Job Data

[swake]

Some jobs data, per the World, Tulsa has added 11,000 jobs in the last year. So, from the bottom of the recession in 2003, when the number of people employed in Tulsa metro was 381,500 we have now added 49,200 jobs in less than four years

Jobs have grown by nearly 13% or about 3% a year since 2003. The metro area is now back to full employment and these jobs numbers should now be translating into strong population growth. If population growth is moving at a similar rate to job the Tulsa CSA could pass 1 million people as soon as next year.

I think this data along with our improved per capita income and comparatively solid real estate market just might also explain some of the good news downtown and some of the really massive new proposed projects on the river.

Queue Aox, Bear and others for the doom and gloom (yes it's backwards of purpose) version of 50,000 new jobs in four years.

[Oil Capital]

I missed that story in the Whirled.  Is there still a good link you could provide?

[swake]

Current data is in this article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070818_5_E2_spanc37332

The historical data from '03 was from one of the OSU reports on economic activity.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Current data is in this article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070818_5_E2_spanc37332

The historical data from '03 was from one of the OSU reports on economic activity.

So you're comparing numbers from two different sources?

The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (the source of the Whirled's numbers) gives a 2003 employment trough of 391,800 (in July 2003).  That gives us employment growth of 38,900 in exactly 4 years.   9.9% growth in 4 years.  Not too shabby...

[tim huntzinger]

What is the average wage, though? A lot of the job losses were high-paying Williams and aerospace jobs?  I am glad to see the growth but it is difficult to stomach the types of losses we experienced.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake

Current data is in this article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070818_5_E2_spanc37332

The historical data from '03 was from one of the OSU reports on economic activity.

So you're comparing numbers from two different sources?

The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (the source of the Whirled's numbers) gives a 2003 employment trough of 391,800 (in July 2003).  That gives us employment growth of 38,900 in exactly 4 years.   9.9% growth in 4 years.  Not too shabby... but a little less than 2.4% per year, not 3% per year.

[inteller]

these new jobs != to the ones we lost.  This is the same "good news" that Bushanomics preaches.  The jobs are jobs mantra is BS.  Trading out the 1000s of lost telecom and energy sector jobs with call center jobs is not what I call growth....it is barely even catch up.

[aoxamaxoa]

This Swake character really has it out for me. Seems like the only people that get bashed by this moniker are those that question the Tulsa Whirled of information or disinformation. I'm wondering if there is a connection between him and the newspaper.

TH and Inteller make the obvious and correct conclusion to this "set up" of a thread. What will the 1084 results do? 20,000 currently have left. Were they in these numbers? How many more to follow? Or will there be a mass movement here to fill those low paying jobs? And will wages be forced up making the cost of living escalate?

I am all for increasing our economic base. Bush has done wonders for the economies dependent on energy and the military.  Someday, America, like Tulsa, will change priorities and the military industries will take a back seat to rebuilding our neglected infrastructure. Fortunately for Tulsa, Bush has left the military so spent that there will remain lots of military disbursements for many years to come. I'm not feeling good about the cost nationally to benefit us locally.

[swake]

Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.

Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html

You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived  problems that don't exist.

Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.

The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.

Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html

You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived  problems that don't exist.

Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.

The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.

First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.

I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.

Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

quote:Originally posted by swake

Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.

Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html

You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived  problems that don't exist.

Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.

The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.

First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.

I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.

Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.

My response will be to quote you on one of your most insightful recent quotes:

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

Pigeon poop....

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

quote:Originally posted by swake

Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.

Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html

You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived  problems that don't exist.

Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.

The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.

First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.

I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.

Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.

My response will be to quote you on one of your most insightful recent quotes:

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

Pigeon poop....

A perfect example of taking information out of the original context and then manipulating it to make it appear what you want it to mean.

way to go!

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

quote:Originally posted by swake

Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.

Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html

You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived  problems that don't exist.

Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.

The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.

First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.

I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.

Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.

My response will be to quote you on one of your most insightful recent quotes:

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

Pigeon poop....

A perfect example of taking information out of the original context and then manipulating it to make it appear what you want it to mean.

way to go!

No, it's just pretty damn funny

[aoxamaxoa]

For those witnessing this parody, understand the pigeon poop caused the bridge collapse in Minnesota. It came from information in a separate study and was applied here. This has become normal ever since the neo cons took over when the supremes kinged George..

It has nothing to do with Tulsa's enlarged income.

On a separate matter, cubs are down in the 9th. So I am signing off.

[rwarn17588]

Speaking of parodies, whatever happened to Cubs?