Las Vegas economy still has long way to go

To the editor:

Thank you for your continuing coverage and recent story on the "improving" Las Vegas economy ("Taxable sales in Nevada, Las Vegas surge by double digits," Friday Review-Journal).

I agree with UNLV economist Steve Brown - there is so much pent up demand for goods, it appears that consumers went on a bit of a spending spree in February.

However, I disagree with Brian Gordon from Applied Analysis. He stated that "the mind-set of consumers has moved beyond the recession. They're spending in spite of challenges that continue to loom. Consumers are returning to the market and to more normalized levels of spending."

Has he interviewed residents of our valley?

The job market and the housing market are still awful. Personal income may be on the rise, but you have to consider just how low things were in 2008 and 2009. I'll tell you how my family has fared: Our household income went down by 30 percent in the worst part of the recession. Now we're making about 75 percent of what we were bringing in pre-recession. So, yes, our income has gone up slightly, but we haven't "recovered."

The economists explained that February's numbers were boosted by that 29th day of the month, but they forgot another obvious explanation - February is the height of the tax season. Consumers filed for and received their federal income tax refunds. A significant number of valley residents also qualified for the earned-income tax credit. This can put $3,000, $4,000 or even $5,000 into their pockets.

That's a down payment for a car, or a new couch, or summer clothes for the kids, or a few more nights eating out - or all of the above.

In March, we'll be back to the new "normal." Granted, the general trend for taxable sales in Nevada is improving, ever so slightly. Passenger counts at McCarran International Airport (another important indicator) are also increasing by small amounts each month. However, the job market and the housing market remain depressed.

In Nevada, we're still years away from recovery.

Clorinda Fontano

North Las Vegas

Teacher facts

To the editor:

The Sunday commentary by James W. Guthrie, the state's new superintendent of schools, was smoke and mirrors. Mr. Guthrie's biography - as posted on the Nevada Department of Education web page - does not include any classroom time, no mention of being an elementary or secondary teacher. His biography does state he received his bachelor's degree in 1958, master's in 1960 and Ph.D. in 1968. Perhaps the elementary and secondary classroom climate has changed in the past 44 to 54 years.

It would take too much space to point out the errors in each of his dozen givens, so here's a sampling, using researched data, to invalidate a few.

- Econometric analysis: The big study linking student gains to teachers caught everyone's eye. Further reading revealed, though, that the study could not account how a teacher could be value added one year and value deficient the next. Students are not data points in an economic study conducted by persons not of the classroom. Every year each group of students has its own ability and potential that cannot be measured.

- U.S. teacher pay compared to OECD nations: According to OECD.org, based on 15 years of teaching, "U.S. teacher salaries are more middling" when compared to the OECD nations. The report also states U.S. teachers work 286 to 427 more hours a year. Also, when it comes to starting teacher salaries based on percent of per capita GDP, the United States ranks far below those they are usually compared to.

- Salaries annualized: Mr. Guthrie's statement that teachers make more than their counterparts with equivalent education is misleading. First, is it based on per hour wage, not salary, and second, it uses a fictional hour-per-day number. Teacher salaries were divided by 6.6 hours, resulting in higher per-hour wages. Does he really think teachers work 6.6 hours a day?

Finally, on his last two points, Mr. Guthrie contradicts himself. He states that advanced education does not improve a teacher, but later notes that those with a National Board of Professional Teachers Certificate display "slight positive advantage."

Gary W. Conder

North Las Vegas

Not so bright

To the editor:

In response to your Sunday article, "Watching smart meter might be a bright idea," one has to wonder why any Fortune 500 company is telling their customers to use less of any product it manufactures. This is contrary to any marketing strategy known to the modern business world.

Second, the premise for not using the energy the company produces is also questionable. No matter what consumers do to save energy, NV Energy will still want to charge its customers more - the 27.5 percent rate increase the company asked for in 2011 was ample proof of that.

All the reasons for installing a smart meter are false justifications for forcing you to have one.

If a consumer really wants to know in real time what his energy usage is, he can buy any one of many whole-house energy monitors on the market today and effectively accomplish all the items in this article's energy reduction list without compromising his privacy or increasing fees as the smart meter does.

Because these other methods are available, why are customers being forced to have a smart meter? Customer service is all about customer choice. If a customer chooses not to have a smart meter for any reason, he is still being forced to accept one and required to pay a fee to decline it.

Maybe we should consider answering these questions, too, before we conclude that smart meters are a "bright idea."

Mike Hazard

Las Vegas