TO: JS wrote on Feb 6, 2007 9:48 AM:
" Yawn "
JS wrote on Feb 5, 2007 4:26 PM:
" How have I been jumping around? I took data from two sources. The data from the state labor department was straight out avarage income for INDIVIDUAL workers. The data from CNN money.com was median FAMILY income. These incomes shouldn't be the same as the last time I checked, a family and individual are two different things. "
Hey JS wrote on Feb 5, 2007 1:46 PM:
" You have been kinda jumping around on this per capita thing, and then you even started to make excuses for the 'so called' averages of others. How is it that you make excsues for data that you initially said was wrong. Quite a convuluted evolution to witness. "
TO: RE To JS wrote on Feb 4, 2007 11:21 AM:
" Rent and homes sale prices will rise to the Market, based on income. That is hard concept for you people who ride on the non-profit, foundation, government meal wagon. That is why you fight so hard to rationalize your pay/benefits. You would dimply dry out in the real world. Not quite "half", what a limp attempt to throw an object in the path of this discussion. "
RE To JS wrote on Feb 3, 2007 10:56 PM:
" You're comparing apples with oranges. CNN.Money is using the MEDIAN, the state is using the AVERAGE. The median housing costs in Madison are much higher than La Crosse ($218,000 vs. $128,000). So too with the property taxes. We do beat Madison in one area: we have more bars per capita (99 for 51,549 vs. 155 for 221,600). WHOOPEE! "
Correction wrote on Feb 3, 2007 10:14 PM:
" According to CNN.Money Madison Income is $67,713 (for 2006). La Crosse was $47,603. Wishing YOU were right doesn't make YOU right.
"
Now wait a minute. wrote on Feb 3, 2007 9:49 PM:
" The last stats I saw on Lacrosse were just a hiar over $32k. The $60k plus for Madison was what I saw, as well as just a hair over $30k for Milwaukee Coiunty as well. "
To: To JS wrote on Feb 3, 2007 7:41 PM:
" I'm sure there are many "Madison Avenues" but the one most people refer to is in New York so $67,713 sounds a little low and has nothing to do with the comment by JS. "
JS wrote on Feb 3, 2007 7:14 PM:
" Skewing numbers I see. According to CNN money.com the average income for La Crosse is $47,603 found from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/snapshots/PL5540775.html
Yes, La Crosse is lower but it's not clearly half. "
To JS wrote on Feb 3, 2007 5:06 PM:
" according to CNN.Money Madison Ave Income is $67,713 (for 2006). La Crosse was $41,250. Wishing you were right doesn't make you right. "
Bejamin Franklin wrote on Feb 3, 2007 3:22 PM:
" "An investment in education always earns the best interest." -- RSM "
Resident (continued) wrote on Feb 3, 2007 3:11 PM:
" We also don't need their house parties and all the problems that come with them. Until UW-L comes up with a policy for alcohol that punishes students who over drink and strictly enforce their policy, then they can start even considering such an idea. Third, why do they think they need to raise tuition? The residents of this state deserve to have the lowest tuition possible. We give our fair share of taxes and we deserve to get as much out of our taxpayer dollars as possible. Finally, why do colleges always think they need to factor in race for financial aid and admissions? Since there is such an achievement gap between minorities and whites in high school why don't they consider closing that gap to equalize the field? This policy does not more than promote inequality as it places minorities above the rest. "
Resident wrote on Feb 3, 2007 3:10 PM:
" Great, so now we are going to have another 1,000 college kids around the city. This plan is clearly flawed as it does not consider any impacts to the community. My first question is where are these 1,000 new kids going to go? To make problems even worse they plan to knock down two dorms to build an academic building. The neighborhoods around the university are already saturated with college kids and many families have been driven out. UW-L can say they plan to partner with private developers, but until they find a place for these students this plan will not work as neighborhoods around the university already have too many college students. My second question is why do we need more college students around town? We don't need another 1,000 students around so the police can baby sit them as they go downtown to drink. (Continued) "
RE Nestor wrote on Feb 3, 2007 2:34 PM:
" Never let unsubstantiated facts and disconnected assumptions get in the way of a good argument! "
JS wrote on Feb 3, 2007 1:26 PM:
" La Crosse's average income is not half of Madison's. According to the state labor department, the avergae income for madison in '05 was $41,000. The average for La Crosse was $36,000 and for Milwaukee was $32,000. Where are you getting your data from that shows La Crosse's income is half of Madison's? "
You know..... wrote on Feb 3, 2007 1:03 PM:
" years ago people used to move up north to live out there retirement years in tranquil enjoyment. Now with the taxes more and more properties have become high earners in a rich man's portfolio and has little to do with their getaway. Keep voting for these guys, and in a few more years our children will not identify WI from our relections from years past. The gap is widening and sadly too many of the large voting segment that the Dems are pandering to are enjoying the ride. "
Nestor wrote on Feb 3, 2007 12:29 PM:
" The original plan was to raise 15 million. $12 million for more staff and students. By raising tuition to WI based students, and lowering tuition to foreign cash cow students. As they entice them to come to UWL regardless of their academic records as the bar moves closer to the bottom in a institution for higher learning? Sorry, I believe this is a limp attempt to gin more money for their overpaid/benfited bloated selves. As they play an expensive contract negotiating game of leap by comparing the current high earner within their individual categories. The $3 million is just the cost of raising the $12 million for themselves. As the democrats make monetary promises to garner their future security and power that we can ill afford. As employee/employers in Lacrosse/Milwaukee that make 1/2 of Dane run for the border? "
Nestor wrote on Feb 3, 2007 12:18 PM:
" Look, this plan is based on the 'students'. Really, 'students' is code instead of blatantly using the well worn, widely used government term 'children'. Shameless, same thing! Then they pull in minorities so that any opposition voiced purposely makes one appear or feel like a racist. This is a simple matter. The legislator cut funding. It all comes from the same bowl, taxpayers. Funding shortages are going to increase. Perusing upper management employement contracts, having employees revert to paying their portion of retirement programs, and cutting all forms of post early retirement health coverage are a good place to start. "
Why don't they just bulldoze the city? wrote on Feb 3, 2007 9:33 AM:
" This nonsense won't stop until the complete city is destroyed. This building program is just going to cause massive problems for the city, but of course the university system, and the governor could care less. "
The real world wrote on Feb 3, 2007 8:36 AM:
" Wisconsin has the worst Bond rating in the U.S.
Doyle has shown he has no idea what it takes to boost the states economy. He is trying to spend us into oblivion. I'm afraid I will have to start looking for a state where I can afford to live, its a shame. "
An abused Neighbor wrote on Feb 3, 2007 8:24 AM:
" UW-L has never been a good nieghbor and with their new "Growth Plan" it appears that they never will be. I'll let others bemoan the additional load, etc. My outrage is what this basically says to students from middle & low income families in La Crosse - "don't come here". How about the ones that help out at home and maybe can't leave town. Or how about the ones contributing to the costs that don't believe that they can get a better Part-Time Job for part of the year versus a Part-Time Job for the whole year. "
Oh, they have the specifics wrote on Feb 3, 2007 7:14 AM:
" already figured out, but if you don't present the specifics no one can argue with you. When they floated their "trial ballon", they were very specific as to how they would support the 1,000 additional students as well as to the tuition rates to accomplish such. And as always, the "devil" is in the details. VERY VERY BAD POLICY! "
Advertisement
