How poor a city is Tulsa?

[swake]

The Tulsa World put out an article today on the growth in Tulsa's personal income and a lot of the comments are again about how poor a city Tulsa is.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080424_5__Perso17547

So, I went to the government site where the data for the article came from. The results are surprising. Tulsa remains a quite wealthy city, and when you consider the low cost of living the gap between Tulsa's average income and the wealthiest cities in the nation evaporates.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3§ion=2

Tulsa metro has an average per capita income of $38,219 and that number doesn't really tell the whole story as distant suburban areas and rural areas outside of Tulsa County are really bringing the metro's overall average down. Tulsa County which is the core of the metro has by far the highest county income in the state at $44,321. Second place Oklahoma County comes in at $39,158.  Compare these numbers to some other metros like Dallas-Ft Worth, at $39,924 and Austin (don't we all want to be Austin?) with $36,328. How about Houston? $43,174, Tulsa County is higher than metro Houston, you know, the city where all our high paying jobs went. NW Arkansas with all that Wal-Mart money has a paltry average income of $29,807. That's lower than Lawton. Those certainly sound like Wal-Mart wages to me.

Here are some of the metros with lower income then metro Tulsa: Las Vegas $38,281, Kansas City, $37,566, Portland $36,845, Tampa Bay $35,541.

And some metros with lower income than Tulsa County, and some of these might really shock you: Chicago, $41,591, San Diego $42,801, Los Angeles $39,880, Minneapolis $44,237 and Santa Barbra $43,510.

Tulsa ranks 58th in income out of 363 metros. Tulsa county would rank 25th.

And none of this takes into account cost of living. Do you think that the average income in Tulsa County at $44,321 might go a little further than say $45,369 in Seattle or $49,789 in New York or $57,747 in San Francisco? (which is number 2 in income by the way). We really aren't doing all that bad.  

[TURobY]

It's hard to remember and keep in perspective that those some people complain, just to complain. No validity needs to exist for them to complain.

Before you know it, someone will counter that the increase in income only applied to the "ruling oligarchy" or the "midtown elite". []

[cannon_fodder]

Thanks for the stats swake.  I know my industry is booming and many other industries are as well.  My friends lucky enough to get their foot in the door at oil companies are doing VERY well (the bastards!).

Just amazing numbers.  I shared the illusions of Tulsa being "poor."

It has yet to really trickle my way, but anything that improves the lives of my neighbors will eventually help me out.  Financially or otherwise.

[Conan71]

The increase in income only applied to the "ruling oligarchy" or the "midtown elite".

[Gold]

Oklahoma, as a state, is poor.  Tulsa, not so much, though there is a fair amount of poverty (see 61st and Peoria thread).

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The increase in income only applied to the "ruling oligarchy" or the "midtown elite".

[}:)]

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by swake


So, I went to the government site where the data for the article came from. The results are surprising. Tulsa remains a quite wealthy city, and when you consider the low cost of living the gap between Tulsa's average income and the wealthiest cities in the nation evaporates.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3§ion=2

Tulsa metro has an average per capita income of $38,219 and that number doesn't really tell the whole story as distant suburban areas and rural areas outside of Tulsa County are really bringing the metro's overall average down. Tulsa County which is the core of the metro has by far the highest county income in the state at $44,321. Second place Oklahoma County comes in at $39,158.  Compare these numbers to some other metros like Dallas-Ft Worth, at $39,924 and Austin (don't we all want to be Austin?) with $36,328. How about Houston? $43,174, Tulsa County is higher than metro Houston, you know, the city where all our high paying jobs went. NW Arkansas with all that Wal-Mart money has a paltry average income of $29,807. That's lower than Lawton. Those certainly sound like Wal-Mart wages to me.

Here are some of the metros with lower income then metro Tulsa: Las Vegas $38,281, Kansas City, $37,566, Portland $36,845, Tampa Bay $35,541.

And some metros with lower income than Tulsa County, and some of these might really shock you: Chicago, $41,591, San Diego $42,801, Los Angeles $39,880, Minneapolis $44,237 and Santa Barbra $43,510.

Tulsa ranks 58th in income out of 363 metros. Tulsa county would rank 25th.

And none of this takes into account cost of living. Do you think that the average income in Tulsa County at $44,321 might go a little further than say $45,369 in Seattle or $49,789 in New York or $57,747 in San Francisco? (which is number 2 in income by the way). We really aren't doing all that bad.  

Excellent points, Swake.  Public perception is truly Tulsa's public enemy.  Think of what would happen if most of Tulsa's population was aware of these statistics.  More importantly, think what would happen if outside businesses knew of these statistics.  Tulsa's potential for success lies in the efflorescence of its assets into public awareness.  Based on economic factors, the marketability of Tulsa as a relocation destination is very distinct.

[swake]

An individual earning $44,371 in Tulsa moving to San Francisco (which has the second highest income in the United States) would have to earn $83,743 to maintain the same lifestyle. Problem is that the $44,371 is the simply the average income for Tulsa County, but that $83,743 is 145% of the average income for San Francisco ($57,747).

You tell me which city is wealthier.

Number one in the United States for income is Bridgeport, Connecticut. The average income there is $64,880. Someone in Tulsa again earning $44,371 would have to make $73,278 to maintain the same lifestyle, or 113% of the average income for Bridgeport.

And that is the metro with the very highest income in the nation.

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

[TheArtist]

Those are some very interesting stats.

Something just doesnt seem to jive with them though from what I see.



Perhaps what I am seeing is just a matter of scale? In Austin and Denver there are all these highrise and expensive condos, shops, stores and such.



1.  Is it that because they have a larger population that the concentration of the wealthier people makes those areas appear larger? So when you see all that stuff you think wow they are richer, but its really that there are just more people, more rich and more poor people but we are just looking at the richer?

2.  Is it that there are more urban dwellers wanting that urban lifestyle, versus here much of the wealth is suburban type homes versus condo towers?

3.  Is it that there is more income disparity in those other places. More wealthy and more poor which average out to be about the same but the appearance of wealth looks larger?

Its all quite interesting. Not to mention we have low tax burdens compared to other parts of the country.  

I have also heard that we have high poverty rates, high rates of hunger, etc... How does that jive with these numbers? Not to mention, poor health, people who cant read, high murder rates, higher suicide, (for every  homicide there are 2 suicides in Tulsa) child abuse, divorce, drug use, etc etc.  Most if not all of these things are worse here than in many places.

Do we have more very wealthy that skew the average income upwards?

Something aint adding up.

[Conan71]

Swake,

I'm not sure what your exact point is, but the only conclusions I'm reaching is the higher the COL of an area, it stands to reason that the jobs are going to have to pay more to keep you there doing those jobs.  It's all relative.  The Bay area is also one of the more expensive housing markets in the country- that's certainly going to create demand for higher salaries.  I'm curious though if those housing numbers are pre or post- subprime bust numbers.

IOW, if I moved to the bay area in my present occupation, I would earn commensurately more.  I guess, if you put raw number percentages to it, based on my present savings/retirement rate I'd have more gross cash saved up in those funds living in SF.  But, what about the wear and tear and stress on my body?  Not worth it to say that I earn more, when I really don't have any more to show for my additional income by living somewhere like San Fran.  Bottom line is, I'd rather stay put.

What it means to me is thank God I don't live in SF or Bridgeport.  At least utilities are about 3% less out in SF. [}:)]

Salary in Tulsa OK:
$44,371
Comparable salary in San Francisco CA:
$83,837.48

If you move from Tulsa OK to San Francisco CA...
 
Groceries will cost: 57.871% more
Housing will cost: 272.871% more
Utilities will cost: 2.735% less
Transportation will cost: 13.839% more
Healthcare will cost: 28.491% more

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The increase in income only applied to the "ruling oligarchy" or the "midtown elite".

Don't forget the trust fund babies... especially after those Bush tax cuts and elimination of "death taxes" for the estate and inheritance...

I have more "disposable income" than when I lived in Chicago or Boston....

A few friends of mine from Chicago have come down here and I've given them "the tour" -- they were surprised there was an actual city with a skyline here... and were shocked and amazed at the housing prices here ("Geez, I could buy a mansion")... then they noticed the large number of billboards advsertising for JOBS...

[Wrinkle]

Tulsa is among the tops in Per Capita Millionaires in the nation, once in 1930 being on top of the list, and as recently as 1970 or so being in the top three.

It takes over 5,000 average earners at $44,321 to offset one millionaire (at an even $1 Million). For those in the $20-$25K range, it takes well over 10,000.

Imagine what a few Billionaires does to the equation, besides all the mere millionaires in town.

Also, "income" figures include employee provided health care costs, which has averaged a 12%-15% annual increase in recent years. And, we should not forget, taxpayers are now picking up the cost of 100% Health Care coverage for every teacher in the state.

So, these numbers require the taking with a grain of salt.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Tulsa is among the tops in Per Capita Millionaires in the nation, once in 1930 being on top of the list, and as recently as 1970 or so being in the top three.

Source, please?

And citing information from nearly 40 years ago doesn't have much relevance to now.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Tulsa is among the tops in Per Capita Millionaires in the nation, once in 1930 being on top of the list, and as recently as 1970 or so being in the top three.

It takes over 5,000 average earners at $44,321 to offset one millionaire (at an even $1 Million). For those in the $20-$25K range, it takes well over 10,000.

Imagine what a few Billionaires does to the equation, besides all the mere millionaires in town.

Also, "income" figures include employee provided health care costs, which has averaged a 12%-15% annual increase in recent years. And, we should not forget, taxpayers are now picking up the cost of 100% Health Care coverage for every teacher in the state.

So, these numbers require the taking with a grain of salt.

Health Care costs have increased nationally so that is not applicable when comparing averages between cities. It could explain some of our increase, but not our increase rate relative to the national average or to other cities. As for how many millionaires it takes to equal one average earner, what you point out is the distinction between the statistics for Median Income and Average Income.

I would agree that we seem to have quite a larger portion of our population that are millionaires than most cities not named San Jose or Palm Beach. But I should point out that a millionaire is defined as someone with net assets of over a million dollars. You are comparing someone with an annual net income of a million dollars to an average earner, and anyone netting more than a million dollars in income in a single year is doing VERY well and unless they are a recent lottery winner their total net worth is probably going to be very substantially over a million dollars.

Grain of salt or not, it does tell the story of how much money come into the Tulsa economy overall. How the money is distributed is another question.

But you want a grain of salt because anything positive about Tulsa hurts the too common doom and gloom shtick doesn't it?

[cannon_fodder]

Wrinkle:

How many people in Tulsa EARNED $1,000,000 last year?  These are earnings figures, NOT net worth figures.  Only .03% of Americans earn more than $1,000,000 a year.  Tulsa has lots of old money millionaires, but I doubt we have more than our share of million dollar earners (2 TU coaches, some BOk execs, Williams, OneOK, HP, St. Francis Probably, Warran, Case, Clark Brewster on some years, Nordam, Samson and probably a nice handful of others that I am leaving out).

But lets pretend there are 400 Tulsans that made more than $1mil.  Nearly twice the national average of million dollar earners.  That's $400,000,000 in total income (you can argue that some out make more than $1mil, but we doubled the actual number so lets run with it).  

Tulsa average: $44,321, for 383,000 people. For a total income of about $17,000,000,000.00.

So to have those 400 people account for a 10% raise they would each need to have a 425% increase.  From $1mil apiece to $4.25 million each.

Kaiser is a California resident technically, I don't think his wages would count.  Even if they would, his "net worth" is tied to BOk and other stock holdings.  Going from a $100 millionaire to a Billionaire in stock holdings does not count as earnings.  I'm sure he did well, but it's not like $1Billion is added to the equation.

And where do your numbers come from?  22.56 "average" wage earners at $44,321 = $1,000,000 on the nose.  A 10% increase to either side equals the same amount.   Where did you come up with the 5000 person number?  An average Tulsa block has $1,000,000 in income, you'll have to explain that one.

And even if these numbers take into account benefits, it has no effect at all.  NONE.  These are comparison numbers.  If you are looking to relocate wouldn't you want the entire picture?  When we compare earnings between cities the most holistic approach would be best.  Since San Fran, Portland and Tulsa are all reported with these figures, it has no impact on the comparison.
- - -

So yeah.  The numbers are an "average" and subject to the regular "average" conditions. But when there are nearly 400,000 people involved in getting the numbers and 22 of them are enough to offset the anomalies you suggest; it would seem their impact would be minimal compared to the entire heard.

$17,000,000,000.00 in income for Tulsa.  The numbers overwhelm the few very wealthy.