based on improvement? And can still be behind but the school gets credit for showing that they are moving in the right direction. Which is really good to judge school leadership off of, but not necessarily what parents are interested in.

Here we go.

Heidelberg High School kicked butt and took names in mathematics.

https://msrc.mdek12.org/pdf/ESSASchoolReportCardPdf?EntityID=3111-004&SchoolYear=2021

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

If we're doing anecdotal stories, I have 3-4 friends who moved to Oxford during COVID from Memphis metro and are able to work remotely. They're happy with their decision; they live in a small, safe town with above average amenities for its size and I haven't heard any of them mention anything about a specific "mentality" of the populace, which would seem to be pretty hard to pin down for obvious reasons.

This is true. I have friends who live there and visit a couple times per year. Oxford is probably up there with BLS/OS/Madison as far as best towns in the 'Sip. Plenty of rednecks and good 'ole boys. If not for SA and local businesses/leaders who didn't appreciate students (that started changing in the early 2000s), Starkvegas would be in that category too. Public schools make the community.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Mississippi's population is declining because of a lack of opportunities for desirable careers. People are leaving for better career opportunities and we don't come back because we want to raise our kids somewhere that they don't have to leave behind when they go to work.

It's not isolated to Mississippi, most places have this happen within it's own borders though. East Texas towns are losing their kids to Houston, Dallas, and Austin. Mississippi kids are not going to Jackson though, they're going to Atlanta, Huntsville, Memphis, Dallas, Houston, etc..

I always see people getting excited about a new plant coming to some town in Mississippi, but that's not what is needed to stop the exodus. The state needs a real modern industry. Mississippi needs white collar jobs and lots of them in a specific geographic area. If you look at places like North Alabama and NW Arkansas, you see huge growth engines for their respective states build around aerospace and Walmart respectively. That's what Mississippi needs if it doesn't want to continue to shrink.

It's always about jobs. Good jobs that people are willing to move for... Not just the blue collar jobs that only take local residents from some other local employer.

Jackson gets its fair share, there are lots of jobs here. Your overall point is correct, though.

Outside of Jackson becoming a cool city (which the prospects of which have been beaten on worse than any dead horse or MSU baseball team) and Memphis Metro's sprawl (which kinda includes Oxford in a weird way, lot of ties there), a NW Arkansas type place is about the best we can hope for when it comes to an independent. The options? Golden Triangle, Tupelo, Hattiesburg-Laurel, that's really it. The Coast will be the Coast, it's its own animal.

I don't see a Huntsville-sized type town anytime soon, with that level of white-collar jobs. That really could only happen in Jackson (I'M TALKING METRO, AND AS FAR AS POTENTIAL YOU ANTI-JACKSON CLOWNS, DON'T @ ME WITH THE COMPARISONS, MAYBE IF C-SPIRE GOT BIG OR SOMETHING, AND WITH SOME BETTER JACKSON LEADERSHIP). I understand the Jackson Metro is bigger than the Huntsville Metro, but I'm talking the level of white collar jobs, and ability to have big employers.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Boliver County is 8th in the category of "Top 10 Counties Nationally in Percent Decline (Annual)." As a native of the Delta, this is concerning as Cleveland is the "Jewel of Delta" and about the only place in the delta left with decent public Schools. in 2016/2017 a federal judge ordered Cleveland public schools to "desegregate" combing the two HSs into one (one HS was 45% white the other 100% black). As just about everyone knew would happen (except the Federal Judge), many parents who could afford it moved their kids to private schools. I'm assuming the population decrease is tied into the desegregation?

 

[57stratdawg]

Why? It’s good for MS.

Agreed, but it’s made some new millionaires around Oxford. That’s not good for MSU.

 

[thatsbaseball]

If a family left whose child had already been attending a 55% black school they probably didn't leave just because of "desegregation" per se. I would be more inclined to believe they left out of the concern for their children getting a good education.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think you missed my point, or i didnt do a good enough job of explaining it....the point is that MS is doing all the right things in everything you mentioned and headed in the right direction. But if you doubled the teacher pay and district funding, that's not going to all of a sudden make this state a destination to work and relocate to.

Infrastructure, schools, teacher pay, internet, etc....all are necessary things, but if all those things made up population growth, or kept people from leaving the state, then people would be packing their bags and moving to California.

Yes, I agree that increasing district funding and teacher pay wont all of a sudden make MS a destination state to work and live. I have not said it would all of a sudden do that and have said it would take years(generation) to change.

As for people packing their bags and moving to CA...well thats exactly what has happened over the last half century. If you are trying to tie the recent one half of one percent change in CA's population to anything in this conversation, just stop. They are different topics with different drivers. CA's housing cost is a massive barrier to entry as well as barrier to stay and that doesnt exist in MS.
Spoiler- more than just the few things I mentioned are motivators for where people live and dont live. I didnt think it needed to be said, but here we are.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

If a family left whose child had already been attending a 55% black school they probably didn't leave just because of "desegregation" per se. I would be more inclined to believe they left out of the concern for their children getting a good education.

I know several white middle class families who sent their kids to the Cleveland HS, then moved to private school once desegregation kicked in. Going to a school that is essentially 50/50 black/white isn't that big of deal, compared to a school that is now 15/78 (the remaining 7% is "other").

As job opportunities occur over time, i can see this being a factor in some deciding to relocate to areas with what they consider better public schools.

 

[Maroon13]

As I grow older Sharkey and Issaquena counties look better every day.

Benton. Close to New Albany, which is a nice town with your essentials. Also not far from Tupelo or MSU.

 

[johnson86-1]

Improving teacher pay and district funding may not immediately help population growth, but those are two(of many) drivers of population growth/decline so its pretty absurd to argue against them, given reality.

Neither of these are drivers of population growth. Plenty of school districts spend lots of money and don't educate their students and are a negative for the area they operate in. And teacher pay doesn't have a big enough impact on school quality for it to have a discernable impact on population. Teacher pay is usually going to be driven by some combination of how affluent an area is, what the COL is, and how strong the teachers union is. Probably only the first one of those is significantly correlated with good schools, and even then, there are plenty of affluent places without good public schools.

Higher pay helps attract more talent.
Higher pay helps retain talent.
Higher pay helps incentivize going to an area that one may not otherwise consider.

THat's all good and well, but again, teachers are not a big enough portion of the population for paying them more to drive population growth.

More district funding gives students more personalized learning opportunities.
More district funding allows more infrastructure improvements.

These things, and more, are what make a district or state school system attractive to people on the outside looking in.
This isnt some quick fix, and I said as much when I mentioned it will look better over a generation.

Universal preschool has been shown to close the gap between the have and have not kids. The earlier kids can get into school and learn all those evil SEL skills that help create nice people(manners, how to express frustration in a healthy way, patience, responsible decision making, build relationships, etc), the better off kids are as they advance in grades. This absolutely will help population in the long term because more prepared students can make a school district more attractive to enter into or stay in. Again- outside looking in. Further, those students will become parents and if they see they had a complete education and have turned out well, they are more likely to seek out such an education for their kids...which means they stay in state. Better behaving kids who turn into better educated and adjusted adults that in turn send their kids to similar schools also makes for a better workforce. This means more jobs.

All this is connected and while there is no single magic fix, since everything is connected, one thing can help improve other issues.

I mean, certainly if you are looking at improving a region, there are lots of things that can be done that will individually have almost no measurable impact but overall will help move the needle, just seemed like some weird things to fixate on in the context of population growth.

As for a voucher system- Public tax funding should not pay for schools that can turn students away due to physical or mental limitations. Public tax funding should not pay for schools that can turn away students due to beliefs. Public tax funding should not pay for schools where there is no oversight into how the funding is spent.
If private schools are willing to take on the financial cost of educating everyone, are willing to accept all students regardless of belief, and are willing to follow established procurement procedures and be audited, then cool- voucher away.

Why in the world would you care about a private school's procurement procedure? If they can educate students while doing stupid stuff in procurement, that's there business. There just needs to be enough oversight to make sure voucher payees are actually schools that are nominally educating the students from whom they are collecting vouchers. After that, let the parents decide if they want to send their kids there or not.

On the accepting students part, not all schools need to educate every kind of student. You just need to make sure voucher money is allocated correctly between special needs students and those without special needs. Certainly no viewpoint or racial discrimination. There would have to be some policy decisions made on codes of conduct and what can be regulated by the school. I think it'd probably be fine if you prohibited regulation of legal activities off school grounds? Certainly that wouldn't be good enough for some schools, but I think generally that would let the vast majority of schools accomplish what they need to accomplish as far as creating a certain atmosphere at the school.

 

[mstateglfr]

Why in the world would you care about a private school's procurement procedure? If they can educate students while doing stupid stuff in procurement, that's there business. There just needs to be enough oversight to make sure voucher payees are actually schools that are nominally educating the students from whom they are collecting vouchers. After that, let the parents decide if they want to send their kids there or not.

On the accepting students part, not all schools need to educate every kind of student. You just need to make sure voucher money is allocated correctly between special needs students and those without special needs. Certainly no viewpoint or racial discrimination. There would have to be some policy decisions made on codes of conduct and what can be regulated by the school. I think it'd probably be fine if you prohibited regulation of legal activities off school grounds? Certainly that wouldn't be good enough for some schools, but I think generally that would let the vast majority of schools accomplish what they need to accomplish as far as creating a certain atmosphere at the school.

Its public funds and the money needs to be spent properly. I am honestly shocked to see this come from you since I would think you would value the idea that public money must be spent responsibly and ethically.
Do you feel the same way about public schools- if they can educate student while doing stupid procurement stuff, thats their business? If you dont feel the same way, why not?

Auditing the spending of public funds is crucial. The state of Mississippi is flooded with corruption, both claimed and proven. Why on earth would you be OK with kickbacks and spending money on preferred vendors who may have inferior products or more expensive products just because the owner is a friend?

 

[J-Dawg]

I work all over the state of MS, and folks don't believe me when I say there isn't much difference between 2023 Starkville and Oxford except for one thing: Perception.....that's got to change.

Bingo.

 

[ronpolk]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the counties listed? I see all the line items for each county but the field where county name should be is blank.

Regardless, from what I saw there's like 10-12 counties with growth and 70+ with decline. Sad.

I'm really hoping the remote work option sticks long enough for rural MS to become attractive. Biggest issue will be reliable broadband but I hoped starlink would solve that problem.

Our country has a major issue with citification or whatever the term is and MS is on the major losing end. Remote work will be a big savior for a while, if it continues to grow.

might be too many other favors at play to allow remote work to take hold but I hope it can break through. It's the future, just not sure how much pain we'll go though before we get there.

Remote work or not, rural life ain’t for most people. I love spending time on the land I hunt on but I wouldn’t live there. I enjoy the convenience of living near a population. I enjoy having neighbors close by. I think in general, jackson metro, Memphis area and gulf coast are the only areas of MS that will see any growth.

 

[johnson86-1]

Its public funds and the money needs to be spent properly. I am honestly shocked to see this come from you since I would think you would value the idea that public money must be spent responsibly and ethically.
Do you feel the same way about public schools- if they can educate student while doing stupid procurement stuff, thats their business? If you dont feel the same way, why not?

Public schools are public entities spending public money. There is no accountability on providing a good product, so oversight on how they spend their money, including procurement processes that can carry criminal violations if they violate them, are needed to tamp down corruption.

Same thing with housing. We audit government entities spending money providing low income housing. We don't really audit how landlords who receive Section 8 vouchers on how they spend their money. There are basic requirements those landlords have to meet, but the voucher beneficiaries are typically going to want the best housing they can get for their vouchers and other landlords can get properties qualified for section 8 vouchers. No need to wonder about the procurement practices a landlord used when building or renovating their property. Same things with grocery stores that accept SNAP. If they go out and buy from wholesalers based on who is brother in law with whom, that's a problem for the owners. They don't get more SNAP money by inflating costs.

No different with a private school that is eligible to receive vouchers. They are closer to government contractors than public entities. If they are wasting money and providing a ****** product, eventually parents will figure out something else. This will certainly result in schools being ****** for a few years before they go out of business, but that will be much less time spent being ****** than public schools that are ****** spend.

Auditing the spending of public funds is crucial. The state of Mississippi is flooded with corruption, both claimed and proven. Why on earth would you be OK with kickbacks and spending money on preferred vendors who may have inferior products or more expensive products just because the owner is a friend?

If that money is coming out of the owner's pocket and not the government's pocket, and they earned it legitimately, I don't care how they choose to spend it, provided they're not spending it on bribes to get more government money.

 

[FQDawg]

If that money is coming out of the owner's pocket and not the government's pocket, and they earned it legitimately, I don't care how they choose to spend it, provided they're not spending it on bribes to get more government money.

But, in a voucher system, that money very likely is coming out of the government's pocket. Or rather, ultimately from the public's pocket. That's literally the whole idea behind vouchers - it takes public money and gives it to private schools without obligating them to follow the same rules as public schools.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Remote work or not, rural life ain’t for most people. I love spending time on the land I hunt on but I wouldn’t live there. I enjoy the convenience of living near a population. I enjoy having neighbors close by. I think in general, jackson metro, Memphis area and gulf coast are the only areas of MS that will see any growth.

Concur. With young kids I wouldn't live in rural MS. Now in my late 50s, I could easily to it, working on food plots, etc., but that life isn't for most as evidenced by the population. I love the freedom and general redneckery of rural MS, but that lifestyle isn't for most people, including my old lady.

 

[johnson86-1]

But, in a voucher system, that money very likely is coming out of the government's pocket. Or rather, ultimately from the public's pocket.

Well how long after money comes out of a government's pocket should you get to oversee how it's spent? Should you get to audit a grocery store's procurement procedures simply because they are qualified to accept SNAP? Should you also get to oversee the spending of the wholesaler's they bought from? Seems much easier to just require that they prove they sold a qualifying product and to not worry about how they spend their money otherwise as long as the beneficiary gets what they want while spending their money on a qualifying product.

That's literally the whole idea behind vouchers - it takes public money and gives it to private schools without obligating them to follow the same rules as public schools.

Well, that's pretty misleading without noting that while they don't have to follow all the requirements of a public school, they have to meet a much higher burden that public schools do not, which is they have to convince parents to choose to send their kids there when it won't cost them $7k per kid per year (on the low end) or require that they move residences (for those lucky to be within commuting distance of a good public school) to not send them there.

Of course another way of saying that would be that it takes public money and largely gives it to teachers and administrators at a school the parent chooses as opposed to giving it to teachers and administrators in the district the parents live in (unless they spend the money to send the child somewhere else). It's not like public schools are some bank that public money gets deposited in. The money is going to teachers, administrators, utility, operating costs, etc.

 

[dudehead]

But, in a voucher system, that money very likely is coming out of the government's pocket. Or rather, ultimately from the public's pocket. That's literally the whole idea behind vouchers - it takes public money and gives it to private schools without obligating them to follow the same rules as public schools.

The last part is what I don't get.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

But, in a voucher system, that money very likely is coming out of the government's pocket. Or rather, ultimately from the public's pocket. That's literally the whole idea behind vouchers - it takes public money and gives it to private schools without obligating them to follow the same rules as public schools.

It takes YOUR tax dollars to the school of your choice. There's no such thing as public money by the way. Those are individual tax dollars.

 

[dudehead]

It takes YOUR tax dollars to the school of your choice. There's no such thing as public money by the way. Those are individual tax dollars.

I'm OK with it so long as you require all schools to play by the same rules.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Concur. With young kids I wouldn't live in rural MS. Now in my late 50s, I could easily to it, working on food plots, etc., but that life isn't for most as evidenced by the population. I love the freedom and general redneckery of rural MS, but that lifestyle isn't for most people, including my old lady.

I grew up in rural Mississippi and don't want to go back. General redneckery is the main reason.

I have a very low tolerance for people's ignorance given my experiences growing up being on the spectrum and undiagnosed.

I often see and hear people - many of whom were childhood friends - from where I live making cutting remarks about really nitpicky people such as myself and therefore potentially on the spectrum and I can't help but ask myself: Would I really be welcome where I used to live?

And my answer - for years - has been: No, I wouldn't.

 

[grimedawg1]

These things you mention will certainly help, but they aren't going to be primary drivers to overall population growth....We increased the percentage of teacher pay last year higher than any other state in the union, and just added another $180 Million to our education budget on Saturday (yes, two days ago)....these things help....Personally, I dont agree with government throwing more and more money in certain areas and expecting things to change drastically.....example: medicaid expansion needs to happen, but its not going to keep rural hospitals open.

A sad reality for tax loving socialists is that you have Texas, Tennessee, and Florida eliminating state income taxes and Arkansas and Alabama toying with the idea (along with MS)....that is a big economic driver whether you like it or not....if we could find a reliable way to eliminate our state income tax, that would help losing folks to neighboring states. (i know a family who lived and worked in east memphis who moved to desoto county for two years thinking it would lower her cost of living who subsequently moved back bc it was costing them more).

Another reality is giving tax breaks to attract businesses and jobs does indeed work. However we are competing with tax breaks and no income tax in TN to our north and it is working well for them, which is why we are talking about eliminating our income tax.

Personally, i like what MS is doing to get out in front of this, and they are aware of the pop decline, but it doesn't happen overnight. Our job training certificates with high schools and JUCO's are working. The state just approved hiring 50 new career coaches throughout MS just recently bc it is working so well.

Toyota in Blue Springs is offering $120K starting pay for kids straight out of high school that get their 9 month certificate in certain areas.

I just wish government worked faster and we could eliminate petty politics.

Tax lovers don't just collect income taxes. They also collect property and sales taxes. I think you will find that each of those are pretty high in the states with no sales tax. I don't understand the huge economic impact of lowering the income tax in MS versus lowering the sales tax. Income tax is 5%. You telling me there is a huge Laffer curve on 5%? I highly doubt it. But, eliminating income tax would make entrenched high income folks in the state - say someone with a huge HVAC business that is profitable - very happy because they don't use a lot of their disposable income to live (which expenses are subject to sales or property tax).

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

It takes YOUR tax dollars to the school of your choice. There's no such thing as public money by the way. Those are individual tax dollars.

My question around the entire idea is this:

Taxpayer A sends their kid to a public school so their taxes go to the public school.

Taxpayer B sends their kid thus their taxes to a private school.

Taxpayer C doesn't have kids. Does he not deserve a refund? Why doesn't he get a choice on where his tax money is used?

If I get to as an individual, direct where my taxes are spent for schools, can I also do it for police, fire, roads, and everything else? It sure seems like a slippery slope.

 

[Boom Boom]

Well how long after money comes out of a government's pocket should you get to oversee how it's spent? Should you get to audit a grocery store's procurement procedures simply because they are qualified to accept SNAP? Should you also get to oversee the spending of the wholesaler's they bought from? Seems much easier to just require that they prove they sold a qualifying product and to not worry about how they spend their money otherwise as long as the beneficiary gets what they want while spending their money on a qualifying product.



Well, that's pretty misleading without noting that while they don't have to follow all the requirements of a public school, they have to meet a much higher burden that public schools do not, which is they have to convince parents to choose to send their kids there when it won't cost them $7k per kid per year (on the low end) or require that they move residences (for those lucky to be within commuting distance of a good public school) to not send them there.

Of course another way of saying that would be that it takes public money and largely gives it to teachers and administrators at a school the parent chooses as opposed to giving it to teachers and administrators in the district the parents live in (unless they spend the money to send the child somewhere else). It's not like public schools are some bank that public money gets deposited in. The money is going to teachers, administrators, utility, operating costs, etc.

That's either extremely naive or asinine, because the biggest drag on nearly every business is dealing with the outlier crap that is always there. If I could run a buffet without letting fatasses in the door, run a bar without drunk asshats showing up, or run just about anything without Karen's showing up, profits would be gangbusters! So it's pretty ****** to gaslight about the effects of running a school without having to deal with special needs kids or delinquents.

 

[johnson86-1]

My question around the entire idea is this:

Taxpayer A sends their kid to a public school so their taxes go to the public school.

Taxpayer B sends their kid thus their taxes to a private school.

Taxpayer C doesn't have kids. Does he not deserve a refund? Why doesn't he get a choice on where his tax money is used?

If I get to as an individual, direct where my taxes are spent for schools, can I also do it for police, fire, roads, and everything else? It sure seems like a slippery slope.

It's not a slippery slope for any of those things. There is certainly an argument as to whether the positive externalities of educated residents are large enough to justify publicly funding primary and secondary education and if so, to what extent. But that is a separate argument from how to spend the money once you decide to fund it.

If you are going to spend public money on it, it's incredibly inefficient to limit it to government run schools. Kids aren't cookie cutter and there's no reason to limit them to one school based on where their parents live. Sure, in Mississippi, there are going to be some places that only have one or at most two options, but generally why not let the person that is typically the most invested person in a child's education help identify the best educational method for their child.

 

[RocketDawg]

My question around the entire idea is this:

Taxpayer A sends their kid to a public school so their taxes go to the public school.

Taxpayer B sends their kid thus their taxes to a private school.

Taxpayer C doesn't have kids. Does he not deserve a refund? Why doesn't he get a choice on where his tax money is used?

If I get to as an individual, direct where my taxes are spent for schools, can I also do it for police, fire, roads, and everything else? It sure seems like a slippery slope.

Taxpayer B still pays taxes for the public schools, even though their kids go to private schools. I was one of those. My rationale was that I could have used the public schools had I wanted to, but I didn't want to.

Taxpayer C doesn't have kids in schools but still pay school taxes, generally without complaint, for the good of the community.

 

[johnson86-1]

That's either extremely naive or asinine, because the biggest drag on nearly every business is dealing with the outlier crap that is always there. If I could run a buffet without letting fatasses in the door, run a bar without drunk asshats showing up, or run just about anything without Karen's showing up, profits would be gangbusters! So it's pretty ****** to gaslight about the effects of running a school without having to deal with special needs kids or delinquents.

Having vouchers doesn't take away the government's discretion to provide more funding for special needs students. And districts generally already have "alternative schools" to send delinquents to if they are too disruptive for regular school.

 

[RocketDawg]

Our state needs population growth. We need it in the small towns and we need it in the core of our only metro area.

Alabama
Tennessee
Arkansas

all with population growth. MS and LA lost population over last few years.

Mississippi has several metro areas: Jackson, Hattiesburg, Gulfport-Biloxi, Pascagoula, and the southern suburbs of the large Memphis metro.

 

[Boom Boom]

Having vouchers doesn't take away the government's discretion to provide more funding for special needs students. And districts generally already have "alternative schools" to send delinquents to if they are too disruptive for regular school.

Ok, so just asinine.

You know fully well that public schools are limited in their ability to choose to not serve special needs or behavior problem kids. Private schools are not. Thus, private schools operate at a financial advantage.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Having vouchers doesn't take away the government's discretion to provide more funding for special needs students. And districts generally already have "alternative schools" to send delinquents to if they are too disruptive for regular school.

Ok, so just asinine.

You know fully well that public schools are limited in their ability to choose to not serve special needs or behavior problem kids. Private schools are not. Thus, private schools operate at a financial advantage.

I'll disagree with both of y'all.

A lot of public school administrators and teachers wish that they were at private schools and could limit.

Public schools have long tried to limit funding for special needs students (and this was before vouchers).

There's a lot of pushback from students and parents that things should be de jure instead of going the lazy de facto route among other things:

public school special needs lawsuit - Google Search

 

[randystewart]

Starkville has gotten better. And it makes sense because of the growth. And of course if SA didn't exist, SHS would suddenly get better. But I'm not anti-private school, so not advocating that.

But the phenomena you're talking about comes well after a boom has started. Then, of course the hivemind is attracted to the good schools, for obvious reasons, like you and @horshack.sixpack about property values.

It would be hard to argue that SHS wouldn't get better if SA closed, but it isn't near as cut and dry as most people would believe. Starkville public is a conundrum, and has kept us from wanting to move back. Starkville Public has a demographics problem that moving the entirety of SA and Starkville Christian to SPS wouldn't move the needle by 3%. You can make the race statement that SPS is 70+% minority, but it is nearly 76% school lunch eligible. When you take poverty in that amount, you end up with a bunch of parents that don't care or hold kids accountable at home.
From people that I have talked to that still live in Starkville, many thought the Partnership School would fix things but it has not turned out that way. 6th grade and up at SPS has been described to me as teenage daycare. We look at moving back almost every year, but that is unlikely to happen until our kids are out of high school.
Like it or not, the public school system in Starkville is one of the biggest hindrances to growth for the county and there really isn't a way to fix it. I have several friends that did not want to pay for private school so they bought property just across the line to send their kids to East Webster.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

I'm OK with it so long as you require all schools to play by the same rules.

It's not about the schools. It's about the individuals' rights to send their kid and money to a good school. Let's keep MS dumb by forcing every kid to go where the district says their money goes even when the school is failing the student. It's dumb as hell. Imagine paying $50K for a car but getting assigned a scooter.

 

[Wesson Bulldog]

Y'all all have made great points about how to make better economic opportunities er al. One glaring issue of all of this is educating children starts AT HOME.
Here in Copiah County we check all the boxes for an industry to want to locate here (access to rail and interstate, proximity to MS river ports, an industrialpark with utilities, etc. )..except one: Our public schools, outside of Wesson Attendance Center, are horrible. It's not because of lack of funding. It's because of a high ratio of single parent households and households on heavy transfer payments. In many cases the children are born so that the mama can get more welfare funds for the household. They are not being reared properly.
By the time they are school-age, they aren't prepared to learn. So, the school system plays the role of parent until learning can begin. A student may well be into middle school before any progress is made.
So, until the people elect a government that removes benefits for having more babies, for one reason, our education system in this part of the world will continue to fail. Industry will continue to move on to other areas.