The quality of jobs in the United States became a national concern in the 1980s after a long period of losses of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs and gains of frequently low-paying service jobs. National job quality remains a concern today, as witnessed by the debate in the 2004 presidential campaign. The overall average wage is a measure of prosperity or well-being, but is not in itself a measure of job quality since job quality is just one of several factors — including cost of living, productivity, and desirability of an area — that affect the overall average wage. Little information on these factors is available by state. Adjusting for job quality reduces the state-by-state variation in wages. However, even after adjusting for job quality, the average wage still varies substantially by state.

The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.

Available data on the cost of living indicate that living costs in Arizona are close to the national average — thus, the state’s lower-than-average wages are not offset by low living costs. No productivity data exist for Arizona. Worker productivity in Arizona could be below the national average due to lesser investments in physical or human capital, which would result in lower wages. Labor market supply and demand factors are a likely cause of the low wages in Arizona. A substantial number of people seem willing to move to Arizona and accept a substandard wage in exchange for perceived qualitative advantages to living in Arizona, primarily climate.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona," March 2005) presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" (June 2005), is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national
average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

This white paper has been created by Arizona Land Subsidence Group to help educate stakeholders and decision makers by describing the geological features and processes of land subsidence and earth fissures, and the hazards they create. This paper presents the current and future technical needs that exist in terms of basic knowledge, available data, and the state of professional practice.

This summary report overviews a State of Arizona and U. S. Department of Energy funded drilling project to determine if near-term hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal potential exists in the eastern portion of the White Mountains region of Arizona. A 4,505 feet deep slim-hole exploratory well, Alpine1/Federal, was drilled within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest at Alpine Divide near the Alpine Divide camp ground about 5 miles north of Alpine, Arizona in Apache County (Figure 1). A comprehensive technical report, in two parts, details the results of the project. Part 1, Alpine1/Federal, Drilling Report, discusses the drilling operations,
logging program, permitting and site selection for the hole. Part 2, Temperature Gradients, Geothermal Potential, and Geology, summarizes the temperature gradients, heat flow, geothermal potential, and subsurface geology.

In March 1971, the Arizona Bureau of Mines—predecessor of today’s Arizona Geological Survey—published the first issue of Fieldnotes. For nearly 40 years, Fieldnotes, and its successor, Arizona Geology, showcased all things geologic in Arizona. From the onset, the quarterly magazine printed topical pieces on Arizona’s mineral resources, energy potential, and environmental geology. In Fall 1988, Fieldnotes became Arizona Geology, and the newsletter was retailored to meet the needs of Arizona’s exploding population. There was increased focus on articles describing geologic phenomena—flash floods and regional floods, earthquakes, landslides, volcanism, swelling and shrinking soils, earth fissures, and more—with the most immediate and adverse impact on the lives and properties of our fellow Arizonans. But that was then and this is now! As print publication costs rise through the stratosphere, we simply can no longer afford to print and mail 4100 copies of Arizona Geology quarterly. Arizona Geology is going digital. We are suspending the print publication immediately and we are moving from a quarterly schedule to three times annually.