New Jersey Lags Nation in (Almost) Every Economic Sector

This post looks at what sectors of the New Jersey economy are growing, stagnating, and shrinking relative to the national economy.  It is a follow up to my county-by-county look at regional job growth.

The source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics's Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.  Like my post looking at job gains/losses in county-level terms, the data goes from 2010 to March 2017.

As we can see, every single sector of the NJ economy - with the exceptions of "Other Services" and Local Government - is doing worse than the national economy.

Source
https://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm

Oy.  This is not good.

WTF on the growth of local government? According to the BLS, Local Government employment grew from 404,312 to 417,244.  Although that's not a lot in absolute terms, New Jersey's population is one of the most slowly growing in the country, there is no justification for local government employment to grow so much relative to the national baseline.

NJ also outperformed the nation in "other services," but I do not know what that includes and it is only a net gain of 12,200 jobs.

This is what the jobs data for NJ looks like in terms of absolute numbers:

Source
https://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm

NJ's net employment gain (public & private sectors) was only 219,445.

Based on the above chart with absolute numbers you might think that NJ was doing well with "Service-providing" jobs, but the 219,445 gain is only 8%.  The national average gain in that sector was 14%.  Also, this is not a highly-paying sector of the economy, so the increase does not provide that much revenue to the NJ Treasury.

A Continuation of Pre-Christie Problems

I need to emphasize that NJ's economic problems predate Chris Christie, a point that gets lost in many missives from groups like the NJ Policy Perspective, which date NJ's problems to the start of the Great Recession, but do not acknowledge that the problems existed prior to the Great Recession.  (example 1, example 2 etc etc)

During the seven years previous, from 2003 to 2010, New Jersey also significantly lagged the national economy in all of the same categories it lagged the nation in from 2010-2017.

During those years NJ's employment fell by 2.98% (-114,000 jobs), while the country gained 11.34%, which is actually a larger gap than the 13.4%-7% gap from 2010-2017.

Obviously 2010 was the trough of the recession, which hit NJ harder than most states, but even if you looked back to NJ's peak employment in January 2008, NJ's job performance would be only 2.1%.

This is a chart showing NJ's dismal job performance in the seven years before Christie.

Source:
https://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm

NJ's history of economic stagnation precedes Chris Christie and will outlast him.  Like I've said before, New Jersey is up against several powerful macroeconomic forces and carries the country's heaviest debt load.

Given the macroeconomic forces, trends, and debt lined up against us, it's going to be clearer than ever that we need to redistribute Adjustment Aid and scale back Abbott utopianism.

New Jersey and Its Neighbors's Job Growth, County by County

If you care enough about public policy to read this blog, you already know that New Jersey's job growth has lagged the national average for two decades.

This post will look at New Jersey's private-sector job picture on the county level, for a more granular look that reveals more of the complexity of our economy and the economy of our "economic neighborhood" of Delaware, eastern Pennsylvania, downstate New York, and southwest Connecticut.

When the media and political organizations discuss job growth in New Jersey, the analysis and argument almost always focuses on the state of

This graph from the New Jersey Policy Perspective
 is too blunt to be helpful,
nor is it even 100% accurate
that NJ lags PA. See below for a more nuanced
take.
Source.

 New Jersey as a whole, with sometimes some analysis of our employment rate, job gains in absolute numbers, income, or whatever sectors of our economy are shrinking or growing.

That state-level analysis has its place, but state-level analysis conceals that large portions of an apparently stagnant state are actually thriving and vice versa, ie, that large portions of a state whose growth is strong are actually stagnant or in decline.

In my opinion, the state-level comparisons that the New Jersey Policy Perspective uses obscure more than they reveal and their real purpose is to diminish Chris Christie, not shed light on NJ and local economic conditions.  The success of New York State in the last 7-8 years has nothing to do with Andrew Cuomo but everything to do with New York City already being the country's economic and cultural capital, and a huge tourist attraction to boot.

-----

The source of my data is the Bureau of Labor Statistics's "Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages."  Look under "County High-Level" if you want to verify anything here.  

My comparison is Q1 of 2010 to March of 2017.  I used Q1 of 2010 because that is when Chris Christie became governor and is near the bottom of the Great Recession.

-----

Job Gains/Losses, Absolute Numbers

As you can see, New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), and Queens are significantly ahead of all other counties.

Combined, those three counties alone have enjoyed more than half of the New Jersey & Neighborhood job growth.

In fact, Manhattan's job growth of 335,000 is 100,000 more than all of New Jersey combined.  

• New York State Job Growth is Really New York City Job Growth
  New York State's job growth is extremely concentrated in New York City as well, with 73% of New York State's new private sector jobs being created in the Five Boroughs, even though they only have 43% of New York State's population.  40% of new jobs are in Manhattan alone, even though Manhattan has only 8% of New York State's population.
• Hudson is the Strongest in New Jersey, but is not Dominant like Manhattan/NYC
  Although Hudson County is the only New Jersey county to outperform the country, with 15.9% job growth, New Jersey's job growth is not as concentrated in Hudson as New York State's is in New York City or Manhattan.
  
  Hudson County has 7.5% of New Jersey's population, but only gained 13.6% of New Jersey's new private sector jobs.  This is impressive, but it is also less than Brooklyn's share of new NYS jobs, which is 17%.
  

  

  Please notice the national average (in orange), is now included.

  
  

• Reports of Exurban Death are Greatly Exaggerated
  Although we hear a lot about how the suburbs are less appealing to people and businesses, several outer-suburban, automobile-dependent counties in New Jersey actually did ok. Somerset gained 12.8%.  Middlesex gained 12.7%.  Morris gained 7.3%.  Ocean gained 10.9%, and Mercer gained 9.9%.  Gloucester gained 9.3%.
  
  Those gains are nothing to write home about, but it's better than what happened with New Jersey's denser, inner suburban counties. Essex gained only 2.2%, Bergen gained 4.4%.  Union lost -1.4%.  Passaic lost 1.2%.
  
  They aren't dense, inner suburbs, but Hunterdon County only gained 3.6% and Warren County lost 4.3%.
• Although train-line suburbs like Glen Ridge, Millburn, Montclair, South Orange, and Maplewood, have New Jersey's hottest real estate markets, their local job pictures are in the doldrums.  Strong train-line real estate markets are not powered by New Jersey-employed buyers.  

Although we hear quite a bit about an American Urban Renaissance a look at Philadelphia adds a critical nuance.

• The Urban Boom is Missing the City of Brotherly Love
  Philadelphia County, while it was in fourth place for total jobs gained, actually has underperformed the

  

  Philly: Doing Ok, but Not Booming

  nation.  Although Philadelphia's 44,000 new private sector jobs is impressive in light of Philadelphia's previous four decades, it is only a job growth rate of 8.5%, a figure significantly below the national average of 13.4%.
  
  On the other hand, Philadelphia's recent gain is better than or the same as its own collar counties. Bucks County only gained 5.7%.  Montgomery only gained 6.4%.  Camden, over in NJ, only gained 6.7%.  Delaware County only did slightly better than Philly, at an 8.9% gain.   

The American Urban Renaissance isn't hype, but it's heavily concentrated in only a few superstar cities and Philadelphia isn't really one of them.

The New Jersey consequence of Philadelphia having modest economic growth is that proximity to Philadelphia isn't an asset like proximity to New York City is.

• New York's Suburban Counties Underperformed the Country, but Outperformed Other Suburbs  Suburban New York is lagging the nation, but holding its own.  Suffolk (+8.4%), Nassau (+7.8%), and Westchester (+7.0%) lagged the nation, but as developed, mature economies you would expect that.  Rockland actually slightly beat the national average with 13.6% jobs gain. Orange County isn't really suburban, but, for what it's worth, it had a strong 12.2% job growth too.  Putnam County (not graphed and not really suburban either), only gained 6%.
  
  Northeast New Jersey's economic performance is terrible.  As mentioned before, Essex gained only 2.2%, Bergen gained 4.4%. Union lost 1.4%.  Passaic lost 1.2%.  Sussex lost 0.6%.  More distant counties in NJ like Middlesex and Somerset did better, but they are not really in NYC's orbit in the same way.
  
  Although NJ's suburbs did the worst, suburban Philadelphia and suburban Connecticut didn't do well either.  As mentioned above, Bucks County and Montgomery County in PA only gained 5.7% and 6.4%, respectively.  Connecticut did worse than that, with Fairfield County and New Haven County only gaining 4.9% and 5.2%, respectively.  

I don't have a confident idea why suburban New York did better than the other suburbs locations. it could be related to the lack of a fiscal crisis.

It's also curious that Rockland and Orange County's job growth are so much better than suburban counties on the New Jersey Long Island, and Westchester.  The New Jersey Policy Perspective likes to attribute New Jersey's problems to an underinvestment in public transportation, as if contemporary and future NJTransit problems could have caused a statewide economic stagnation that began in 1997, but Rockland and Orange County get rail transit from... New Jersey Transit.

Could the growth be from Rockland and Orange counties's demographics?

Is there a Haredi Effect?
Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, so this is tentative, but does the growth of Haredi communities improve jobs growth?

Mostly the causality is economy growth causes population growth, but it's not a one-way causation and there is a countereffect in which population growth itself can drive economic growth and jobs.

• Ocean County is home to Lakewood, New Jersey's fastest growing town.  Ocean County's job

  

  Job Bringers?

  growth is 10.9%, and is fourth best in New Jersey, after Hudson, Somerset, and Middlesex and significantly better than its neighbors.  Monmouth is only at 6.9% growth. Burlington is only at 7.8%.  Atlantic was at a 11.4% loss.  
  
  Lakewood has gained over 26,000 people since the bottom of the recession.  Presumably most of the new population is children, but Ocean County's job gain is actually only 13,000.  It's likely a large portion of that growth is in Lakewood or from Lakewood consumers.

An similar effect seems to exist with Rockland and Orange counties. Rockland is home to the Township of Ramapo and Orange is home to Kiryas Joel.  Most of Rockand and Orange counties's population growth is from their Hassidic communities.

As this 2015 report from the Urban Action Agenda on the Hudson Valley documented:

The greatest numerical increase in the Hudson Valley over the 13-year period was in the Town of Ramapo (Rockland County), with a 19,431 person increase. Ramapo's total population in 2013 - 128,336 - includes the population of the villages within its boundary, including New Square, Kaser and Spring Valley. Thus their rapid growth contributes to Ramapo's booming population. Of the five municipalities that saw 45% or more population growth, three (Kiryas Joel, New Square and Kaser) are almost entirely Hasidic or Jewish Orthodox communities.

To demonstrate the influence of these villages on overall county growth, if Kiryas Joel were factored out during the 2000-2013 period, Orange County's growth rate would drop from 9.5% to 7.6%. Kiryas Joel accounted for 23% of the county's total population growth during the time period. In Rockland County, if Kaser and New Square's growth were factored out over the 2000-2013 time period, the county's growth rate would drop from 9.9% to 8.7%. 

• Atlantic City's Implosion Has Hurt, but without It, New Jersey's Growth Would Still LagAtlantic County lost 11.4% of its private sector jobs, but Atlantic County is small, so that 11.4% loss is only 12,782 private sector jobs.
  
  From Q1 2010 to 2017, New Jersey only gained 220,000 private sector jobs, so even in a hypothetical scenario where Atlantic City didn't lose any private sector jobs or gained 12,782 jobs, New Jersey's economic performance would still lag the nation.  If, hypothetically, Atlantic County gained 12,782 jobs, NJ's private sector job growth would only be 7.2% instead of 7.0%.
  
  The same effect of smallness goes for Cape May County.  Cape May lost 19.6% of its private sector jobs, but that's only 6,127 jobs.

This is a Better Look at NJ's Comparative Job Growth

"South Jersey" is Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland,
Cape May, Gloucester, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem.

I disaggregated North and South Jersey here, but if they were combined, it would be clearer that NJ is ahead of Pennsylvania since most of NJ's population is in North Jersey.

New Jersey's job performance is often ranked below Pennsylvania's (like the NJPP's example in the top of this post), but that is only when you compare from the bottom of each state's respective jobs nadir.

When you compare from most common points of time, like I did by using Q1 of 2010, New Jersey's job performance is actually better.

Excluding New York City, New Jersey actually outperformed the rest of New York State.

-----

Can New Jersey Be Saved?

The tremendous job growth in New York City might lead people to dream that New Jersey's salvation is to build that Gateway Tunnel so that New Jerseyans can get to jobs in New York; or, New Yorkers can move to New Jersey.

Phil Murphy says this sort of thing, but I'll use a quote from Justin Fox, my favorite econ writer, who suggests the key to saving to NJ is to build a tunnel:

I have no idea what combination of roads and trains and bike lanes and hyperloops postsuburban New Jersey will need to thrive, but I'm guessing that good connections to resurgent New York City will be really important. So it can't have helped that two of the signature actions of Chris Christie's governorship -- killing a plan to dig a new rail tunnel to Manhattan in 2010 and causing a horrific traffic jam at the George Washington Bridge in 2013 -- have involved cutting his state off from the city. Blame him for that, definitely.

OK, providing reliable access to New York City is a good way to keep New Jersey's workforce employed, but unfortunately it's no way to keep New Jersey's Treasury filled, since anyone who works in New York State pays income taxes to Albany, even if he lives in another state.

Indeed.  New Jerseyans pay more than $3.1 billion a year in New York State taxes, versus only $616 million that New York residents pay to Trenton.

The New Jersey share of New York's total personal income taxes stands out even in the context of the larger state's enormous tax base: for example, the income taxes paid by New Jersey commuters equaled the total income tax owed by 1.3 million workers and small-business owners in the 17-county Western New York region, including metropolitan Buffalo-Niagara Falls and Rochester. 

New Jersey generated more New York State income tax than the 1.1 million filers living in Brooklyn -- more, for that matter, than any New York City borough except Manhattan.

New Jersey could build the Gateway Tunnel and double capacity to New York City for commuters, but it would do little directly for New Jersey's Treasury and funding for our neglected public services and pensions.

I worry that policy-makers are too quick to write off suburbia and exurbia, but a pathway forward for New Jersey might be to invest in strengthening Hudson County's role as New York City's "Sixth Boro."  This might have to include offering tax incentives to businesses willing to come to Hudson County in order to build up a denser mass of business activity.

Ironically, the state, under Phil Murphy, may be about to embark on a multi-billion dollar tunnel project that, in fact, only takes people under Hudson County on their way to Manhattan, not to New Jersey at all.

Regardless of the path forward for New Jersey, I don't think Christie deserves all of the blame for our problems.  As shown above, the job growth in our part of the country is heavily concentrated in New York City alone.  Philadelphia, its suburbs, all of downstate New York, and all of Connecticut have also lagged the nation.

Although Christie has made many mistakes, New Jersey is up against powerful macroeconomic forces that are not his making.

Let's keep that in context.

----

• Biggest Real Estate Gains, Losses in NJ
• Divergent Fates of NJ's Big Cities
• NJ Lags the Nation in (Almost) Every Economic Category

Sussex County Consolidation?

A recurring proposal to mitigate New Jersey's crushing property taxes is school district (and municipal) consolidation.

The argument seemingly has some merit.  Starting from the fact that New Jersey has 590 school districts, proponents say that if New Jersey had fewer school districts we would need fewer superintendents, fewer assistant superintendents, fewer business administrators, fewer assistant business administrators, etc and then save money.  The most informed advocates for consolidation might use Maryland as an example, which has only 24 county-size districts and much lower spending than New Jersey, with a 1.1 average property tax rate versus New Jersey's 2.4 average tax rate), while seemingly getting equivalent results.

The latest advocate for consolidation is Mayor Wayne Levante of Newton. Levante, a former teacher in Paterson, says that if all 25 of Sussex County's districts consolidated into a single countywide district it would save $6-$9 million.

Why even consider such a thing?

The major reason for consolidation: To save money. 

Per-pupil costs are rising in the county despite decreasingly enrollment, resulting in higher property taxes, according to the Newton resolution. 

Levante said a consolidated district would reduce school administrative costs in Sussex County by anywhere from $6 million to $9 million annually. 

Some school buildings might close as a result, Levante said.
He added that local school boards could still exist, with board presidents perhaps serving on an advisory committee for the county superintendent.

How it would work
The Newton resolution calls for having one county superintendent, one county business office, and all schools within the county overseen by the county office.

Levante, a former teacher in Paterson, drew a parallel to the set-up in New Jersey's third-largest city.

"I worked in Paterson ... It's like 50-something schools. You have one superintendent," Levante said.

Although I'm going to throw cold water on Mayor Levante's proposal, if any county in New Jersey merged into a countywide district, Sussex would be a good candidate.

• Sussex County has a 2.94 all-in tax rate (with a 1.75 for the schools alone), compared to New Jersey's 2.4 all-in average.  Since Sussex County's taxes are so high, the need to do anything to save money is more acute.
• Sussex County's districts are very small, with an average size of 805 students, compared to a statewide average of 2250.
• Existing tax rates do vary, but not by as much as in other counties.
• Sussex County towns are less unequal than towns in other counties. Sussex County has no districts in DFGs A or B or in DFG J. 
• Sussex County's school taxes actually have the lowest Standard Deviation of any NJ county and the municipal taxes are the sixth lowest, meaning there would be less difficulty in equalizing school taxes and then municipal tax encumbrance.  
• Sussex County is losing student population and its 21 overaided districts are overaided by $41 million.  If Adjustment Aid is cut, Sussex County districts will face budget cuts that could more easily be managed by a larger district.

Despite the relative practicality and need of consolidating Sussex, large, probably insurmountable, political difficulties would remain.

Saving $6-9 million is better than nothing, but it would be wrong to assume that every Sussex County taxpayer would benefit, since right now Sussex County contains 25 school districts with 25 tax rates, ranging from 2.365 in Hampton Boro to 1.435 in Branchville.  Consolidation would also require shifts in taxation, depending on how school taxes in a Sussex County superdistrict were apportioned.

If a town does not have a K-12 district, school tax rates reflect combined districts.
Source:
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_tax.html#1

One way taxes could be apportioned is the way county taxes already are, where the percentage of school taxes paid equals a town's percentage of the county's total Equalized Valuation.   Under this setup, if a district has 10% of the county's total Equalized Valuation, it would pay 10% of the school taxes.

Under apportionment by Equalized Valuation, Sussex County's swings in taxation wouldn't be as large as the swings in more diverse counties', but there would still be complaints.  If Equalized Valuation were used, Vernon's tax increase would be the largest.  Vernon right now taxes at 12% of Sussex County's total school tax levy ($37.9 million out of $295.5 million for 2016-17), but Vernon has 14% of Sussex County's total Equalized Valuation ($2.35 billion out of $16.85 billion).  So, if the total school tax bill stayed at $295.5 million, Vernon's taxes would rise to 14% of that, or $41.4 million.

Apportioning by Equalized Valuation isn't the only model.  A Sussex superdistrict could also apportion taxes based on what percentage of the total student body comes from the town, so if a town contributes 10% of the students, it pays 10% of the taxes, regardless of what its tax base is.

If tax apportionment is based on student body, tax rates would vary between towns.

Since tax rates would vary by town, the consolidated Sussex BOE's tax increases would hit some towns much harder than they would others.

Newton's taxpayers might pay the highest tax rate in Sussex County under a per student apportionment, since Newton has 5.2% of Sussex County's student population, but only 3.7% of the tax base.  If Newton had to pay 5.2% of Sussex County's school taxes, I estimate the school rate would become 2.5 alone.  (on top of municipal and county taxes)

(Math for calculation.  5.2% of $296 million = $15.4 million; $15.4 mil divided by Newton EV of $621 mil = 2.5%.  I cannot estimate whose tax rate would become the lowest, since not all Sussex districts are K12s.)

New regional districts in New Jersey, like Pittsgrove-Elmer and South-Hunterdon, use per pupil apportionment, but these new regional districts are created between towns that have similar tax bases and similar student populations.  The towns "look before they leap" and learn what their new tax rates will be. For South Hunterdon the variation is small, going from 1.2269 for Lambertville to 1.5710 West Amwell.

A hybrid tax apportionment, between Equalized Valuation and a per student apportionment, is also possible.

Manchester Regional in Passaic County has a hybrid system, where apportionment is based 50% on Equalized Valuation and 50% on pupil contribution.  This exists because North Haledon wants to exit the regional district entirely, but the NJ Supreme Court has not allowed it. The 50:50 apportionment deal is a compromise.

While the Manchester Regional model is defensible in the abstract, since Manchester Regional's component districts differ greatly in wealth, there are thus large differences in tax rate.

Thus, North Haledon has a tax rate of only 0.1866, but Prospect Park has a tax rate of 1.3346.

The problem is not Manchester Regional's tax apportionment formula itself; the problem is that Manchester Regional's component districts differ greatly in wealth.  If Manchester Regional's taxes were apportioned solely on pupil enrollment, like Pittsgrove-Elmer and South-Hunterdon, the differences in Manchester Regional's tax rates would be even greater.

In any case, if Sussex County used a per student tax apportionment plan, there would be large differences in tax rate.

See "Manchester Regional: NJ's Most Underaided and Most Divided District"))

Also problematic is that there would have to be a convergence of spending too. Right now Hamburg Boro is Sussex County's highest spender, with a Total Budgetary Cost Per Pupil of $25,092 per student. That high spending is mostly driven by over $2,027 per student in excess aid, but Hamburg also has extremely high school taxes, with a 2.132 tax rate.

Hardystown Township is Sussex County's lowest spender, at $13,873 per student. Hardystown is also overaided, but by only $1,353 per student, but it has chosen to be an undertaxer, with a 0.9 tax rate.

Source:
User Friendly Budgets,
http://www.nj.gov/education/finance/fp/ufb/2016/37.html

Unless higher spending is justified by more challenging demographics, what are now Sussex County's highest spending districts would have to make cuts after they become mere schools within the larger Sussex County superdistrict.

That Being Said, Sussex County Taxes are Less Unequal Than Most Other Counties

The Reference to Essex is because this graph is used in my Essex post as well.

Source, http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/property_tax.html#1
Excel Calcuation of SD
The Reference to Essex is because this graph is used in my Essex post as well.

Sussex County's Taxes Would Still be Among the Nation's Worst

Assuming that the $6-$9 million in savings is correct, how much of a tax reduction is that for Sussex County really?

Sussex County's all-in tax levy was $490 million for 2016.  ($91,924,069 for county taxes, $295,631,557, for school district taxes, $103,186,926 for municipal taxes)  (see "Property Tax Information")

Sussex County's all-in tax rate is 2.9, which is much higher than the state average of 2.4 and 240% of the national average of 1.19.

So, even saving $9 million (the upper-bound estimate) would only equal 1.8% of the all-in tax burden, or 3% of the school tax burden.

The lower bound estimate, $6 million, would only be 1.2% of the all-in tax burden, or 2% of the school tax burden.

Even if there were complete municipal consolidation too and the savings were of the same order, Sussex County's taxes would still be at 2.8, which is still way about New Jersey's average, let alone the national average.

The truth is that governmental fragmentation doesn't lead to that much more administrative spending in New Jersey.

If school district consolidation allowed the closings of schools and a reduction of the teaching force, then yes, it would produce bigger savings.

If living in a big, countywide district led voters to be less tolerant of school tax increases than they are for increases for their own town, then that would produce large savings too.

Can Sussex County Afford Not to Consolidate?

Here is where state aid comes in.

21 of Sussex's districts are overaided with a total surplus of $42 million. (not counting Interdistrict Choice money. Three Sussex districts are underaided (Green, Lenape Valley Regional, and Newton), but with a deficit of only $5.8 million, most of which is Newton's.

Right now the distribution of state aid in Sussex County makes zero sense. Hopatcong is overaided by $9,126,016, or $5,888 per student, whereas Newton is underaided by -$4,205,916, or -$3,776 per student.

It's likely that Sussex County schools will lose state aid in the next few years, thereby creating budget stress. If a district only has a single school, managing those cuts is going to be very hard. if a district had multiple schools, managing the cuts is easier since an aging school could be closed.

Is this worth the fight?  

Although Sussex County could more easily consolidate than most other counties in New Jersey, the odds of consolidation happening are not high, with even Mayor Levante admitting "I know it's an uphill battle."

With that acknowledgement, I don't think a countywide consolidation is a fight worth fighting. Individual Sussex County districts could consolidate or create send-receive relationships, but creating a countywide district would be such a huge political lift that I think people who want lower taxes should fight on other fronts.

To be honest, district fragmentation and a proliferation of administrators isn't the real reason New Jersey has such high taxes.  The real reason is that New Jersey's teachers are the fifth best paid in the country and New Jersey has the third-lowest student:teacher ratio, and the same thing goes for other government employees.  The utopianism of Abbott, which diverts billions per year into Abbott districts in excess of what other states give their low-income districts, also forces extremely high taxes on non-Abbotts.  (See Education Spending and New Jersey Taxes)

Taken in a vacuum, county-wide districts have much to recommend them, but New Jersey has had home rule and governmental fragmentation for over a century.

As good looking in the abstract county districts are, and as functional as Maryland looks, when it comes to county-wide districts that ship sailed long ago.

---

See Also:

• "New Jersey Doesn't Actually Have That Many Districts"
• "Dream First, Figure Out How to Pay for It Later: Essex County Consolidation"
• Why Cape May Needs Consolidation, Not Permanent Adjustment Aid!
• NJ District Consolidation and Tax Apportionment