Matching Items (7)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

Created2000 to 2016
Description

The Arizona Department of Transportation was authorized in 1996 to administer a State Infrastructure Bank under a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. The Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP) was established. The financial statements present only the funds comprising the Fund and are not intended to present

The Arizona Department of Transportation was authorized in 1996 to administer a State Infrastructure Bank under a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. The Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program (HELP) was established. The financial statements present only the funds comprising the Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position or results of operations of the Department.

Created1998 to 2017
Description

The HELP program is meant to be a funding tool to accelerate needed highway projects throughout the state. Board Funding Obligations are an important part of the HELP capitalization and the current stress on the State's General Fund has impacted our ability to use BFOs as a funding source for

The HELP program is meant to be a funding tool to accelerate needed highway projects throughout the state. Board Funding Obligations are an important part of the HELP capitalization and the current stress on the State's General Fund has impacted our ability to use BFOs as a funding source for new loans. Though $140 million of BFOs are authorized by statute to capitalize the HELP, the State Treasurer was required to call all outstanding BFOs in April 2009. Consequently, the State Transportation Board and the Department have suspended the HELP program given the uncertainty of a long term funding source.

42003-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2015-09
Description

Projected transportation revenues fall short of estimated needs and the Arizona Legislature should consider a task force to study options for addressing transportation revenue needs.

43584-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-06
Description

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 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).

43576-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-03
Description

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

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.

43574-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2006-03
Description

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

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.

43572-Thumbnail Image.png
Created2005-06
Description

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 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.