Oklahoma Opportunity

[Gaspar]

Very proud of my state.  In comparison to much of the rest of the country we are rockin when it comes to employment. We've even got Texas beat. Explore the data:

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&hl=en&dl=en&idim=city:PA400250:PA400100&fdim_y=seasonality:U#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:U&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:ST320000:ST340000:ST180000:ST090000:ST060000:ST110000:ST400000:ST450000:ST440000&ifdim=country&tstart=734158800000&tend=1375851600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Slow recovery for most of the country, but we're back to 2002 numbers.  Also looking at the volume of job postings in the Tulsa World, I can't imagine a better economy to live in. Of course there is always room for improvement, and we can't let the health of our City and State deter us from making Oklahoma an even more attractive place for investment.

[TheArtist]

  Doesn't give the full picture.  You could be losing people faster than your losing jobs and have your unemployment rate go down.  Conversely, another area, like Austin say, could be growing jobs at a much much faster rate than Tulsa, but the population increase even faster with the net effect of unemployment not going down as fast or even ticking up for a time.  

Or, what might be the case is that the population is barely trickling up, or remaining virtually steady, you lose some high paying jobs and gain a few more low paying jobs. Wouldn't necessarily say that equals a strong recipe for growth.

Unemployment rate looks good, but it's not showing the whole picture.  Would really like to see what the median/mode income levels are, jobs growth rate, and population growth rate, to paint a truer picture of how well we are doing compared to other places.  

[TheArtist]

Just ran across this interactive.  Shows Oklahomas projected growth rate to be slightly below average for this year and only adding around 25,000 jobs for the whole state. Also it looks like the "rate of growth rate increase" is speeding up in more areas so we might even find ourselves slipping further down the list as the economy recovers.

http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/top-states-for-job-creation-in-2014-85899531089

[Gaspar]

Just ran across this interactive.  Shows Oklahomas projected growth rate to be slightly below average for this year and only adding around 25,000 jobs for the whole state. Also it looks like the "rate of growth rate increase" is speeding up in more areas so we might even find ourselves slipping further down the list as the economy recovers.

http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/top-states-for-job-creation-in-2014-85899531089

I couldn't locate the backup data or methodology employed for the graphic you posted. I would assume it is based on something, but there is no data, so lets look at existing present & historical data to answer your questions above.

Statistically our current population growth is 1.7% from 2010-2012 according to the census, and that would indicate that our job growth is keeping up quite well.  Using your example, Austin only had a 0.7% population increase in that same time, and only maintained a slightly lower unemployment rate at 4.8% instead of Tulsa's 4.9%.

We do have 16.6%, as of 2012, living under the poverty level, but that is typical of more rural/agricultural states, and lower incomes in such areas are counterbalanced with a far lower cost of living. More Oklahomans own their own home at 67.5% than the national average of 65.5% and such equity is extremely important when it comes to financial security and retirement.

Median income in our state is $44,891 with a mean income of $60,788 according to the same census data cited above.  When you look at families, the dynamic changes, with median family income of $56,068, these numbers have grown from a $40,709 median in 2000.  It would seem that our job growth, economic growth, as well and individual and family income growth have grown at a very healthy pace. 

I see all of this as very good news and indication that economically the people and businesses in our state are making good decisions and enjoying the economic freedom necessary for growth. We also seem to have state and local governments willing to step out of the way, or at least restrict interference with private sector forces. 

[Gaspar]

. . .and this was just published today!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/2014-most-affordable-cities_n_4554763.html

[TheArtist]

I couldn't locate the backup data or methodology employed for the graphic you posted. I would assume it is based on something, but there is no data, so lets look at existing present & historical data to answer your questions above.

Statistically our current population growth is 1.7% from 2010-2012 according to the census, and that would indicate that our job growth is keeping up quite well.  Using your example, Austin only had a 0.7% population increase in that same time, and only maintained a slightly lower unemployment rate at 4.8% instead of Tulsa's 4.9%.

Was surprised at your population growth for Austin versus Tulsa or Ok. so did a check per your link.  
I think you might have accidentally looked at the wrong #s.


Tulsa from  April 1 2010 to July 1 2012     .5%  
Austin from April 1 2010 to July 1 2012   6.6%  

Then there is this that I have posted on another thread earlier, shows us ranking right up (down) there with Detroit in Job growth. Course I know this one can be a case of "cherry picking" the start and stop for the data but the mantra has always been "Well sure Austin and Denver etc. were booming before the recession but we did pretty well and weren't hit as hard".  Thing is when you take the time during and just around the recession, on average, they are still doing better.  Sure we no longer have the boom and bust cycle, but over all we are still almost standing still teetering on the edge.  I really hope this is changing and we will see more robust growth.  But, if we do not, even though we may be inching forward, competitive wise that will make us still fall further and further behind.
.
5 Year Private Sector Job Growth
(From Business Journals "Oct 2013 Economic Index")  

Tulsa               -3.30%
OKC                +3.29%
Salt Lake City  +2.96
Nashville         +7.92
Austin             +10.9%
Denver           +2.01%
Charlotte        +1.07%
Little Rock       -0.25%
Jacksonville     -0.82%
Dallas-FW        +5.63%
Columbus       +3.40%
Buffalo NY       +1.11%
Omaha            -0.36%
Detroit             -1.10%

[Red Arrow]

Was surprised at your population growth for Austin versus Tulsa or Ok. so did a check per your link.  
I think you might have accidentally looked at the wrong #s.
Tulsa from  April 1 2010 to July 1 2012     .5%  
Austin from April 1 2010 to July 1 2012   6.6%  

Tulsa County is 1.7%, Travis County (Austin) is 7%

[Rookie Okie]

Tulsa County is 1.7%, Travis County (Austin) is 7%

Tulsa metro pop: 937,471 (2010) - 951,800 (2012) = + 1.54% growth
source: The United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

[Conan71]

to paint a truer picture of how well we are doing compared to other places.  

What is it with you and "painting pictures"?  Makes me think you must be an artist or something.

[Gaspar]

Tulsa County is 1.7%, Travis County (Austin) is 7%

Yes I was apparently looking at Austin county instead of Travis.  However Artest's numbers are far off from actual census numbers. I'll need to review the data behind his source.  Most likely it is based again on an estimate and forecast.

Either way, population growth does not correspond to opportunity or economic prosperity. I spent a good deal of time in Austin last year and was quite surprised by the high number of homeless on nearly every urban corner.  I was also amazed by the commercial development all over the city.

[Red Arrow]

Yes I was apparently looking at Austin county instead of Travis.  However Artest's numbers are far off from actual census numbers. I'll need to review the data behind his source.  Most likely it is based again on an estimate and forecast.

Either way, population growth does not correspond to opportunity or economic prosperity. I spent a good deal of time in Austin last year and was quite surprised by the high number of homeless on nearly every urban corner.  I was also amazed by the commercial development all over the city.

The 0.5% population increase Artist noted comes from your link if you use the city selector and select, of course, Tulsa City.  Austin is in Travis County.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4075000.html
 

[TheArtist]

Either way, population growth does not correspond to opportunity or economic prosperity. I spent a good deal of time in Austin last year and was quite surprised by the high number of homeless on nearly every urban corner.  I was also amazed by the commercial development all over the city.

It definitely can when your incomes are higher and your unemployment rate is still low.  Looked at a photo of their downtown the other day and there are about 12 large cranes in the air right now for new high-rise buildings for office and living, plus dozens of other projects under construction right now. Makes us look like we are standing still, even with our recent spate of small hotel developments.  Last time I was in Dallas about a month ago I counted 14 large construction cranes just along my way out.

Was reading another article yesterday about what areas are growing the best and they noted that some of the important factors are amenities like transit and a good urban environment, aka pedestrian/transit friendly cores (exceptions being Texas cities like Dallas which are growing for other reasons).  Meanwhile we have STILL not implemented any urban zoning to allow for and promote good urban areas (Even in our Downtown!) and it seems our Mayor is actually against that and is promoting actions completely contrary to the new Comprehensive Plans findings, and is apparently pushing back even the meager BRT for the Brookside corridor, till the end of the funding cycle (perhaps with the hopes of letting it die or killing it?).  We have also not seen any changes to our downtown zoning to encourage good quality pedestrian friendly/transit friendly corridors in a coordinated manner (Like Denver has done as only one example).  We have discussed the "Main Mall" example where those cities that implemented urban zoning along their Main Malls saw them thrive and boom, whereas the cities, like Tulsa, that did not, saw those areas wither and be destroyed.  We have been good at building and zoning for suburban/car oriented type growth, but are doing nothing, or the opposite, to zone for urban/transit oriented growth. And more and more we have watched the trend over the last couple of decades showing that more and more people are wanting to live and work in urban/pedestrian/transit friendly areas.  And that trend is accelerating with more examples of this happening...

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1CENSUS010514gr_online.png

While places like Tulsa that are not promoting and zoning for good urban growth are growing at a much slower pace or are stagnant.

[Gaspar]

It definitely can when your incomes are higher and your unemployment rate is still low.  Looked at a photo of their downtown the other day and there are about 12 large cranes in the air right now for new high-rise buildings for office and living, plus dozens of other projects under construction right now. Makes us look like we are standing still, even with our recent spate of small hotel developments.  Last time I was in Dallas about a month ago I counted 14 large construction cranes just along my way out.

Was reading another article yesterday about what areas are growing the best and they noted that some of the important factors are amenities like transit and a good urban environment, aka pedestrian/transit friendly cores.  Meanwhile we have STILL not implemented any urban zoning to allow for and promote good urban areas (Even in our Downtown!) and it seems our Mayor is actually against that and is promoting actions completely contrary to the new Comprehensive Plans findings, and is apparently pushing back even the meager BRT for the Brookside corridor, till the end of the funding cycle (perhaps with the hopes of letting it die or killing it?).  We have also not seen any changes to our downtown zoning to encourage good quality pedestrian friendly/transit friendly corridors in a coordinated manner (Like Denver has done as only one example).  We have discussed the "Main Mall" example where those cities that implemented urban zoning along their Main Malls saw them thrive and boom, whereas the cities, like Tulsa, that did not, saw those areas wither and be destroyed.  We have been good at building and zoning for suburban/car oriented type growth, but are doing nothing, or the opposite, to zone for urban/transit oriented growth. And more and more we have watched the trend over the last couple of decades showing that more and more people are wanting to live and work in urban/pedestrian/transit friendly areas.  And that trend is accelerating with more examples of this happening...

http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1CENSUS010514gr_online.png

I think there is a chicken/egg debate though among planners.  That is to say, "if we build it, will they come?" V.S. "When they come, should we build it." 

I think Tulsa's conservative approach has been to develop small urban and pedestrian pockets of development, and as those succeed, or sometimes fail, that dictates what is built next, and allows the community to dictate the speed and direction of development.

Currently we are enjoying a nice spike in urban development downtown, and as that continues to be successful the push for a more pedestrian oriented community will become more successful.

[Conan71]

I cringe when people point to Austin as something Tulsa should aspire to.

Their rapid growth has way over-stressed their transportation infrastructure and traffic is a nightmare no matter where you go in the Austin metro now.  It's one of the last places I'd care to live right now.  Five years ago, wouldn't have been a bad place.

[Gaspar]

I cringe when people point to Austin as something Tulsa should aspire to.

Their rapid growth has way over-stressed their transportation infrastructure and traffic is a nightmare no matter where you go in the Austin metro now.  It's one of the last places I'd care to live right now.  Five years ago, wouldn't have been a bad place.

Fun place to get drunk, but that's about it. I have friends with businesses down there and all they do is grumble and moan.  Austin has a great arts community though, as well as a good food culture.  They have become a magnet for conventions, but do a couple there and you realize that getting anywhere is a pain. I was there in July of last year and we had lots of rain.  Unfortunately, unless you get to a parking spot at around 7am, you are hard pressed to find a spot close to where you need to be, and due to weather, myself and my colleagues looked like wet dogs for most of the week.  The views from most of the bars is very entertaining.  They have bicycle cops that act like shepherds for all of the homeless (and there are lots of very eccentric homeless) in clumps on each corner, bumming cigarettes and asking for money.  When the cops aren't corralling their herd, they are attempting to manage the drunks flowing in and out of the bars. The drinking culture seems to enjoy lots of shots, mostly Jägermeister variants, so much so that walking through a crowd, all you smell is cigarettes Jäger and pachouli.  20 years ago, this would have been heaven. I guess I've grown out of that.

Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd.  Still trying to duplicate it to this day!