"When higher-paid workers lose their jobs, it lowers average salaries. When lower-wage workers lose their jobs but people like bankruptcy lawyers and doctors all keep working, it raises average salaries. And the bottom falling out of a city's economy is not a healthy development.
But in some cities, rising wages do indicate relatively healthy economies. Average wages in Tulsa, Okla., rose 2.6% while unemployment registered a fairly benign 6%."
According to a Forbes article this month, Tulsa is rated # 2 where wages are growing the most.
#1 Phoenix, AZ
#2 Tulsa, OK
#3 Baltimore, MD (an area high in health care, government jobs, and technology based careers)
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107267/pay-cut-cities.html?mod=career-salary_negotiation (http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107267/pay-cut-cities.html?mod=career-salary_negotiation)
Quote from: Cherish on July 06, 2009, 03:40:49 PM
"When higher-paid workers lose their jobs, it lowers average salaries. When lower-wage workers lose their jobs but people like bankruptcy lawyers and doctors all keep working, it raises average salaries. And the bottom falling out of a city's economy is not a healthy development.
But in some cities, rising wages do indicate relatively healthy economies. Average wages in Tulsa, Okla., rose 2.6% while unemployment registered a fairly benign 6%."
According to a Forbes article this month, Tulsa is rated # 2 where wages are growing the most.
#1 Phoenix, AZ
#2 Tulsa, OK
#3 Baltimore, MD (an area high in health care, government jobs, and technology based careers)
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107267/pay-cut-cities.html?mod=career-salary_negotiation (http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107267/pay-cut-cities.html?mod=career-salary_negotiation)
Forbes. Please keep in mind the source. Wages are growing because the only jobs being replaced are executive types.
and remember,
Forbes is the source I have no idea what you mean by that.
Quote from: Cherish on July 06, 2009, 04:13:29 PM
Forbes is the source I have no idea what you mean by that.
Have you not figured out yet that making sense is not one of FOTD's priorities?
Quote from: Cherish on July 06, 2009, 04:13:29 PM
Forbes is the source I have no idea what you mean by that.
The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool." They have a tendency to manipulate statistics. Hence, they are a "tool" of the system. It's doubtful they are the source of statistics. Forbes has proven a masterful deceiver over the years twisting government numbers to get a desired result.
lol.
So, FOTD, you are arguing that while comparing wage growth between cities Forbes was lobbied by someone in Tulsa to manipulate our data in an effort to make the metro area more attractive above all others? Just for the record, that's ridiculous. Presumably NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, or other cities just couldn't afford to influence their data, but Tulsa really came through!
In reality: they looked at wage growth and unemployment numbers and made a determination accordingly . . . explain to me why they would alter the Tulsa statistics other than another one of your grand conspiracies.
QuoteWages are growing because the only jobs being replaced are executive types.
This also made no sense. If executives are being replaced it would cause wages to fall as those are generally high paying jobs. The alternative is that additional executives are being hired in Tulsa, which would be a good thing if their salaries are such that it raises the metro average 2.5%. Or are you arguing that some executives are being replaced and the ousted executives continue to draw salaries and live in Tulsa? Frankly, your argument entirely lacks merit.
Sorry FOTD, but it is good news for the Tulsa metro area. It may be relative to the rest of the nation, but good news it is. You'll just have to deal with that.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 06, 2009, 05:08:14 PM
lol.
So, FOTD, you are arguing that while comparing wage growth between cities Forbes was lobbied by someone in Tulsa to manipulate our data in an effort to make the metro area more attractive above all others? Just for the record, that's ridiculous. Presumably NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, or other cities just couldn't afford to influence their data, but Tulsa really came through!
In reality: they looked at wage growth and unemployment numbers and made a determination accordingly . . . explain to me why they would alter the Tulsa statistics other than another one of your grand conspiracies.
This also made no sense. If executives are being replaced it would cause wages to fall as those are generally high paying jobs. The alternative is that additional executives are being hired in Tulsa, which would be a good thing if their salaries are such that it raises the metro average 2.5%. Or are you arguing that some executives are being replaced and the ousted executives continue to draw salaries and live in Tulsa? Frankly, your argument entirely lacks merit.
Sorry FOTD, but it is good news for the Tulsa metro area. It may be relative to the rest of the nation, but good news it is. You'll just have to deal with that.
Agreed, FOTD's grand conspiracy is just silly. But I'm not so sure this rating is necessarily all great news. First, contrary to your statement, to arrive at this #2 rating they looked at wage growth. Unemployment numbers were not part of what brought us to the #2 rating. (They were included elsewhere in the Brooking Study, but that's not relevant here.)
I say it is not necessarily all all great news because a rise in average wages can be caused by any number of things. One that comes to mind is if a whole bunch of relatively low-wage workers are laid off. Shazamm, you'll get a higher average wage the following quarter. Without a whole lot more information and probably a much more in-depth study, we really can't tell, can we? Maybe I'm missing something...
Having said that, the Brookings report also looked at a number of other factors, such as unemployment, gross metropolitan product, housing prices, etc. and in their study of the 100 largest metro areas and, overall, found Tulsa to be one of the top 20 metro areas in the country. (Along with OKC, Wichita, Little Rock, Houston, D-FW, San Antonio, Austin) http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor/overall_performance.aspx (http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor/overall_performance.aspx)
Quote from: FOTD on July 06, 2009, 03:59:23 PM
Forbes. Please keep in mind the source. Wages are growing because the only jobs being replaced are executive types.
and remember,
the only jobs being replaced are executive types.
Quote from: FOTD on July 06, 2009, 08:57:34 PM
the only jobs being replaced are executive types.
...and aren't those the ones we
want in Tulsa, instead of more dead-end call-center jobs????
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2009, 11:53:01 PM
...and aren't those the ones we want in Tulsa, instead of more dead-end call-center jobs????
You and Gweed are soooo callous. You think the working class man is second hand. In another thread,(Unemployment At 26 Year High ) Guido says (.... "I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing") point blank he could care less about those who have lost their jobs. http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13797.msg136910#msg136910
There are so many jobs that have been eliminated. Some of us don't believe everything we read. And we check with the local employment agencies to get the true story....
Oil Capital:
The article itself explains that in Tulsa wage growth is probably a real reflection of wages and not a result of layoffs, given that we have a modest 6% unemployment rate. Your hypothesis of low wage worker layoffs leading to a rise in average wages was specifically covered by the article.
FOTD:
You still haven't explained yourself. I'm not sure you are capable of explaining a thought in a rational way. According to your new theory we are hiring so many executives (while presumably not laying off any executives) that it can influence the average wage by 2+%. At the same time layoffs are low enough that unemployment remains at 6%.
"The only jobs being replaced are executive types."
That statement is ambiguous and meaningless. Is it turnover? Are they new jobs? Why would "replacing" executives have any impact on wages since presumably the new guy would make what the old guy made.
And finally, you spot check agencies to get a picture of the "true story." Meanwhile, governmental agencies and University economics departments contact employers, survey unions and workers, and collect data from unemployment filings to come up with a statistical picture. Want to guess which one is probably less biased and more accurate?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 07, 2009, 08:20:51 AM
Oil Capital:
The article itself explains that in Tulsa wage growth is probably a real reflection of wages and not a result of layoffs, given that we have a modest 6% unemployment rate. Your hypothesis of low wage worker layoffs leading to a rise in average wages was specifically covered by the article.
FOTD:
You still haven't explained yourself. I'm not sure you are capable of explaining a thought in a rational way. According to your new theory we are hiring so many executives (while presumably not laying off any executives) that it can influence the average wage by 2+%. At the same time layoffs are low enough that unemployment remains at 6%.
"The only jobs being replaced are executive types."
That statement is ambiguous and meaningless. Is it turnover? Are they new jobs? Why would "replacing" executives have any impact on wages since presumably the new guy would make what the old guy made.
And finally, you spot check agencies to get a picture of the "true story." Meanwhile, governmental agencies and University economics departments contact employers, survey unions and workers, and collect data from unemployment filings to come up with a statistical picture. Want to guess which one is probably less biased and more accurate?
There is no correlation between the number, which is fiction, and my comment about replacement. It is turnover. Nationwide, unemployment is closer to %20 overall. Hard to imagine. It is lower here, for now. The situation will drag down our economy for years to come and put pressure on our social programs and law enforcement. This is the result of trickle down economics and banksters like Goldman Sachs.
Who paid for those statistics? What picture were they trying to draw?
Again, you still haven't told me what "replacement" means. And if it has nothing to do with either unemployment or wage growth, then what is the relevance of it to this discussion? You are not doing well clarifying things. Please, how does "replacement of executive types" play out?
Additinally, unemployment is defined as a person of working age who is without a job and actively looking for one. If you do not fit that definition, you are not unemployed. The number of people unemployed in the United States is at 9.5%. (http://www.bls.gov/cps/) If you care to look, there is all the information you could want so that you can study their underlying data and methodology.
By defining what the term means it makes it possible to compare figures over time and in different locations. The statistics were paid for by the US Government by-and-large (BLS). Many Universities also compile statistics and the employment agencies you referenced previously also conduct surveys of unemployment. They are peer reviewed statistical studies; you are free to scour it for bias if you wish. But since the same methodology is used in the conduct of each study the results, no matter how skewed by said methodology, should yield data that is useful to compare to other or previous surveys.
But if you think the normal definition and data are skewed, then perhaps you would care to reference one of the 6 alternative statistics for unemployment (utilizing different data and/or definitions). By the broadest definition you can reach 16% unemployment. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm) That includes people who are looking for jobs, who have accepted underemployment (ie. part time not-by choice), and people who express a desire to work by have given up looking.
There level of disclosure seems to indicate that they are trying to draw a picture of employment in the United States.
Quote from: FOTD on July 07, 2009, 12:34:11 AM
You and Gweed are soooo callous. You think the working class man is second hand.
Oh really, how many "working class" people work for you? Do you have to meet a payroll every week like I do? If not, STFUps to you and anyone else who works for those who dared to succeed.
Just the usual crap on good news crowd.
Rising tide lifts all ships FOTARD. The constant whine is that Tulsa doesn't attract enough well-paying jobs. Indicators show income is rising, how is this a bad thing??
Unless you've worked an honest day's hard labor in your life, quit relating anecdotal quips about the poor working class. Your understanding of the working class comes from song lyrics.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2009, 10:35:04 AM
Your understanding of the working class comes from song lyrics.
and bumper stickers, and word of mouth losers.
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2009, 09:57:24 AM
Oh really, how many "working class" people work for you? Do you have to meet a payroll every week like I do? If not, STFUps to you and anyone else who works for those who dared to succeed.
Gwee, you really need to lighten up and to quit taking things personally. You must be assuming these comments are directed at you which they are not.
Sparty, churning=replacement. The job remains the same with head hunters and agencies replacing execs into already existing jobs.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 07, 2009, 08:20:51 AM
Oil Capital:
The article itself explains that in Tulsa wage growth is probably a real reflection of wages and not a result of layoffs, given that we have a modest 6% unemployment rate. Your hypothesis of low wage worker layoffs leading to a rise in average wages was specifically covered by the article.
First, let me emphasize that I am not saying the increased average wage IS a result of layoffs of relatively low-wage workers, only that it as good of an explanation as anything else and that we just do not have enough facts to tell one way or another.
The author of the article has made assumptions that are not warranted by the evidence before him/her. Yes, the relatively benign unemployment rate suggests that it might not be caused by layoffs of relatively low-wage workers, but it is far from conclusive (and of course, the reality is that it is probably a combination of factors).
Quote from: FOTD on July 07, 2009, 11:25:23 AM
Gwee, you really need to lighten up and to quit taking things personally. You must be assuming these comments are directed at you which they are not.
Are you kidding me? You called me out specifically in this very thread.
You and Gweed are soooo callous. You think the working class man is second hand. In another thread,(Unemployment At 26 Year High ) Guido says (.... "I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing") point blank he could care less about those who have lost their jobs.
Do I need to bust out the industrial strength bong pic on you again?
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2009, 11:43:46 AM
Are you kidding me? You called me out specifically in this very thread.
You and Gweed are soooo callous. You think the working class man is second hand. In another thread,(Unemployment At 26 Year High ) Guido says (.... "I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing") point blank he could care less about those who have lost their jobs.
Do I need to bust out the industrial strength bong pic on you again?
Using your own words is not calling you out. Pointing out how insensitive you are is not a personal attack.
Is looking in your mirror a form of self flagellation? The mirror on the wall does not take you personally unless it breaks.
You seem to have been gassed one too many times...that
is a personal attack.
so when Tulsey tops the stack, you guys want to build pyramids to reach the heavens wherein ye may bury your barons and kings? i know there must be a few of you who like the idea of crushing prisoners with labor to build your heights. your wicked fathers expect it from you.......
Quote from: rhymnrzn on July 07, 2009, 12:14:16 PM
so when Tulsey tops the stack, you guys want to build pyramids to reach the heavens wherein ye may bury your barons and kings? i know there must be a few of you who like the idea of crushing prisoners with labor to build your heights. your wicked fathers expect it from you.......
Speaking of self-flagellation....or troofers....or maybe both....
Quote from: Hoss on July 07, 2009, 12:43:22 PM
Speaking of self-flagellation....or troofers....or maybe both....
no, I for one can think of many many things better to do: but ye rich fellas, what else is there left to do? don't you do all these things for yourselves?
Quote from: FOTD on July 07, 2009, 12:05:15 PM
Is looking in your mirror a form of self flagellation? The mirror on the wall does not take you personally unless it breaks.
Must be for you since you hate white people so much.
Quote from: FOTD on July 07, 2009, 11:25:23 AM
Sparty, churning=replacement. The job remains the same with head hunters and agencies replacing execs into already existing jobs.
Then that would have NO EFFECT on wage growth or unemployment. That's what we call turnover. It's pretty standard in any industry.
OILCAPITAL:
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the author made some extrapolations, but it seems to me that he is comparing our data to others. In reference to the other data, where unemployment tops 10%, it would seem unlikely that the loss of low paying jobs would significantly raise wage data.
The big thing that will kill jobs and the economy is Obama's "Cap & Trade" Bill, No business will want to hire, most will want to dump workers. We will lose 2.5 million jobs under cap & trade, and even worse our electric bills will skyrocket and gasoline will be $6.00 a gallon, domestic oil production will fizzle out and we'll be importing almost all of our oil, but with a heavy tariff on it to keep fuel prices high. It's the worst bill congress ever passed in 200 years. It's likely to pass in the Senate this fall. There is a good book about all this "green" stuff it's called "Green Hell".. >:(
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 07, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
The big thing that will kill jobs and the economy is Obama's "Cap & Trade" Bill, No business will want to hire, most will want to dump workers. We will lose 2.5 million jobs under cap & trade, and even worse our electric bills will skyrocket and gasoline will be $6.00 a gallon, domestic oil production will fizzle out and we'll be importing almost all of our oil, but with a heavy tariff on it to keep fuel prices high. It's the worst bill congress ever passed in 200 years. It's likely to pass in the Senate this fall. There is a good book about all this "green" stuff it's called "Green Hell".. >:(
It's all hearsay, Cornhusker. Get outta the library.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 07, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
The big thing that will kill jobs and the economy is Obama's "Cap & Trade" Bill, No business will want to hire, most will want to dump workers. We will lose 2.5 million jobs under cap & trade, and even worse our electric bills will skyrocket and gasoline will be $6.00 a gallon, domestic oil production will fizzle out and we'll be importing almost all of our oil, but with a heavy tariff on it to keep fuel prices high. It's the worst bill congress ever passed in 200 years. It's likely to pass in the Senate this fall. There is a good book about all this "green" stuff it's called "Green Hell".. >:(
We import our oil because the Saudis and others reinvest their profits in our debt, thanks to Henry Kissenger.
Quote from: Hoss on July 07, 2009, 07:22:25 PM
It's all hearsay, Cornhusker. Get outta the library.
It already passed the house it goes to the Senate next month and it seems some form of cap & trade will pass, if not the EPA has the power to do cap & trade. We'll be in a perm. recession heading down toward a 3rd world life style when that passes. The "cap" gets screwed down tighter every year costing American families more and more money each year.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on July 08, 2009, 03:02:33 AM
We import our oil because the Saudis and others reinvest their profits in our debt, thanks to Henry Kissenger.
We import oil because it's cheap and because we can't drill for our own, Domestic oil is off limits. Obama just banned drilling on 360,000 oil rich acres in Utah in his first day in office. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil that we can't drill for. However with cap & trade imported oil may be cheap but the law would require a tariff tax on every barrel of imported oil to keep gasoline prices high to fight global warming (and global warming is not happening anyhow). Gaslone prices will be sky high and never get cheap. That will force people to buy green cars, bike to work or take the bus. Electric bills will double. That's Obama's change.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 08, 2009, 07:22:22 PM
We import oil because it's cheap and because we can't drill for our own, Domestic oil is off limits. Obama just banned drilling on 360,000 oil rich acres in Utah in his first day in office. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil that we can't drill for. However with cap & trade imported oil may be cheap but the law would require a tariff tax on every barrel of imported oil to keep gasoline prices high to fight global warming (and global warming is not happening anyhow). Gaslone prices will be sky high and never get cheap. That will force people to buy green cars, bike to work or take the bus. Electric bills will double. That's Obama's change.
So this Alaska oil...hmm was it not under Alaska when Bush was in office for his 8yrs? Just wondering if the Alaska oil suddenly appeared on Jan 20, 09. I think all the problems everyone is blaming Obama with must have suddenly appeared Jan 20, 09. Since most people assume that. Heck the recession, that happened Jan 20,09. Housing bubble bust, banks, fannie mae, that NEVER happened in 08, oh and Enron, and Lehman Brothers (largest American Bankruptcy)...nope that wasn't under Bush....everything happened Jan 20, 09.
In the voice of Kyle: Those Bastards!!!