Job Data

[aoxamaxoa]

They lost. But not to worry. Things look good for the cubbies this year.

Here's an article in this mornings NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/26housing.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin and basically what it implies (Drop Foreseen in Median Price of U.S. Homes) is the average American is going to see their net asset value drop as their homes decline in value. This means the net worth of our citizens across America will go down or stagnate no matter what their average income is doing and don't expect to use your home's increase in value any longer (for at least 10 years) to facilitate borrowing. Most American credit is at a standstill....This will lead to a  consumer tightening. Let's hope the job situation remains stable. As I said before, job stability will here in Tulsa for awhile. But Tulsa has been a bit counter cyclicle to the rest the country over the past 60 years.

[Oil Capital]

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.

Here's the problem with your income stats.  Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income.  All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices.  No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa.  I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.

Here's the problem with your income stats.  Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income.  All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices.  No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa.  I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.

Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.

http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome

And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.


Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.

Here's the problem with your income stats.  Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income.  All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices.  No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa.  I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.

Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.

http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome

And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.


Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.

Same issue applies to household income stats.  It's still skewed by the trust fund babies and royalty incomes, which of course had huge growth in that time period, and which of course greatly skew Tulsa's numbers, perhaps more so than any other city/metro.

[rwarn17588]

If anything, it probably underreports the income growth.

Anyone who's had a 401(k) invested in the stock market would have seen huge increases during that time period.

Of course, this is money you can't touch right now. But this money is real, and it's important down the road.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

If anything, it probably underreports the income growth.

Anyone who's had a 401(k) invested in the stock market would have seen huge increases during that time period.

Of course, this is money you can't touch right now. But this money is real, and it's important down the road.

That ignores the point.  The household income numbers (whether including or excluding 401(k) income) do not tell us much about the health and growth of the Tulsa economy.   The fact that 401(k) numbers are not included makes the reported numbers a little more useful, but they still include a LOT of stuff that gives no indication about the Tulsa employment market and the growth of the Tulsa economy (or the lack thereof).  

To see that picture, we need to see wage and salary income and only the wage and salary income, without the irrelevancies of investment income and royalty checks and trust fund checks.

[rwarn17588]

If you think royalty checks and investment income are "irrelevant," tell that to any retiree or land owner who uses them to help live on.

And, yes, 401(k) money is part of income if you draw from it -- as many retirees do. And that stock market growth helps keep the nest egg's value up.

Income is income. All of it is relevant.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.

Here's the problem with your income stats.  Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income.  All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices.  No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa.  I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.

Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.

http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome

And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.


Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.

Same issue applies to household income stats.  It's still skewed by the trust fund babies and royalty incomes, which of course had huge growth in that time period, and which of course greatly skew Tulsa's numbers, perhaps more so than any other city/metro.

No, household numbers are median numbers, so a spike at one end of the spectum would not influence household.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

If you think royalty checks and investment income are "irrelevant," tell that to any retiree or land owner who uses them to help live on.

And, yes, 401(k) money is part of income if you draw from it -- as many retirees do. And that stock market growth helps keep the nest egg's value up.

Income is income. All of it is relevant.

LOL   Somehow I knew that would be your response.  As you surely know, when I said they were irrelevant, I meant irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.  We are discussing the use of income stats to show that Tulsa's employment market is strong and growing.  For that purpose 401(k) income and investment income and trust fund income and royalty income is clearly irrelevant.  The only income that is relevant for this purpose is wage and salary income.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.

Here's the problem with your income stats.  Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income.  All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices.  No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa.  I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.

Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.

http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome

And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.


Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.

Same issue applies to household income stats.  It's still skewed by the trust fund babies and royalty incomes, which of course had huge growth in that time period, and which of course greatly skew Tulsa's numbers, perhaps more so than any other city/metro.

No, household numbers are median numbers, so a spike at one end of the spectum would not influence household.

Good point.  But it's still not a particularly accurate measure of the employment market, because it still mixes in all the other non-employment income at all levels of the spectrum.   While most of the spike in royalty income and trust fund income is no doubt at the top of the spectrum, not all of it is, and certainly not all of the spike in investment income is at the very top of the spectrum.  

Bottom line, I think that stat probably still overstates the strength of the Tulsa employment picture.  I've been searching for wage and salary income stats but have not been able to find anything recent.  Would love to see them if you know of a place to access them.

[cannon_fodder]

1) Yes, we lost what appeared to be good telecom and aerospace jobs.  (they were not good as they were not sustainable in hindsight)

2) The aerospace employment in Tulsa now exceeds its 2001 employment.  Credit V2025 if you want, but the numbers back it up.

3) The telecom jobs have been offset by oil sector jobs.  OneOk, Devon, Haliburton , H&P, and even Williams are all hiring highly skilled well paid engineers, account managers, and contractors.  

4) Total employment is higher than ever.

5) Average household income is higher than ever.

All the data suggests that there are more jobs and more money being earned.  Yes, we lost good jobs and some of the new jobs are not as good as the high profile jobs we lost.  However, we also lost plenty of crappy jobs in the downturn too.  The data suggests that we gained back jobs at all levels at a rapid rate.

Again, there are more jobs in Tulsa than ever and more money being earned than ever.  What horrible news.
- - - - - - - -

And AOX...

you can not count the housing slump against the economy because you refused to count it in favor of the economy.

As personal wealth was exploding you quiped that it was "due to the over priced real estate and was not real."  Now that it is set to correct itself you are crying doom and gloom that personal net worth might fall.  That's double dipping... if it was not real worth before, it is not real worth now.

Not that I want to stop your nay saying.

I thought all Cubs fans were optimists?

[swake]

You make good points, but, the growing gap between wealth holders and wage earners overall in the economy is not a unique phenomenon to Tulsa, though it is likely more pronounced here with all the old oil money and trust funds.

From an economic perspective money brought into the Tulsa economy is the actual economic condition of Tulsa. The fact that there may be a pronounced earning gap is more a societal issue than an economic one, just as our depressed household income numbers due to the high divorce rate is a societal issue.

My guess would be that the upper third of the earners in Tulsa do very well compared to national numbers, and that the middle third does just about average and that the bottom third does well worse than average, mostly due to a lack a union presence here and our "by your own bootstraps" culture where society looks down on the poor and doesn't really seem to want to help their situation. I think you would find that the divorce rate also hits that bottom third hard as well. Our crime rate is at least partially an outgrowth of that underlying weakness.

These are issues that we need to work on, but they are not technically economic issues. In any case, by recent measures Tulsa and Oklahoma City are at the very top of the list for cities with the largest percentage of income that is discretionary. Average wages in Tulsa are about just that, average and the cost of living by any measure is well below average. However, with the recent up tick in energy costs here and the collapse of the national housing market I'm thinking that gap may be closing somewhat.


Good jobs data can be found at OESC, like you have stated. There are numbers tied  to demographics at the census, but they are mostly estimates of dubious quality, like their population estimates that I really don't place a lot of faith in. Better estimates are found at OSU at this link.

http://economy.okstate.edu/outlook/

[swake]

Tulsa is number 5 in the nation for "value"
Quote:
US metros for building personal net worth (taking into account local salaries, cost of living, and unemployment relative to the national average). Median base pay was correlated across more than 2,500 different benchmark jobs in our calculations. Housing costs, living costs, and metro unemployment/job growth figures were also used to rank the metro areas.

http://www.salary.com/personal/layoutscripts/psnl_articles.asp?tab=psn&cat=cat282&ser=ser031&part=par097

Really impressive.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:

My guess would be that the upper third of the earners in Tulsa do very well compared to national numbers, and that the middle third does just about average and that the bottom third does well worse than average, mostly due to a lack a union presence here and our "by your own bootstraps" culture where society looks down on the poor and doesn't really seem to want to help their situation. I think you would find that the divorce rate also hits that bottom third hard as well. Our crime rate is at least partially an outgrowth of that underlying weakness.

Now that's a good guess....

Salary Value? Sounds Wal Martish....