Compare and Contrast Oklahoma vs. Conneticut.

Both states have similar population sizes, but there are differences in income, poverty, education, etc.

I am very curious as to both the political and social differences and why there as such huge differences between demographics.

Here are some helpful sites and data:

Census data with current data on population statistics for:

Oklahoma: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html
OK. Population (2008 estimate): 3,642,361

Connecticut: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09000.html
CT. Population (2008 estimate): 3,501,252

School statistics on educational achievements and expenditures for various measures:

Oklahoma: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/ok
OK. Per Pupil Expenditure: $6,941
OK. Proficiency:

Connecticut: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/CT
CT. Per Pupil Expenditure: $13,072
CT. Proficiency:

Annual total tax burden, per capita:

Oklahoma: $1823.70

Connecticut: $2941.21

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita

Per capita income for:

Oklahoma: $24,787.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=OK

Connecticut: $41,930.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=CT

1. Why are there differences like this?

2. Why does a smaller state make more money?

3. Why are there differences in education?

I am genuinely curious and slightly confused as to why differences exist. I would like everyone to really focus, at all times, on the socio-political reasons for these differences. I am quite certain that I can learn quite a bit from others here, just be reading their thoughts on this.

Also, are there not similarities? Why do they exist?

Never been to the states so haven´t got clue where these states are, just wondering why you chose these two particular states for comparison.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both states have similar population sizes, but there are differences in income, poverty, education, etc.

I am very curious as to both the political and social differences and why there as such huge differences between demographics.

Here are some helpful sites and data:

Census data with current data on population statistics for:

Oklahoma: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html
OK. Population (2008 estimate): 3,642,361

Connecticut: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09000.html
CT. Population (2008 estimate): 3,501,252

School statistics on educational achievements and expenditures for various measures:

Oklahoma: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/ok
OK. Per Pupil Expenditure: $6,941
OK. Proficiency:

Connecticut: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/CT
CT. Per Pupil Expenditure: $13,072
CT. Proficiency:

Annual total tax burden, per capita:

Oklahoma: $1823.70

Connecticut: $2941.21

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita

Per capita income for:

Oklahoma: $24,787.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=OK

Connecticut: $41,930.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=CT

1. Why are there differences like this?

2. Why does a smaller state make more money?

3. Why are there differences in education?

I am genuinely curious and slightly confused as to why differences exist. I would like everyone to really focus, at all times, on the socio-political reasons for these differences. I am quite certain that I can learn quite a bit from others here, just be reading their thoughts on this.

Also, are there not similarities? Why do they exist?

I'll probably throw some more together after I finishing drinking this strawberry slushy, but it's well known that there are a lot of forgotten states until federal election time. The Northwest and Midwest contain the most forgotten states. Not much of an urban market in these areas which is one reason for the large discrepancies.

Originally posted by chithappens
I'll probably throw some more together after I finishing drinking this strawberry slushy, but it's well known that there are a lot of forgotten states until federal election time. The Northwest and Midwest contain the most forgotten states. Not much of an urban market in these areas which is one reason for the large discrepancies.

This may seem weird, but you were one of the top people in my mind, for a thread like this.

I GREATLY look forward to your insight into this topic.

You are an educator, which would make your opinion of professional level.

The Sooners would kick the Huskies' ass up and down the gridiron from now until the end of our lives.

I hope that's the explanation you were looking for.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may seem weird, but you were one of the top people in my mind, for a thread like this.

I GREATLY look forward to your insight into this topic.

You are an educator, which would make your opinion of professional level.

Well I'll stick to something specific to my state, Tennessee.

In 2005, Tennessee was ranked #49 of the 50 states in the U.S regarding education. This was my freshman year in college and I actually had no clue what to attribute this to at the time (I also was not interested in being an educator back then so it didn't matter much to me). One day the next year, I walked into the Education building for information concerning the major and they were celebrating reach #48...

Last year I had my first real interactions with students inside the classroom as a teacher assistant. I also tutored twice a week at a middle school and high school. The kids were far behind what they should be. It is hard to actually discuss this sort of thing in detail without it seeming damning for the near future. A lot of things just did not connect with them. Over time, I could see improvements but by that time, the semester was over so it's like it never happened. (Maybe we can get into individuals later, but I'm trying to stay on topic.)

A lot of what goes on with education goes back to funding. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) hurt a whole lot more than it helped. Long story short, schools that perform well on standardized tests either keep the funding they already had or receive more; meanwhile, poor performing schools receive less funding AND then the state government basically takes over the decisions for the school (by the way, all the funds for a school district come from one pool so even if everyone did well then everyone loses so there it not much incentive to improve poor performing schools since all schools will cut the money short by doing well).

Sum it up this way: You perform poorly then you get less (and dated) material, more restrictions, yet receive unqualified teachers because no one wants to go there. The cycle continues.

Tennessee is a conservative, majority white state so it's not a case of something like racism or liberal spending. Every year here, taxes go up and somehow we get deeper and deeper in debt (Tennessee has been in the lower 40s for deficit spending this entire decade). My tuition at the University of Tennessee has gone up $1500 since I have been there, yet they keep building new shit all the time while firing faculty, cutting language programs, allowing scholarships and grants to expire, etc.

So quickly, the main concern for education is money, period. The states with the least amount of debt have better education. It's nearly true across the board.

I'm basically done with this slushy now, but I'll let someone else pick up on the income stuff.
😆

Tim McVeigh

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Why are there differences like this?

I have no idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Why does a smaller state make more money?

Because it's older, closer to the coast and is producing better educated people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Why are there differences in education?

Well the total amount collected in taxes is higher but goes to the infrastructure of the same number of people. Assuming a basic level of financial competence they're probably attracting better teachers and using better equipment. From my experience the social pressure for academic sucess is also abnormally high in the North East.

Location is a big thing.

Connecticut is right next door to one of the biggest financial hubs in the world. With that, the cost to live there will be driven up attracting people with more money who can pay higher taxes thus bringing in more money for the state.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I have no idea.

Because it's older, closer to the coast and is producing better educated people.

Well the total amount collected in taxes is higher but goes to the infrastructure of the same number of people. Assuming a basic level of financial competence they're probably attracting better teachers and using better equipment. From my experience the social pressure for academic sucess is also abnormally high in the North East.

1. I think you gave an answer to this in your #3.

2. So, money made is correlated to quality of education....right? (Yes. we know this is factually correct.) I will run some numbers, just for shits and giggles, to see if there are even more correlations like this that are easier to see.

3. The total amount of taxes collected is in a nice ratio to per capita income, in both states.

Here are the ratios that I came up with:

Income ratio to Per person taxes collected:

OK: 13.59 ($24,787.00/$1823.70)

CT: 14.26 ($41,930.00/$2941.21)

Ratios are similar. They are close enough that a difference does not need to be correlated. Income seems to be in a nice ratio to taxes collected.

In fact, just running so more numbers, going by income tax alone, CT raises 10,297,917,394.92 in income taxes in a year.

OK raises 6,642,573,755.70 in Income taxes a year.

Let's compare this number to the amount spent per person on education.

So, we know that more taxes, per person are collected, more money per person is spent. But what is the ratio?

Let's do OK divided by CT income taxes: 64.5%

What about taxes per person ratio? 62%

What about money spent per person on education ratio: 53.1

What about income per capita ratio? 59.1%

What we do know is more money is spent, per person, on education...and it seems to follow income.

Is this an accurate conclusion, at least OK compared to CT?

But, income is directly tied to education...

So is it an endless cycle or does a state have to make a shit ton of other things suffer for 2 decades in the hopes of raising income?

Wouldn't that also require a shift in the social perception of education? Sure, everyone, even bums, will tell you the value of an education and that one should get one, but why are there differences on what the people actually do about it? Can that be changed? How do we do it?

If we do Oklahoma City compared to Bridgeport, as far as standard of living goes, we get that it's 42% more expensive to live there:

http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=55000&city1=54055000&city2=50908000

But, do people from CT make 42% more money?

THEY DO NOT!

They make much more. They make almost 70% more money.

In ratio to income, they spend more money on their education, though.

CT people make, per person, 3.02 times as much money as is spent per person, annually.

OK people make, person, 3.57 times as much money as is spent per person annually.

So, even relative to income, CT people are spending more on education.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Never been to the states so haven´t got clue where these states are, just wondering why you chose these two particular states for comparison.

Population size is similar. There is also a large income difference and education spending difference.

I am trying to see if income differences also translate roughly to the same difference in performance in schools. If the numbers are close...this would be amazing. I know Maryland had an almost direct correlation of 4% improvement per like...$1000 spent per person, or something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If we do Oklahoma City compared to Bridgeport, as far as standard of living goes, we get that it's 42% more expensive to live there:

http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=55000&city1=54055000&city2=50908000

But, do people from CT make 42% more money?

THEY DO NOT!

They make much more. They make almost 70% more money.

In ratio to income, they spend more money on their education, though.

CT people make, per person, 3.02 times as much money as is spent per person, annually.

OK people make, person, 3.57 times as much money as is spent per person annually.

So, even relative to income, CT people are spending more on education.

Population size is similar. There is also a large income difference and education spending difference.

I am trying to see if income differences also translate roughly to the same difference in performance in schools. If the numbers are close...this would be amazing. I know Maryland had an almost direct correlation of 4% improvement per like...$1000 spent per person, or something.

Bridgeport is an absolute shithole. I would be incredibly surprised if people in Bridgeport made 70% more then those in Oklahoma City (in relation to the standard of living costs of course..).

Originally posted by KidRock
Bridgeport is an absolute shithole. I would be incredibly surprised if people in Bridgeport made 70% more then those in Oklahoma City (in relation to the standard of living costs of course..).

Is that where you live?

And, you'd probably get the gamut in income in Bridgeport. There's some who make millions and those who make nothing.

It just so happens that the average income is almost double what it is on OKC...while cost of living is only 42% more, meaning, it SHOULD be easier, on average, for a person to live there, than it is here. (But we know that everyone, pretty much, lives beyond their means.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that where you live?

And, you'd probably get the gamut in income in Bridgeport. There's some who make millions and those who make nothing.

It just so happens that the average income is almost double what it is on OKC...while cost of living is only 42% more, meaning, it SHOULD be easier, on average, for a person to live there, than it is here. (But we know that everyone, pretty much, lives beyond their means.)

People on average make more here because of the jobs people have up here. So many millionaires, CEO's, bankers ect. live up in Connecticut that it must drive the average income through the roof. While on the other hand I would bet Oklahoma has more jobs for working class people then CT does.

And no I don't live in Bridgeport, thank god.

Originally posted by KidRock
People on average make more here because of the jobs people have up here. So many millionaires, CEO's, bankers ect. live up in Connecticut that it must drive the average income through the roof. While on the other hand I would bet Oklahoma has more jobs for working class people then CT does.

And no I don't live in Bridgeport, thank god.

Did you go to public school or private school?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this an accurate conclusion, at least OK compared to CT?

But, income is directly tied to education...

So is it an endless cycle or does a state have to make a shit ton of other things suffer for 2 decades in the hopes of raising income?

Wouldn't that also require a shift in the social perception of education? Sure, everyone, even bums, will tell you the value of an education and that one should get one, but why are there differences on what the people actually do about it? Can that be changed? How do we do it?

Well one of the key reasons people don't get higher education is poverty. If you're born poor your family needs you to support yourself as soon as possible, that means almost no chance at college and likely little or no highschool.

So yes, it is a vicious cycle. The only way to escape it is to be born extraordinary (this can never help many people) or to get some level of outside help. Outside help is hard to get in America because too many people have the mentality that if your poor and uneducated you deserve whatever you get.

Basically to fight lack of education you must fight poverty. And to fight poverty you must fight the popular consciousness about poor people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well one of the key reasons people don't get higher education is poverty. If you're born poor your family needs you to support yourself as soon as possible, that means almost no chance at college and likely little or no highschool.

So yes, it is a vicious cycle. The only way to escape it is to be born extraordinary (this can never help many people) or to get some level of outside help. Outside help is hard to get in America because too many people have the mentality that if your poor and uneducated you deserve whatever you get.

Basically to fight lack of education you must fight poverty. And to fight poverty you must fight the popular consciousness about poor people.

I feel what you're saying.

It's just that...I have a hard time believing that one is damned, for the most part, to their economic stratum. Why DO they have to be damned? If there were a sociological change among the people, putting an emphasis on education, wouldn't that improve the average condition of those who are poor?

Of course, I am aware that it is a two-prong endeavor. The opportunities have to be there, in addition to the change in perception on education.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did you go to public school or private school?

Public, and now a public university too.

Originally posted by KidRock
Public, and now a public university too.

I know it's all perception, but do you feel that you received a better education than most of your age peers from Oklahoma? Other than myself, do you know anyone else from OK? Chances are, if you do know someone else, they are ...to put it nicely...probably not as educated as you are. Do you agree?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel what you're saying.

It's just that...I have a hard time believing that one is damned, for the most part, to their economic stratum.

You're not. Moving down is quite easy. It's going up that's hard.

In business you have to spend some money in order to make money (ideally piles of it). Even if you want to rob a bank you'll need to get a mask, probably a gun off the black market.

If you start off with enough money to choose between "food" and "higher education" you have no (real) choice but to pick food. If you cut back on food in order to get an education you'll be so hungry that actual learning would be impossible anyway. If you take the slow path your skills are liable to be outdated by the time your done.

The further down the economic ladder you are the harder it is to rise to the next level. A motivated middle class person can become wealthy with enough hard work. A destitute person is simply lacking in options, the rungs on the metaphorical ladder are just too far apart to reach the next one.

Obviously not everybody is controlled by this, some people really are extraordinary. The fallacy is in thinking that because some people have heartwarming rags to riches stories that everyone is capable of it. In fact half those stories about people pulling themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps are heavily embelished (as should be obvious by the amount of sense "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" makes).

So basically you're not damned by your family's wealth but it's far, far, far easier to succeed if you start off rich than if you start off poor.