That's a strange comparison to make. I highly doubt that the resident yields more revenue over that 1-2 week period than the tourist, or that the resident yields more revenue over a year than a year's worth of tourists.
It _is_ a crisis if there are not enough faculty to handle the number of students. The solutions are simple (admit fewer students or hire more faculty) but not easy (students could go somewhere else so as to be admitted to their preferred major; it might be difficult to hire faculty at current pay rates).
I live and work in Redwood City, CA, USA. I live 1.2 miles from work. It's a 6-8 minute bike ride, which I prefer, but I usually drive my wife to the train station, which is a block from where I work, and then I drive the rest of the way to work, which takes me about 9 minutes total.
If you move to CA, you need to pay state tax on your entire earnings, not just your raise. 13.3% of 140k is more than 18k, which is certainly significant.
I believe you can deduct state from federal tax, which would save ~2.5% in marginal tax. In addition, social security phases out at ~120k so that's another 7.5% savings. So the difference is almost a wash if I understand correctly?
> So in the US, accounting for non-climatic factors ends up increasing the warming trend over the raw data—which we know is wrong.
I wish the author had been a bit more careful when writing this sentence. I think the intended meaning is "we know the raw data is wrong," but I read it at first as "we know [the increase] is wrong."
