How poor a city is Tulsa?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
Public Works Director, Charles Hardt, who makes over $165,000/year.

It takes over 2,500 'average' folks to make up for him alone.

You might just want to go on and pull out the old calculator on that.

O.K., I see many here have attended TPS at some point.

If one were to take 2,499 average incomes at $44,321 per year, the total would be....Bular, Bular, Bular???  That's right $110,758,179

Add in one person at $165,000/year giving us, $110,923,179.

Now, since we're talking averages, divide that by 2,499 + 1 ( = 2,500).

That gives us an AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE of $44,369 which is approximately our ACTUAL annual average wage.

Since this number is somewhat higher than the actual annual average wage of $44,321, it would really take more than 2,499 (or even 2,500) average wage earners to make up for one wage of $165,000/year, such as Mr. Hardts, and maintain our actual annual average wage.

Any questions?

So, 2499 people at an average plus one above the average is more than average if all 2,500 people were at the average?




Smokin!

Go ahead, try it with any other numbers.

Let's use CF's 22.56

22.56 @ $44,321 = $999,881.76

1 @ $165,000 =    $165,000.00

    TOTAL        $1,164,881.76

Average Wage $1,164,881.76 / 23.56 = $49,443.20

Dosen't work.

Neither does any other number not in the vicinity of 2,500 of our average wage.

Just how do you think average wages are figured?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

O.K., I see many here have attended TPS at some point.

If one were to take 2,499 average incomes at $44,321 per year, the total would be....Bular, Bular, Bular???  That's right $110,758,179

Add in one person at $165,000/year giving us, $110,923,179.

Now, since we're talking averages, divide that by 2,499 + 1 ( = 2,500).

That gives us an AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE of $44,369 which is approximately our ACTUAL annual average wage.

Since this number is somewhat higher than the actual annual average wage of $44,321, it would really take more than 2,499 (or even 2,500) average wage earners to make up for one wage of $165,000/year, such as Mr. Hardts, and maintain our actual annual average wage.

Any questions?

Ooooooookay.

(Perhaps my LSD crack wasn't facetious after all.)

I'm not sure what these bizarre calculations and reasoning prove.

Are you advocating firing the Public Works Director to bring the average down? Or that the government should go communist and force Hardt to have the same average wage? []

Somehow, I think Wrinkle should meet with shadows and "Imaginary Federal Budget Deficit" Spoonbill. Addled minds think alike, you see. At least it would be good for a few laughs. [}:)]

These 'bizarre' calculations are exactly the way Tulsa's Average Annual Wage of $44,321 was calculated.

The reasoning is to demonstrat the effect of one above average wage on the average, by using the same method they used to calculate the thing.

It proves it takes a LOT of sub-average wages to make up for ONE above average wage, especially when the above-average wage is more than double the average. (exampe: $39,321 + $49,321 produce an 'average' of our $44,321. But when the high wage is over the average by an amount larger than the difference between the average and the low wage, it takes more low wages to make up the difference in the average. As such, $25,000 + $1,000,000 produce an average of $512,500. If one were to reduce the low wage to zero, the average would still be $500,000. So, it takes many sub-average wages to make up for one above average wage and produce the correct, given average, especially those that exceed the average by more than the average wage.) For every wage of double the average, there's effectively one of zero to offset.


To follow through on my original posting, then. Tulsa has many above average earners ('earners' being used figuratively here) who make lots of money each year, more than double the average. Those who became wealthy when oil was $33/barrel are doing three times better today.

Since the demonstration shows how only one wage of $165,000 takes  more than 2,500 average wage earners to offset, think of the effect one person with an income over $1 million has. Also, consider how many are actually making less than the average to do so.

If there aren't enough below average wage earners to offset this well, the average rises, as ours did.

It's not real obtuse, but it also shows what a fairly meaningless number the average is as it was presented.

To make it even simpler for you, if you earned $25,000/year and another person earned $1,000,000/year, what is the average?

It's $512,500/year. Does that make you feel better about earning $25,000? How many $25,000/year earners does it take to bring that average down to $44,321?

It's very relative, and makes the point.

As for Charles Hardt, personally I would fire him for the handling of Tulsa's roads alone, but not to affect the average. Though, his pay scale is probably in line with the top end of similar private sector jobs, he remains a public servant. As far as I know, he's the highest paid City of Tulsa employee, so was the reason he became the object here.

Still, if you check the City of Tulsa payroll, you'd be surprised at the number of employees paid over $75,000/year, the number stated as the average income of a U.S. millionaire.

For every City employee paid $75,000/year, another citizen of Tulsa must have an income of only ($75,000 - $44,321) $30,679/year to average $44,321. When someone's income exceeds double the average, it can no longer be offset by a single other income, thus, takes more than one other sub-average income to offset. It takes 2.72 citizens earning zero to offset Mr. Hardt's $165,000/year income in order maintain our average. (i.e., $165k / 3.72 = $44,321)

Imagine what one person with a $1M income does. (clue: $1M / $44,321 = 22.56 zero-income persons to offset. If these people have more than zero income, it just takes more of them to offset.)

Hope that helps. Don't be too dazzled, it's less than 8th grade arithmetic.

[Wrinkle]

quote:CF: Using your math, $165,000/2500 = average wage. The average Tulsan makes $66.00 per year.

CF, this isn't even close to using my math.

Try again.

[Wrinkle]

quote: CF: But, on the whole, MOST are near the $44,321 number that is thrown out.

This demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of what "average" is.

On the whole, it means EVERY citizen of Tulsa would make $44,321 if all income were evenly distributed.

Income is not evenly distributed.

For every person making more than average, there is a corresponding person or persons making less than average to offset. The higher the income, the more persons below average it takes to offset.

[rwarn17588]

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'll explain my average block comment.  The average Tulsan makes $44,321  $1mil/44321 = 22.56.  So for my block to make $1mil I would have to have 23 average wage earners living on it.  Most blocks have more than 23 wage earners living on them, by definition, most earn average...

Now, what, in the hell, are you talking about?

Remember, cf, it's your fault and everyone else's fault that the numbers and logic aren't understood. [}:)]

[Wrinkle]

quote: CF: Never mind all that, what's your point? Are you arguing that Tulsa is chuck full of millionaires and everyone else is in the poor house while Portland has a population where everyone earns $40K across the board? The sad fact is, we have to compare these things by AVERAGES.  

That's exactly what it was intended to show. Though, I didn't mention anything about Portland.

And, yes, we do have to use this number to compare, along with a whole host of other numbers, like Median Income, High and Low, Industry ranges, etc, etc.

The World provided a single number with no qualification to tell us our world is getting better when it, by itself, doesn't, and can't show that.

Which leads us back to my original comment that this number should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'll explain my average block comment.  The average Tulsan makes $44,321  $1mil/44321 = 22.56.  So for my block to make $1mil I would have to have 23 average wage earners living on it.  Most blocks have more than 23 wage earners living on them, by definition, most earn average...

Now, what, in the hell, are you talking about?

Remember, cf, it's your fault and everyone else's fault that the numbers and logic aren't understood. [}:)]

by definition, most earn average...

Again, a basic misunderstanding of average.

Most earn less than average, many earn more than average, and a few earn way more than average.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

O.K., I see many here have attended TPS at some point.

If one were to take 2,499 average incomes at $44,321 per year, the total would be....Bular, Bular, Bular???  That's right $110,758,179

Add in one person at $165,000/year giving us, $110,923,179.

Now, since we're talking averages, divide that by 2,499 + 1 ( = 2,500).

That gives us an AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE of $44,369 which is approximately our ACTUAL annual average wage.

Since this number is somewhat higher than the actual annual average wage of $44,321, it would really take more than 2,499 (or even 2,500) average wage earners to make up for one wage of $165,000/year, such as Mr. Hardts, and maintain our actual annual average wage.

Any questions?

Ooooooookay.

(Perhaps my LSD crack wasn't facetious after all.)

I'm not sure what these bizarre calculations and reasoning prove.

Are you advocating firing the Public Works Director to bring the average down? Or that the government should go communist and force Hardt to have the same average wage? []

Somehow, I think Wrinkle should meet with shadows and "Imaginary Federal Budget Deficit" Spoonbill. Addled minds think alike, you see. At least it would be good for a few laughs. [}:)]

These 'bizarre' calculations are exactly the way Tulsa's Average Annual Wage of $44,321 was calculated.

The reasoning is to demonstrat the effect of one above average wage on the average, by using the same method they used to calculate the thing.

It proves it takes a LOT of sub-average wages to make up for ONE above average wage, especially when the above-average wage is more than double the average. (exampe: $39,321 + $49,321 produce an 'average' of our $44,321. But when the high wage is over the average by an amount larger than the difference between the average and the low wage, it takes more low wages to make up the difference in the average. As such, $25,000 + $1,000,000 produce an average of $512,500. If one were to reduce the low wage to zero, the average would still be $500,000. So, it takes many sub-average wages to make up for one above average wage and produce the correct, given average, especially those that exceed the average by more than the average wage.) For every wage of double the average, there's effectively one of zero to offset.


To follow through on my original posting, then. Tulsa has many above average earners ('earners' being used figuratively here) who make lots of money each year, more than double the average. Those who became wealthy when oil was $33/barrel are doing three times better today.

Since the demonstration shows how only one wage of $165,000 takes  more than 2,500 average wage earners to offset, think of the effect one person with an income over $1 million has. Also, consider how many are actually making less than the average to do so.

If there aren't enough below average wage earners to offset this well, the average rises, as ours did.

It's not real obtuse, but it also shows what a fairly meaningless number the average is as it was presented.

To make it even simpler for you, if you earned $25,000/year and another person earned $1,000,000/year, what is the average?

It's $512,500/year. Does that make you feel better about earning $25,000? How many $25,000/year earners does it take to bring that average down to $44,321?

It's very relative, and makes the point.

As for Charles Hardt, personally I would fire him for the handling of Tulsa's roads alone, but not to affect the average. Though, his pay scale is probably in line with the top end of similar private sector jobs, he remains a public servant. As far as I know, he's the highest paid City of Tulsa employee, so was the reason he became the object here.

Still, if you check the City of Tulsa payroll, you'd be surprised at the number of employees paid over $75,000/year, the number stated as the average income of a U.S. millionaire.

For every City employee paid $75,000/year, another citizen of Tulsa must have an income of only ($75,000 - $44,321) $30,679/year to average $44,321. When someone's income exceeds double the average, it can no longer be offset by a single other income, thus, takes more than one other sub-average income to offset. It takes 2.72 citizens earning zero to offset Mr. Hardt's $165,000/year income in order maintain our average. (i.e., $165k / 3.72 = $44,321)

Imagine what one person with a $1M income does. (clue: $1M / $44,321 = 22.56 zero-income persons to offset. If these people have more than zero income, it just takes more of them to offset.)

Hope that helps. Don't be too dazzled, it's less than 8th grade arithmetic.

No, I think you are confused.

First of all do you want to know how many wage earners it takes to offset Charles Hardt's $165,000?

Maybe zero.

These are Per Capitanumbers and if he has a wife and 2 kids he'd better have some other income coming into his house to even get to the average of $44,321.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

O.K., I see many here have attended TPS at some point.

If one were to take 2,499 average incomes at $44,321 per year, the total would be....Bular, Bular, Bular???  That's right $110,758,179

Add in one person at $165,000/year giving us, $110,923,179.

Now, since we're talking averages, divide that by 2,499 + 1 ( = 2,500).

That gives us an AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE of $44,369 which is approximately our ACTUAL annual average wage.

Since this number is somewhat higher than the actual annual average wage of $44,321, it would really take more than 2,499 (or even 2,500) average wage earners to make up for one wage of $165,000/year, such as Mr. Hardts, and maintain our actual annual average wage.

Any questions?

Ooooooookay.

(Perhaps my LSD crack wasn't facetious after all.)

I'm not sure what these bizarre calculations and reasoning prove.

Are you advocating firing the Public Works Director to bring the average down? Or that the government should go communist and force Hardt to have the same average wage? []

Somehow, I think Wrinkle should meet with shadows and "Imaginary Federal Budget Deficit" Spoonbill. Addled minds think alike, you see. At least it would be good for a few laughs. [}:)]

These 'bizarre' calculations are exactly the way Tulsa's Average Annual Wage of $44,321 was calculated.

The reasoning is to demonstrat the effect of one above average wage on the average, by using the same method they used to calculate the thing.

It proves it takes a LOT of sub-average wages to make up for ONE above average wage, especially when the above-average wage is more than double the average. (exampe: $39,321 + $49,321 produce an 'average' of our $44,321. But when the high wage is over the average by an amount larger than the difference between the average and the low wage, it takes more low wages to make up the difference in the average. As such, $25,000 + $1,000,000 produce an average of $512,500. If one were to reduce the low wage to zero, the average would still be $500,000. So, it takes many sub-average wages to make up for one above average wage and produce the correct, given average, especially those that exceed the average by more than the average wage.) For every wage of double the average, there's effectively one of zero to offset.


To follow through on my original posting, then. Tulsa has many above average earners ('earners' being used figuratively here) who make lots of money each year, more than double the average. Those who became wealthy when oil was $33/barrel are doing three times better today.

Since the demonstration shows how only one wage of $165,000 takes  more than 2,500 average wage earners to offset, think of the effect one person with an income over $1 million has. Also, consider how many are actually making less than the average to do so.

If there aren't enough below average wage earners to offset this well, the average rises, as ours did.

It's not real obtuse, but it also shows what a fairly meaningless number the average is as it was presented.

To make it even simpler for you, if you earned $25,000/year and another person earned $1,000,000/year, what is the average?

It's $512,500/year. Does that make you feel better about earning $25,000? How many $25,000/year earners does it take to bring that average down to $44,321?

It's very relative, and makes the point.

As for Charles Hardt, personally I would fire him for the handling of Tulsa's roads alone, but not to affect the average. Though, his pay scale is probably in line with the top end of similar private sector jobs, he remains a public servant. As far as I know, he's the highest paid City of Tulsa employee, so was the reason he became the object here.

Still, if you check the City of Tulsa payroll, you'd be surprised at the number of employees paid over $75,000/year, the number stated as the average income of a U.S. millionaire.

For every City employee paid $75,000/year, another citizen of Tulsa must have an income of only ($75,000 - $44,321) $30,679/year to average $44,321. When someone's income exceeds double the average, it can no longer be offset by a single other income, thus, takes more than one other sub-average income to offset. It takes 2.72 citizens earning zero to offset Mr. Hardt's $165,000/year income in order maintain our average. (i.e., $165k / 3.72 = $44,321)

Imagine what one person with a $1M income does. (clue: $1M / $44,321 = 22.56 zero-income persons to offset. If these people have more than zero income, it just takes more of them to offset.)

Hope that helps. Don't be too dazzled, it's less than 8th grade arithmetic.

No, I think you are confused.

First of all do you want to know how many wage earners it takes to offset Charles Hardt's $165,000?

Maybe zero.

These are Per Capitanumbers and if he has a wife and 2 kids he'd better have some other income coming into his house to even get to the average of $44,321.

I think you're the one confused.

It means he, his wife AND his two kids ARE earning $44,321 EACH as an average. Though, it's actually only $41,250 each with his $165,000/year salary. Kind of hard to have 0.72% of a kid, but, I'm starting to wonder if your folks did.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote: by definition, most earn average...

Some numbers from 2000 for demonstration purposes:

City of Tulsa

Average household income: $50,270
Median household income: $35,316

Median is the breaking point - 50% earn more, 50% earn less. A number much greater than 50% of Tulsans earned less than the average income in 2000. The average is being skewed higher by some much higher incomes.

City of Broken Arrow:

Average household income: $61,317
Median household income: $53,507

Average is much closer to median here so one can assume much more homogeneous income levels.

Thank you. Someone understands.

[cannon_fodder]

"Average" can mean median, mean, or mode.  My damn stats prof always told me to specify and I failed to do so.  Sorry for the confusion.

I understand what you were saying now with the median numbers.  I still think it was misleading with the "2500 people" to offset, but I got ya'.

So lets try to compare apples:

Median income, Portland family of four: $40,793
Median, income Tulsa family of four: $44,518
(sorry, I used wiki numbers because I'm between meetings)

I agree that averages and other data can be misleading.  Per capita vs. Family, median, mean mode... Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for the misunderstanding.  The 74114 zip in Tulsa can skew the data to some degree, but I still contend that the zero's and the masses drag the "average" to the neighborhood it belongs in.  

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

"Average" can mean median, mean, or mode.  My damn stats prof always told me to specify and I failed to do so.  Sorry for the confusion.

I understand what you were saying now with the median numbers.  I still think it was misleading with the "2500 people" to offset, but I got ya'.

So lets try to compare apples:

Median income, Portland family of four: $40,793
Median, income Tulsa family of four: $44,518
(sorry, I used wiki numbers because I'm between meetings)

I agree that averages and other data can be misleading.  Per capita vs. Family, median, mean mode... Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for the misunderstanding.  The 74114 zip in Tulsa can skew the data to some degree, but I still contend that the zero's and the masses drag the "average" to the neighborhood it belongs in.  

quote:  The 74114 zip in Tulsa can skew the data to some degree

...not only can, but DOES. That's the entire point I was originally trying to make.

That, and the more they make, the less the rest do to maintain the same average.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote: by definition, most earn average...

Some numbers from 2000 for demonstration purposes:

City of Tulsa

Average household income: $50,270
Median household income: $35,316

Median is the breaking point - 50% earn more, 50% earn less. A number much greater than 50% of Tulsans earned less than the average income in 2000. The average is being skewed higher by some much higher incomes.

City of Broken Arrow:

Average household income: $61,317
Median household income: $53,507

Average is much closer to median here so one can assume much more homogeneous income levels.

Now you're talkin'.

Start with the median for Tulsa, then compare cost of living expenses and average mortgage payments...

[Hometown]

Legal Secretary Tulsa -- $35,000

Legal Secretary Dallas -- $60,000

Legal Secretary San Francisco -- $85,000

I don't feel so rich.

But maybe since Tulsa is emerging as one of the great homosexual centers of the universe I'll hang around.

[cannon_fodder]

Ha!

If you want to make money in the legal field, GET THE HELL OUT OF TULSA!  Attorney's in Tulsa make nothing compared to other markets, I imagine it holds true for support staff.  There are, of course, exceptions to the rule - but on average a starting attorney will make $20,000 more moving to Kansas City or Dallas than in Tulsa.

Painful.  Typing that $20,000 number is really painful.