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).

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 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.

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.

Covers an area in southeastern Pima County that drains the Arivaca Creek watershed. The purpose of the report is to estimate peak discharge for the 50 year storm frequency event, utilizing the rational method (Q=CiA). This method pre-dates that outlined in the Hydrology Manual for Engineering Design and Floodplain Management within Pima County, Sept. 1979, and is considered less accurate. It is recommended that this report be archived and discontinued for use for regulatory purposes.

The purpose of the study is to identify existing flooding problems for fifteen homes adjacent and west of Holladay Street which have experienced flooding in the past three years. A 1991 follow-up report is included that corrects an error in the earlier report's estimation of the split flow quantities at the intersection.