Income up in Tulsa

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

And there it is, Weeeeeeeee!

Do the averages, there are nearly 900,000 people in the MSA.  If 10 of them each made an additional $10,000,000 - it raises the average $111.  The number of people making $1mil a year in Tulsa is small.  The number making $10mil is   much, much smaller.  Of those, the possibility of making an ADDITIONAL 10mil a year is even less likely.  And even then, it doesnt touch the outcome of the statistics.

What is more likely, everyone doing better or that 10 people each made an additional $300,000,000.00 each (see above for the ridiculousness of that statement)?  It must be depressing assuming everything is negative news. I'll stick with the law of averages as well as the metro unemployment, census, and income data.  You throw on a tinfoil hat and shout NAY!

What's more;  so what if we have a few new billionaires in town and no one else gained a thing.  How would that be bad news for Tulsa?  Everyone knows how horrible our current resident billionaire, George Kaiser, is for the community.  Certainly they wont support your precious over priced little stores, restaurants, or art dealers.   Nope, rich people horde money and try to make they don't spend it in the community so no one else can benefit.  

Keep in mind, $300mil a year makes you a BILLIONAIRE in 3 years - given decent investments.  So Tulsa should have 11 times the Billionaires by the end of this year (we have 1, get 10 more).  Which would put Tulsa in the 10 cities in the world for Billionaires.  Between Tokyo and Paris.  Certainly good news!

Then again, those damn billionaires are always scheming to blot out the sun and what not to benefit their nuclear power plants.  At least in your world.

/back on topic, sry for the regression.

What animal makes the sound weee??? Pretty offensive.

Man, do you know how to exagerate.

Kaiser and the other generous people in his circle are amazing citizens.

I am speaking about the ones who need a hand up....

Sitting in limbo and waiting for the trickle down theory to kick in for the %99.


I have a copy of "How to Lie with Statistics"
you need to read, Cannon Fodder!

The axman cometh.

[kakie]

Per capita or personal income that is discussed here is not the same as median income.  It is the income received by all persons from all sources. The sum of net earnings by place of residence, rental income of persons, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal current transfer receipts.

Therefore,  the rich may be getting a lot richer while those middle and low income folks are losing ground.  There is more data that needs to be taken into account - such as median income to get a better pictures. I don't have those figures handy but I'll look for them. I don't think it is as rosy as you think.  Consider the following:

"Over the last 20 years, the net worth of the top two percentile of American families nearly doubled, from $1,071,000 in 1984 to $2,100,500 in 2005. But the poorest quarter of American families lost ground over the same period, with their 2005 net worth below their 1984 net worth, measured in constant 2005 dollars.

The poorest ten percent of families actually had a negative net worth---more liabilities than assets. The poorest 5 percent of American households had a negative net worth of a little more than $1,000 in 1984, compared to nearly $9,000 in 2005.

"These findings show that the wealth gap is increasing steadily," said Stafford, a senior research scientist at ISR and director of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which is funded primarily by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Aging."

Shocking, isn't it?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070807171936.htm

[TheArtist]

"....Per capita or personal income that is discussed here is not the same as median income. It is the income received by all persons from all sources. The sum of net earnings by place of residence, rental income of persons, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal current transfer receipts...."

The statistics the BEA put out has categories for all of those and has taken them into account. You can look up each group within a group and see that, from what I can tell, most have gone up and more than average for the Tulsa area.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I think that since the passage of bill #1804 that clamps down on the hiring of illegal aliens the wages started to go up. There is a direct connection between illegal workers and low wages. Not only is Oklahoma bill #1804 a good thing, but it'll open up more jobs for U.S. citizens. That's my take on the subject. Employers now would rather hire someone who's legal than risk heavy fines and perhaps jail time by hiring illegals to save some money. Also when you hire illegals you have no idea who they are or what their background is or even if the name they use is real. They could have long criminal backgrounds and there's no way to check that.

Sauer,

Re-check that.  These are income figures for 2006.  HB 1804 happened earlier this year and has no bearing on it as such.  I would imagine most figures are harvested from IRS stats post 4/15.

Given that most, if not all, illegals don't file a return, that won't skew the statistics unless it is taken strictly from W-2 data filed with the IRS by employers.

I have not had time to peruse the entire report, and am relying on the summarized stats from the newswires and our esteemed contributor CF.

There aren't enough American citizens to do the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrant labor is doing in Oklahoma.  I promise you major ag companies in the state are doing all they can to expedite some visas for their workers.  Either that, or they are counting on the verification system for immigration to be so effed up they can still claim ignorance like they have been for years when they employ  illegal immigrants with bogus documents.

Oklahoma is essentially at what statisticians in call full employment.  Based on the number of blue collar jobs available on any given day before 1804, I'd venture to say there was already a shortage of workers.  There's been a such a shortage of skilled blue collar workers for the last couple of years that those wages are now inching up to the $40 to $50K range.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by kakie

Per capita or personal income that is discussed here is not the same as median income.  It is the income received by all persons from all sources. The sum of net earnings by place of residence, rental income of persons, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal current transfer receipts.

Therefore,  the rich may be getting a lot richer while those middle and low income folks are losing ground.  There is more data that needs to be taken into account - such as median income to get a better pictures. I don't have those figures handy but I'll look for them. I don't think it is as rosy as you think.  Consider the following:

"Over the last 20 years, the net worth of the top two percentile of American families nearly doubled, from $1,071,000 in 1984 to $2,100,500 in 2005. But the poorest quarter of American families lost ground over the same period, with their 2005 net worth below their 1984 net worth, measured in constant 2005 dollars.

The poorest ten percent of families actually had a negative net worth---more liabilities than assets. The poorest 5 percent of American households had a negative net worth of a little more than $1,000 in 1984, compared to nearly $9,000 in 2005.

"These findings show that the wealth gap is increasing steadily," said Stafford, a senior research scientist at ISR and director of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which is funded primarily by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Aging."

Shocking, isn't it?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070807171936.htm

Hold the phone a second here.  You are interjecting an article about net worth into a discussion on income.  Big difference.  We are talking about what people earn, you are citing an article which isn't even relevant to the discussion.  Net worth is what people save, or what assets they own vs. what they owe.

On to your article.  I stopped reading the article right here:

"The analysis of a nationally representative sample of approximately 8,000 families was conducted by Stafford and ISR economist Elena Gouskova."

I was going to spout off something to the effect of: "Lemme guess you are a registered Democrat..."  but your posts on the latest immigration thread don't sound like they're out of the DNC talking points so I'll cut you a little slack.

Consider the source.  Elena Gouskova?  Hmmm, wonder what sort of economy and society she grew up in?  Wonder if she's ever read any of Marx's works?  Maybe a good bedtime reader like "Communist Manifesto"?  This whole article sounds like class envy to me.

The author of study, author of the article who took five or six paragraphs to finally get to the "not-so-bad" part of the story, and people who are taken in by such clap-trap to insinuate that the top 2% in net worth are evil need to stop for a second and realize that those top 2% provide a lot of jobs and income for the remaining 98% of us.  They do this either via their direct involvement in a business or multiple direct or indirect investments in businesses.  As well, their tax dollars provide a living for a lot of people on the government payroll and food and housing for those who cannot work or who aren't industrious enough to work.

Morbid curiosity got the best of me and I finally continued reading the article.  It brings forth the following:  

The results of net worth declining have a lot to do with more permissive lending practices toward groups of people who were traditionally considered kryptonite to the credit industry  up to the mid-'80's:  high school drop-outs, minorities, short job time, short residence time, recent bankruptcy, etc.

One of the biggest reasons for the decline in personal net worth is lack of common sense on the part of consumers.  It's no reflection on earnings, but rather a reflection on spending.  This is exascerbated by aggressive marketing by retailers which includes in-house financing serviced by third-party lenders, and a mentality with lenders which has allowed people to indulge their own stupidity in deciding to borrow for wants and needs rather than needs only.

I hate to smack a newbie in the face, but some people just seem determined to mine bad news out of good.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I think that since the passage of bill #1804 that clamps down on the hiring of illegal aliens the wages started to go up...

The statistics are for years 2005 and 2006.  The bill was passed in 2007.  

Ergo, it had no effect on the numbers.

quote:Ax said:

What animal makes the sound weee??? Pretty offensive.

Squirrels do:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/weeee
I thought everyone on the internet knew that.

quote:
Man, do you know how to exagerate [sic].

I ran the numbers, that's all.  When you are dealing with "average" income it takes into account everyone.  So the wealth of a few individuals has little effect on the bottom line.  I exaggerated nothing.

quote:
I have a copy of "How to Lie with Statistics"
you need to read, Cannon Fodder!

Show me where I lied. Then explain, in detail, how this could possibly be bad news.  

"BOk buys Bank of America" - So much for having a local bank.
"Mayor Taylor donates fortune to city" - Its not even a full billion.
"Tulsans are richer" - most arent rich enough.
"The sun is shining" - not in my world.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I think that since the passage of bill #1804 that clamps down on the hiring of illegal aliens the wages started to go up. There is a direct connection between illegal workers and low wages. Not only is Oklahoma bill #1804 a good thing, but it'll open up more jobs for U.S. citizens. That's my take on the subject. Employers now would rather hire someone who's legal than risk heavy fines and perhaps jail time by hiring illegals to save some money. Also when you hire illegals you have no idea who they are or what their background is or even if the name they use is real. They could have long criminal backgrounds and there's no way to check that.

Sauer,

Re-check that.  These are income figures for 2006.  HB 1804 happened earlier this year and has no bearing on it as such.  I would imagine most figures are harvested from IRS stats post 4/15.

Given that most, if not all, illegals don't file a return, that won't skew the statistics unless it is taken strictly from W-2 data filed with the IRS by employers.

I have not had time to peruse the entire report, and am relying on the summarized stats from the newswires and our esteemed contributor CF.

There aren't enough American citizens to do the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrant labor is doing in Oklahoma.  I promise you major ag companies in the state are doing all they can to expedite some visas for their workers.  Either that, or they are counting on the verification system for immigration to be so effed up they can still claim ignorance like they have been for years when they employ  illegal immigrants with bogus documents.

Oklahoma is essentially at what statisticians in call full employment.  Based on the number of blue collar jobs available on any given day before 1804, I'd venture to say there was already a shortage of workers.  There's been a such a shortage of skilled blue collar workers for the last couple of years that those wages are now inching up to the $40 to $50K range.

Yes but that will also mean that the numbers for the coming years will be even higher with much of the illegal work force gone. Wages will be up for 07-2008 and beyond. As for not having enough people or workers that's an old myth. We have abled bodied people on welfare, remember, what will happen if we let in alot of "guest" workers because we don't have enough workers today and the economy tanks and goes south in the future? Those "guest" workers will not go back home. The ecomony runs on cycles of boom & bust. In bust years you don't want all sorts of foreign people, or illegal aliens looking for jobs when U.S. Citizens are out of work.

[Conan71]

Sauer,

I don't know how things are in your neck of the woods in Ohio.

I can say without doubt there are many blue collar and unskilled jobs available in the Tulsa area which are likely two to three times what the annual welfare benefits are locally. Those job openings have been around since before HB 1804.  I think Cannon Fodder would back me up since we work in complimentary  industries and deal with a lot of the same customers.

Those jobs remain un-filled because no matter what you offer, there's a segment of society who won't put the pork rinds down and get off their broken-down sofa to put in an honest day's work (or to get marketable skills) even if it meant a better lifestyle than they suffer through in abject poverty.  Some people are perfectly happy with the gov't providing three hots and a flop, and a carton of generic cigarettes.

There really is sloth in this world, people who would rather settle with an $800 government check instead of working for $1600.

The idea, or should I say "ideal"? of a guest worker program is to bring in and take out ancillary workers to and from the workforce as needed.

Based on the total cluster-**** that our immigration system is now, I hold no hope that the gov't would keep tabs on the guest workers.  Only solution is going to be locking down the border and figuring every guest worker who comes in will become a permanent resident.  

In all likelihood, if past cycles are still relevant, the economy may head into a cool-down period in the next 5-6 years.  Will we ever see the sort of unemployment like we did when we started moving our heavy industry overseas? Not likely.

If the numbers are based soley on 1040 data which would be the only way to measure all personal income, rather than wages which can be harvested from employer W-2 data, then yes, we might actually see the average income figure GO DOWN due to lower paying jobs being taken by people who actually file a 1040.  

That is, of course, with the utopian scenario that there are really enough able-bodied people WILLING to take jobs which might come open with a mass exodus of illegal aliens.

[cannon_fodder]

It is dang hard to fill an unskilled or semi skilled job at the $12-$15 within a couple years and have the potential to lead to a union position paying up to $70,000 (with on the job training, no degree).  Likewise, its dang hard to pay someone more money to work a position that a hard working high school kid can do. Never mind trying to find GOOD labor for any price.  

The economy works in boom or bust cycles.  But even in our busts we get up to 6-7% unemployment, not bad at all.  In any event, we are in the middle of a BOOM cycle and few industries are able to fill their jobs.

From engineering to orange pickers.  From welders & crane operators to teachers & nurses.  There is a worker shortage in most sectors of the economy.  In the past, immigration has been allowed to fill the voids.  And in bust years, those immigrants children lost their jobs so they went off and started car companies, steel mills, and even dot com's.  

Competition makes the market work. That includes the labor market.  Either by freeing up American's to take skilled jobs, or encouraging American's to work harder, better, or get more educated to beat out the immigrants.  In any event, the current system does not work for immigrants, employers, or American workers.

and... income is up in Tulsa.

[aoxamaxoa]

CF....once again, I did not say you lied despite the accusation becoming standard in political debates by cons. I offered up my book to educate you how manipulating statistics can create a lie. It was TulsaWhirled that faulted the info by leaving out the fact you can't have a high standard of living by making $37,000 a year and that the disproportionality of incomes in this city is enormous. But with all the labor leaving and the inflation to set in, that will change some.

Because of the increased viewership this week, there is a desire to give the world a different impression than reality of Tulsa. I am fine with that. It's like the cut back in emissions that all of a sudden our air is better quality this week. Pretty easy to see.

Do not accuse the axman of being a nay sayer. He is a truth teller...

[Conan71]

And the axman crappeth.

[PreserveSouthTulsa.com]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Gee that is great.  It shows that the city payroll published by the World has greatly increased average incomes..  

$18+per hour average wage, while many are working for the minimum wage.  Such facts on the reversed side of the page must list reasons for illegal's.    

By the way, who works for minimum wage anyway?  Well, besides kids and people who can't put the bottle or pipe down long enough to work a full shift.  Most employers offer raises, although small, to employees after working for a short while.  If you work for minimum wage for longer than a couple of months, you probably need to look in the mirror for your problem.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

And the axman crappeth.

still making personal attacks I see....

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

And the axman crappeth.

[aoxamaxoa]

There's sway in your swing....off the topic when you can't counter effectively.