|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Report Comment
"I find it fascinating that Hamilton went a whole column without wanging on the "corporate welfare" saw. One cheer, Arnold.
Oklahoma does fairly well at attracting fast food restaurants and Walmarts to set up shop. That creates jobs, but the problem is these jobs don't pay very well. What Oklahoma does not do well at is attracting top-level business to the state, for example, technology and white-collar service industries that pay high salaries to certified and degreed professionals.
In the long run, that's killing us, because the problem is a two-edged sword. Oklahoma's college graduates leave the state for opportunities elsewhere because of the dearth of them here. Oklahoma ranks 45th in the nation in terms of education. That means those who do leave high school with a degree don't have competitive base-level skills. Therefore, top-tier industry won't set up shop here because of the lack of a work force with the prerequisite skills. It's a vicious cycle.
Breaking this cycle will take years, possibly an entire generation, but we need to get started now. Fortunately we have a new governor that understands just throwing money at the education problem isn't going to get it done. We need to raise standards. All options should be on the table: more charter schools, education vouchers, as well as the reforms underway in public schools. It would also serve us well to push to draw parents in, and get them to engage at the middle school and high school level. Too often, parental involvement in their child's education goes missing beyond elementary school.
That's step one; raise standards and do a better job of preparing students to land a high-paying job. Step two, keep the "corporate welfare" going. Whatever sweeteners or deal-making needs to be done to get high paying jobs to Oklahoma - do it.
Poverty's root cause in prosperous, developed nations is lack of education. Address that basic problem, and Oklahoma can get out of the hole it's in. Better education, higher wages. Higher wages, less poverty. That also has a multiplier effect of it's own; more disposable income means more charitable contributions - to further alleviate poverty's effects."
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
