Tulsa Rated #2 for wage growth

[Cherish]

"When higher-paid workers lose their jobs, it lowers average salaries. When lower-wage workers lose their jobs but people like bankruptcy lawyers and doctors all keep working, it raises average salaries. And the bottom falling out of a city's economy is not a healthy development.

But in some cities, rising wages do indicate relatively healthy economies. Average wages in Tulsa, Okla., rose 2.6% while unemployment registered a fairly benign 6%."

According to a Forbes article this month, Tulsa is rated # 2 where wages are growing the most. 

#1 Phoenix, AZ
#2 Tulsa, OK
#3 Baltimore, MD (an area high in health care, government jobs, and technology based careers)

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107267/pay-cut-cities.html?mod=career-salary_negotiation

[FOTD]

"When higher-paid workers lose their jobs, it lowers average salaries. When lower-wage workers lose their jobs but people like bankruptcy lawyers and doctors all keep working, it raises average salaries. And the bottom falling out of a city's economy is not a healthy development.

But in some cities, rising wages do indicate relatively healthy economies. Average wages in Tulsa, Okla., rose 2.6% while unemployment registered a fairly benign 6%."

According to a Forbes article this month, Tulsa is rated # 2 where wages are growing the most. 

#1 Phoenix, AZ
#2 Tulsa, OK
#3 Baltimore, MD (an area high in health care, government jobs, and technology based careers)

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107267/pay-cut-cities.html?mod=career-salary_negotiation

Forbes. Please keep in mind the source. Wages are growing because the only jobs being replaced are executive types.

and remember,

[Cherish]

Forbes is the source I have no idea what you mean by that.

[Conan71]

Forbes is the source I have no idea what you mean by that.

Have you not figured out yet that making sense is not one of FOTD's priorities?

[FOTD]

Forbes is the source I have no idea what you mean by that.

The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool." They have a tendency to manipulate statistics. Hence, they are a "tool" of the system. It's doubtful they are the source of statistics. Forbes has proven a masterful deceiver over the years twisting government numbers to get a desired result.

[cannon_fodder]

lol.

So, FOTD, you are arguing that while comparing wage growth between cities Forbes was lobbied by someone in Tulsa to manipulate our data in an effort to make the metro area more attractive above all others?  Just for the record, that's ridiculous.  Presumably NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, or other cities just couldn't afford to influence their data, but Tulsa really came through!

In reality: they looked at wage growth and unemployment numbers and made a determination accordingly . . . explain to me why they would alter the Tulsa statistics other than another one of your grand conspiracies.

Wages are growing because the only jobs being replaced are executive types.

This also made no sense.  If executives are being replaced it would cause wages to fall as those are generally high paying jobs.  The alternative is that additional executives are being hired in Tulsa, which would be a good thing if their salaries are such that it raises the metro average 2.5%.  Or are you arguing that some executives are being replaced and the ousted executives continue to draw salaries and live in Tulsa?  Frankly, your argument entirely lacks merit.

Sorry FOTD, but it is good news for the Tulsa metro area.  It may be relative to the rest of the nation, but good news it is.  You'll just have to deal with that.

[Oil Capital]

lol.

So, FOTD, you are arguing that while comparing wage growth between cities Forbes was lobbied by someone in Tulsa to manipulate our data in an effort to make the metro area more attractive above all others?  Just for the record, that's ridiculous.  Presumably NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, or other cities just couldn't afford to influence their data, but Tulsa really came through!

In reality: they looked at wage growth and unemployment numbers and made a determination accordingly . . . explain to me why they would alter the Tulsa statistics other than another one of your grand conspiracies.

This also made no sense.  If executives are being replaced it would cause wages to fall as those are generally high paying jobs.  The alternative is that additional executives are being hired in Tulsa, which would be a good thing if their salaries are such that it raises the metro average 2.5%.  Or are you arguing that some executives are being replaced and the ousted executives continue to draw salaries and live in Tulsa?  Frankly, your argument entirely lacks merit.

Sorry FOTD, but it is good news for the Tulsa metro area.  It may be relative to the rest of the nation, but good news it is.  You'll just have to deal with that.

Agreed, FOTD's grand conspiracy is just silly. But I'm not so sure this rating is necessarily all great news.  First, contrary to your statement, to arrive at this #2 rating they looked at wage growth.  Unemployment numbers were not part of what brought us to the #2 rating.  (They were included elsewhere in the Brooking Study, but that's not relevant here.)

I say it is not necessarily all all great news because a rise in average wages can be caused by any number of things.  One that comes to mind is if a whole bunch of relatively low-wage workers are laid off.  Shazamm, you'll get a higher average wage the following quarter.  Without a whole lot more information and probably a much more in-depth study, we really can't tell, can we?  Maybe I'm missing something...

Having said that, the Brookings report also looked at a number of other factors, such as unemployment, gross metropolitan product, housing prices, etc. and in their study of the 100 largest metro areas and, overall, found Tulsa to be one of the top 20 metro areas in the country.  (Along with OKC, Wichita, Little Rock, Houston, D-FW, San Antonio, Austin)  http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor/overall_performance.aspx

[FOTD]

Forbes. Please keep in mind the source. Wages are growing because the only jobs being replaced are executive types.

and remember,

the only jobs being replaced are executive types.

[Conan71]

the only jobs being replaced are executive types.

...and aren't those the ones we want in Tulsa, instead of more dead-end call-center jobs?

[FOTD]

...and aren't those the ones we want in Tulsa, instead of more dead-end call-center jobs?

You and Gweed are soooo callous. You think the working class man is second hand. In another thread,(Unemployment At 26 Year High ) Guido says (.... "I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing") point blank he could care less about those who have lost their jobs. http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13797.msg136910#msg136910

There are so many jobs that have been eliminated. Some of us don't believe everything we read. And we check with the local employment agencies to get the true story....

[cannon_fodder]

Oil Capital:

The article itself explains that in Tulsa wage growth is probably a real reflection of wages and not a result of layoffs, given that we have a modest 6% unemployment rate.  Your hypothesis of low wage worker layoffs leading to a rise in average wages was specifically covered by the article.

FOTD:

You still haven't explained yourself.  I'm not sure you are capable of explaining a thought in a rational way.  According to your new theory we are hiring so many executives (while presumably not laying off any executives) that it can influence the average wage by 2+%.  At the same time layoffs are low enough that unemployment remains at 6%.

"The only jobs being replaced are executive types."

That statement is ambiguous and meaningless.  Is it turnover?  Are they new jobs?  Why would "replacing" executives have any impact on wages since presumably the new guy would make what the old guy made.

And finally, you spot check agencies to get a picture of the "true story."  Meanwhile, governmental agencies and University economics departments contact employers, survey unions and workers, and collect data from unemployment filings to come up with a statistical picture.   Want to guess which one is probably less biased and more accurate?

[FOTD]

Oil Capital:

The article itself explains that in Tulsa wage growth is probably a real reflection of wages and not a result of layoffs, given that we have a modest 6% unemployment rate.  Your hypothesis of low wage worker layoffs leading to a rise in average wages was specifically covered by the article.

FOTD:

You still haven't explained yourself.  I'm not sure you are capable of explaining a thought in a rational way.  According to your new theory we are hiring so many executives (while presumably not laying off any executives) that it can influence the average wage by 2+%.  At the same time layoffs are low enough that unemployment remains at 6%.

"The only jobs being replaced are executive types."

That statement is ambiguous and meaningless.  Is it turnover?  Are they new jobs?  Why would "replacing" executives have any impact on wages since presumably the new guy would make what the old guy made.

And finally, you spot check agencies to get a picture of the "true story."  Meanwhile, governmental agencies and University economics departments contact employers, survey unions and workers, and collect data from unemployment filings to come up with a statistical picture.   Want to guess which one is probably less biased and more accurate?

There is no correlation between the number, which is fiction, and my comment about replacement. It is turnover. Nationwide, unemployment is closer to %20 overall. Hard to imagine. It is lower here, for now. The situation will drag down our economy for years to come and put pressure on our social programs and law enforcement. This is the result of trickle down economics and banksters like Goldman Sachs.

Who paid for those statistics? What picture were they trying to draw?

[cannon_fodder]

Again, you still haven't told me what "replacement" means.  And if it has nothing to do with either unemployment or wage growth, then what is the relevance of it to this discussion?  You are not doing well clarifying things.  Please, how does "replacement of executive types" play out?

Additinally, unemployment is defined as a person of working age who is without a job and actively looking for one.  If you do not fit that definition, you are not unemployed.  The number of people unemployed in the United States is at 9.5%.  If you care to look, there is all the information you could want so that you can study their underlying data and methodology.

By defining what the term means it makes it possible to compare figures over time and in different locations.  The statistics were paid for by the US Government by-and-large (BLS).  Many Universities also compile statistics and the employment agencies you referenced previously also conduct surveys of unemployment.  They are peer reviewed statistical studies; you are free to scour it for bias if you wish.  But since the same methodology is used in the conduct of each study the results, no matter how skewed by said methodology, should yield data that is useful to compare to other or previous surveys.

But if you think the normal definition and data are skewed, then perhaps you would care to reference one of the 6 alternative statistics for unemployment (utilizing different data and/or definitions).  By the broadest definition you can reach 16% unemployment.  That includes people who are looking for jobs, who have accepted underemployment (ie. part time not-by choice), and people who express a desire to work by have given up looking.

There level of disclosure seems to indicate that they are trying to draw a picture of employment in the United States.

[guido911]

You and Gweed are soooo callous. You think the working class man is second hand.

Oh really, how many "working class" people work for you? Do you have to meet a payroll every week like I do? If not, STFUps to you and anyone else who works for those who dared to succeed.

[Conan71]

Just the usual crap on good news crowd.

Rising tide lifts all ships FOTARD.  The constant whine is that Tulsa doesn't attract enough well-paying jobs.  Indicators show income is rising, how is this a bad thing??

Unless you've worked an honest day's hard labor in your life, quit relating anecdotal quips about the poor working class.  Your understanding of the working class comes from song lyrics.