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.
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". [;)]
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.
The increase in income only applied to the "ruling oligarchy" or the "midtown elite".
Oklahoma, as a state, is poor. Tulsa, not so much, though there is a fair amount of poverty (see 61st and Peoria thread).
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The increase in income only applied to the "ruling oligarchy" or the "midtown elite".
[}:)]
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
CF Quoted: Tulsa average: $44,321, for 383,000 people. For a total income of about $17,000,000,000.00.
I guess one can come up with any figure they need on this forum.
I have a problem with the 383,321 total jobs which includes workers from surrounding towns and counties and the figure, counting everything except the dogs and cats, is estimated as about the total population of Tulsa. To bring us up to standard why shouldn't we set the minimum wage in Tulsa at $190 per hour?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
CF Quoted: Tulsa average: $44,321, for 383,000 people. For a total income of about $17,000,000,000.00.
I guess one can come up with any figure they need on this forum.
I have a problem with the 383,321 total jobs which includes workers from surrounding towns and counties and the figure, counting everything except the dogs and cats, is estimated as about the total population of Tulsa. To bring us up to standard why shouldn't we set the minimum wage in Tulsa at $190 per hour?
As it is wrote in the goodish books, as it shall be, these of days of yore this epoch it seems the disenfranchised of McDonalds that any learner of yore could string words across a page and call it meaninglessful.
No harmed for verbs et nouns to noth agreement in fight across the yoke of impressments!
Numbers, Fridays at 9 on CBS, of the folk that readeth yon keystroked find muck! Did Solomon weep at may being?
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Chet Cadieux with Quiktrip or Tom Kivisto of Semgroup both come to mind. Both make well over a million dollars a year. Quiktrip has revenues of over 8 billion a year and profits of 90 million if I remember correctly. Also can't leave out the mayor's husband, Bill Lobeck makes over a million a year. I would also probably throw in the Hardesty family as well, between their foundation and the FBO they operate (US Aviation at TIA).
I'd love to know more about that average . . . specifically the high, the low, the mean, and percentage of those above or below. Because I think what's so head-scratchy about Swake's numbers is that Tulsa just doesn't seem like the rich city that the numbers imply. It may be true statistically, but it doesn't particularly feel that way.
Of course, just MHO.
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
So, Joe Kennedy's money had no effect on the current Kennedy family/foundation wealth?
Perhaps George Kaiser's father had nothing to do with his economic posture today either.
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
quote:
How many people in Tulsa EARNED $1,000,000 last year?
I have no idea. I suggested we have a higher per capita ratio of millionaires than most other places. The inuendo being millionaires tend to make more than the average. And, it takes more earners at less than the average to make up that difference. I did see a recent report stating the the 'average' milllionaire in the U.S. makes in the vicinity of $75,000 per year today. And, it takes over 500 'average' earners to make up for one earning $75,000.
Another report stated the U.S. has almost nine million millionaires. (//%22http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/205412/the_united_states_the_land_of_89_million.html?cat=3%22)
I wouldn't be surprised to learn no one in Tulsa 'made' a billion dollars last year, even Kaiser (though, his Net Worth has doubled in the last 4 or 5 years). I'm sure he made millions, though. As did many other Tulsans.
Of course, it takes a LOT of qualifying to define 'millionaire'. It was assuming Net Worth, including primary residence.
quote:
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.
Because using your method, average income is about $85,000.
(That'd be $2,000,000 divided by 22.56 + 1 )
But, you will need to explain your $1million/block theory. For that matter, an 'average' Tulsa block.
quote:
And even if these numbers take into account benefits, it has no effect at all. NONE.
A State of Oklahoma teachers' average pay, we're perpetually told, is about $33,400. How much do you pay for 100% Health Insurance? As a minimum, a single person coverage would run AT LEAST $400/mo, or an additional $4,800/yr, making their income more like $38,200. That's a 14.37% difference. I do wonder if two months' vacation is included as a benefit, however.
How many teachers are there in Tulsa? And, what percentage do they represent of the population?
While those numbers probably aren't enormous, they do affect the average. So, none is not the answer.
As another excercise, we could search the City of Tulsa Payroll listing and see how many of our public servants make in excess of $75,000/year. Several make more than twice that much, including our Public Works Director, Charles Hardt, who makes over $165,000/year.
It takes over 2,500 'average' folks to make up for him alone.
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.
Yes Tulsa is booming. The Sunday Tulsa paper is full of jobs. I guess it's from the booming oil industry. Tulsa is a good place to live. Many Texas cities are also booming like Austin, D/FW and Houston. Jobs a plenty there. What I like about Texas is they have no income tax and they don't tax food plus the climate is nicer and more mild that that of Oklahoma. Dallas has great weather I used to live there.[:)]
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.
Wrinkle, perhaps you ought to use something other than your fingers and LSD to do your math.
Hardt's salary is less than five times the average Tulsan's.
I have no idea where you got your 2,500 figure.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
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.
Wrinkle, perhaps you ought to use something other than your fingers and LSD to do your math.
Hardt's salary is less than five times the average Tulsan's.
I have no idea where you got your 2,500 figure.
Classic, RW. Thanks for the chuckle.
Income comparison is nothing more than pe**s envy anyway. People lie about both.
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?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
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.
Wrinkle, perhaps you ought to use something other than your fingers and LSD to do your math.
Hardt's salary is less than five times the average Tulsan's.
I have no idea where you got your 2,500 figure.
....I believe you.
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?
(http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes10/Mask7.jpg)
Smokin!
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? [:P]
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. [}:)]
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?
quote:
And, it takes over 500 'average' earners to make up for one earning $75,000.
That would be the "average" person making $150 per year.
Let me break the Million in income thing out for you:
Average Income in Tulsa County: $44,321
$1,000,000/$44,321 = 22.56
So, 22.56 people each earning $44,321 make $1,000,000 per year.
Using your math, $165,000/2500 = average wage. The average Tulsan makes $66.00 per year.
EXPLAIN YOUR MATHIf I'm not mistaken, you are trying to argue that it takes XYZ number of AVERAGE people to move the income as much as one rich person can. is that correct?
If so, you are totally ignoring the definition of "average" and doing your best to mock the numbers. Most people really aren't average. Some earn $165, some earn zero. But, on the whole, MOST are near the $44,321 number that is thrown out.
That's what average means. Of course it would take a crap down of "average" people to effect the "average number" because by definition they have a minimal effect on it.
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.
If you have a list of all wager earners by city and what to draw up a statistical comparison on an abnormal curve, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, lets just try to compare our apples to their apples.
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?
(http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes10/Mask7.jpg)
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?
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? [:P]
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.
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.
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.
QuoteOriginally 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?
Quote
Remember, cf, it's your fault and everyone else's fault that the numbers and logic aren't understood. [}:)]
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.
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?
Quote
Remember, cf, it's your fault and everyone else's fault that the numbers and logic aren't understood. [}:)]
Quoteby 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.
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? [:P]
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.
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? [:P]
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.
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.
"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:
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.
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...
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.
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.
I used to be woefully underpaid.
I would give the bus driver my check as exact change.
Your numbers more closely reflect what I had expected to see. But those numbers are also from a low-point in Tulsa and at the end of a great run by Portland. From 2000-2004 Tulsa had a really hard time, from 2004 to now has pretty much been boom times. If the Forbes top income growth stats for recent years are accurate, I'd like to think we have made strides in that regard.
Also interesting to see the family of 4 stats come up different than the standard median (more young professionals in Portland?).
Again, getting the stats gives you some information - trying to interpret them is where the fun is. Thanks for the info.
You really need to lay off the crack dude.
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?
This is an interesting topic and I would like to make a couple of points. Averages don't really tell you much in that they don't say anything about the distribution of income. Averages don't tell how it feels to live in a place.
I have lived in several locations (Tulsa included) and would like to give my observations on Tulsa compared to these other places. These areas are:
Madison / Florham Park / Chatham, NJ
Dallas (Highland Park area)
Los Angeles (Santa Monica / Westwood area)
Houston (Galleria / River Oaks /West U /Memorial area)
I lived in Madison and Houston and had close relatives in Santa Monica and Dallas – been there so often I felt like I could have lived there. In Tulsa I lived in the 2200 block between Woodward Park and Utica Square.
Here is the point.
There are vast stretches of NJ (Newark, Elizabeth Camden etc), Houston (East, near South and near North), Dallas (South) and LA that are wasteland with crime, dumpy houses and the like.
Yet the the specific areas I mentioned above are so large, they are mostly self contained and have everything one needs. One can live their whole life there and see only upscale digs, great eating places, nice cars and the like. After a while, one gets the impression that the whole world is like that. Of course we know it isn't but perception is everything.
The problem with Tulsa that even in a nice area one cannot do much if anything without confronting poverty up close and personal. Where I used to live, if you went east and got much past Harvard it went downhill quick. North, once you hit 11th it was all over. If you went South, past 36th you hit the dumpy crackerboxes in Brookside. West was OK until you crossed the river and it was all over.
Averages do not tell everything.
Geesus man, the last time I checked those 'dumpy crackerboxes' in Brookside they were bringing six figures, average of course.
quote:
The problem with Tulsa that even in a nice area one cannot do much if anything without confronting poverty up close and personal. Where I used to live, if you went east and got much past Harvard it went downhill quick. North, once you hit 11th it was all over. If you went South, past 36th you hit the dumpy crackerboxes in Brookside. West was OK until you crossed the river and it was all over.
Ouch.
I live in on of the "downhill" area's just East of Harvard. I can walk in less than 10 blocks to a dozen restaurants, 3 places to get grocery items, a couple bars, my dentist, a book store, an office supply store, an electronics store, several places to fix my car, a strip club, my eye doctor, a candy store, my son's Tae Kwon Do lessons, a movie rental place, a couple pharmacies... ton's of places from my little slice of crap.
I'd like to think from Sheraton to the River and from 11th to Jenks is all pretty good territory to live in. Unless anything under 10,000 Sq. Ft. is a cracker box or Ranch Acres is "going downhill." Certainly we don't have the swaths of rich sub divisions like Dallas, but we also don't have entire suburbs that are crap. Tulsa has many nice areas to build on and I hope they keep growing and getting better.
/not cheer leading, just don't think my neighborhood is "downhill." Where you "used to live" is the center or property values in Tulsa so perhaps your level of acceptance is a little different than mine.
quote:
Originally posted by pundit
This is an interesting topic and I would like to make a couple of points. Averages don't really tell you much in that they don't say anything about the distribution of income. Averages don't tell how it feels to live in a place.
I have lived in several locations (Tulsa included) and would like to give my observations on Tulsa compared to these other places. These areas are:
Madison / Florham Park / Chatham, NJ
Dallas (Highland Park area)
Los Angeles (Santa Monica / Westwood area)
Houston (Galleria / River Oaks /West U /Memorial area)
I lived in Madison and Houston and had close relatives in Santa Monica and Dallas – been there so often I felt like I could have lived there. In Tulsa I lived in the 2200 block between Woodward Park and Utica Square.
Here is the point.
There are vast stretches of NJ (Newark, Elizabeth Camden etc), Houston (East, near South and near North), Dallas (South) and LA that are wasteland with crime, dumpy houses and the like.
Yet the the specific areas I mentioned above are so large, they are mostly self contained and have everything one needs. One can live their whole life there and see only upscale digs, great eating places, nice cars and the like. After a while, one gets the impression that the whole world is like that. Of course we know it isn't but perception is everything.
The problem with Tulsa that even in a nice area one cannot do much if anything without confronting poverty up close and personal. Where I used to live, if you went east and got much past Harvard it went downhill quick. North, once you hit 11th it was all over. If you went South, past 36th you hit the dumpy crackerboxes in Brookside. West was OK until you crossed the river and it was all over.
Averages do not tell everything.
Davaaz, is that you?
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
If typing $20,000 is painful, consider the fact that you are actually lowballing the difference between the markets. A first year associate at a large Tulsa firm makes $95,000. A first year associate at a large Dallas or Houston firm makes
$160,000.
I can count the number of new graduates that start in Tulsa at around $100K annually on my fingers.
I don't want to talk about this. [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I can count the number of new graduates that start in Tulsa at around $100K annually on my fingers.
I don't want to talk about this. [xx(]
I don't mean to ignore your plea to not talk about this but you sparked my interest.
How many new graduates land $100K/year jobs in Tulsa every year?
I would say there are ten to fifteen such jobs every year for law school graduates.
I would assume some doctors starting right out of medical school make at least that much but I really don't know. How many medical posisions for medical school graduates paying that much are filled every year in Tulsa?
Do investment bankers at BOK make 100K right out of MBA School? How many of those types are hired every year?
What major categories need to be included in this discussion? Dentists? Engineers? Accountants (I don't think they make 100K/year right away even at the big accounting firms)? Who else?
Wasnt it a Tulsa lawyer who just gave 15 mill to some easter college? Again, this 1 guy alone can probably "up average" a lot of lesser paid lawyers.
As for the perceptions thing. I agree that we do have some very poor areas right next to some wealthy areas. Those dumps on Brookside, while we know they cost a decent penny anymore, still for the most part look like dumps lol. Plus even here think of where the Bomasada development is going in. Currently very low income and trashy, will be more upscale. Its still an extremely mixed bag even in that area.
When I gave a friend of mine from Tucson the tour around town, I remember him commenting how he had never seen such a disparity in wealth before. Heck take Peoria for instance. Wander around Philbrook and that area, then go just 2 miles north and see people living in poverty and run down shacks.
Then beyond that there are the people we see every day. In many cities you can go to areas and see people who look well dressed and nice everywhere. Here, even in the "poshest" areas you run into quite ragged looking folk. Let alone the kind of people you see in the "average" areas. Its like the city is swarming with backwoods inbreeds that just staggered out of the hills of Arkansas or something. The sad thing is, my mom, who lives in NW Arkansas which has been a very fast growing area, doesnt like coming to Tulsa because of how poor it is. (they have a wholesale business and she says people here just dont buy like they do in other places). She wont even go to a Wal-Mart here because she hates how trashy they are here and how trashy looking the people are. Now thats sad when people from Arkansas think we are poor and trashy lol.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Wasnt it a Tulsa lawyer who just gave 15 mill to some easter college? Again, this 1 guy alone can probably "up average" a lot of lesser paid lawyers.
That lawyer did not make that $15 million from lawyerin'.
Cost of living comparison (//%22http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp?a=0&d1=50000&d2=100.355437475154&d3=90.1190707119429%22) between Tulsa and other cities.
Per capita personal income (//%22http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3§ion=2%22) stats for US MSAs.
Tulsa is not poor.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Wasnt it a Tulsa lawyer who just gave 15 mill to some easter college? Again, this 1 guy alone can probably "up average" a lot of lesser paid lawyers.
As for the perceptions thing. I agree that we do have some very poor areas right next to some wealthy areas. Those dumps on Brookside, while we know they cost a decent penny anymore, still for the most part look like dumps lol. Plus even here think of where the Bomasada development is going in. Currently very low income and trashy, will be more upscale. Its still an extremely mixed bag even in that area.
When I gave a friend of mine from Tucson the tour around town, I remember him commenting how he had never seen such a disparity in wealth before. Heck take Peoria for instance. Wander around Philbrook and that area, then go just 2 miles north and see people living in poverty and run down shacks.
Then beyond that there are the people we see every day. In many cities you can go to areas and see people who look well dressed and nice everywhere. Here, even in the "poshest" areas you run into quite ragged looking folk. Let alone the kind of people you see in the "average" areas. Its like the city is swarming with backwoods inbreeds that just staggered out of the hills of Arkansas or something. The sad thing is, my mom, who lives in NW Arkansas which has been a very fast growing area, doesnt like coming to Tulsa because of how poor it is. (they have a wholesale business and she says people here just dont buy like they do in other places). She wont even go to a Wal-Mart here because she hates how trashy they are here and how trashy looking the people are. Now thats sad when people from Arkansas think we are poor and trashy lol.
Thank you, the point is well-made.
It's weird how people can have such different perspectives.
Tulsa is, from any rational, objective standpoint, not a poor city. And yet, some folks for whatever reason--dissatisfaction, ignorance, avoidance of cognitive dissonance--want to insist that it is, and the numbers are false or misleading or whatever.
But, the fact remains, Tulsa is not a poor city. There are poor people in Tulsa, but Tulsa is not a poverty-stricken community.
And as for disparity of wealth--try going from Beverly Hills to Compton in LA, or Kenwood to Woodlawn in Chicago, or just drive through Memphis or New Orleans. Anyone who has never seen a disparity of wealth worse than Tulsa's has not traveled much at all.
CF: Seem if I recall correct there was a coal strip pit in that area. Hanna lumber bought rough timber and set up a saw mill and hauled the saw waste to fill the pit. Then they covered it with dirt and built houses on the land. I seem to recall that Ms Hall also built houses in the area in the $14 to $17 thousand range. If Hanna is listed in your abstract don't be surprised if a tree starts growing up through your living room floor.
My house as constructed in late 1980's/early 1990's and sold initially in the high $70's if I remember correctly. I could be more specific, but I like to deter stalkers. [:P]
Also, there is a distinct lack of houses with tree-through-floor-problems in my neighborhood that I am aware of. The house next to me sold for well over the median price in Tulsa, so I'll stand by my assessment of neighborhood != junk.
Ask Michael, he was by that way recently. It's no mansion filled blvd, but it's a nice neighborhood.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Ask Michael, he was by that way recently. It's no mansion filled blvd, but it's a nice neighborhood.
Your house is very nice, but I thought the "his and her" champagne fountains in the front yard was a little much.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It's weird how people can have such different perspectives.
Tulsa is, from any rational, objective standpoint, not a poor city. And yet, some folks for whatever reason--dissatisfaction, ignorance, avoidance of cognitive dissonance--want to insist that it is, and the numbers are false or misleading or whatever.
But, the fact remains, Tulsa is not a poor city. There are poor people in Tulsa, but Tulsa is not a poverty-stricken community.
And as for disparity of wealth--try going from Beverly Hills to Compton in LA, or Kenwood to Woodlawn in Chicago, or just drive through Memphis or New Orleans. Anyone who has never seen a disparity of wealth worse than Tulsa's has not traveled much at all.
1 in 4 children are at or below the poverty line in Tulsa. Thank goodness for TCCs new free tuition program, its one way we can help break the poverty cycle. 1 in 6 adults are at or below the poverty line in Tulsa. Sure there are places that are worse, but we arent exactly doing all that great. There are some neighborhoods in Tulsa, especially north Tulsa that have houses that barely have wooden floors and look to only have 1 or 2 rooms, 3 if you count the bathroom. I ran across an area a year ago that looked like something right out of the past. Little kids walking around with no shoes, dirty faces, rags for clothes, dirt yards and gravel roads. Makes me tear up and my stomach ache just remembering it. Just terrible poverty. My sisters husband grew up in that area and lived that way. He admits they were very very poor. My dad grew up in Turley just north of Tulsa. I remember my grandmothers house. At one time it was 1 room and an outhouse. Built by my grandfather. I remember the outhouse. They added on to the house over the years. My dad tells about how one day he came home from school and told mom that they were supposed to bring canned food to school for the poor people... thats when he first discovered they were the poor people lol.
I dont want to say that Tulsa is a poor city. I know there is a lot of money here. But there also seems to be a lot of very poor people. I was very harsh in my previous post. It gets aggrivating when you see adults that dont appear to care to make something more of themslelves. But it is wrong to judge them. Plus I have to remind myself where I and my family came from. "Yea part of moms family were socs, but dad was a greaser lol". I had both worlds growing up and yea get smacked down to earth when I get too snotty. Sometimes ya just get lost in a very different world and forget. My "poorer" side of the family are good, people who worked hard, gave their kids good values and pushed them, even gave them a good beating on occasion lol, to do well in school, do the right thing and make something of themselves.
I suppose those kinds of poor places do exist in areas like Austin and Dallas, but we just dont see them or know where they are at. We just see the very nicest areas. Those areas we visit. But we also dont have new areas comparable to the nice new areas in those cities. I think that is where we complain that we dont have the wealth. Its the new wealth of a particular type. New urban wealth, new urban areas with shiny new condo and apartment blocks etc, shops, art galleries, restaurants etc. We have plenty of new suburban type mc mansion neighborhoods. But no wealthy, young urban areas. Those are the types of areas I go to when I go to those other cities. Then when I come here... zilch. And Brookside and Cherry Street do not even come close.
Welcome to America.
The issues you raise are valid social criticisms. There is a growing income gap in this country. There have always been poor people in the world. I can't argue on that point.
But don't make these complaints Tulsa-centric. It's not fair to our city.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Cost of living comparison (//%22http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp?a=0&d1=50000&d2=100.355437475154&d3=90.1190707119429%22) between Tulsa and other cities.
Per capita personal income (//%22http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3§ion=2%22) stats for US MSAs.
Tulsa is not poor.
Everyone's opinions are truly earth-shattering, but the facts continue to tell the story.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Cost of living comparison (//%22http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp?a=0&d1=50000&d2=100.355437475154&d3=90.1190707119429%22) between Tulsa and other cities.
Per capita personal income (//%22http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3%C2%A7ion=2%22) stats for US MSAs.
Tulsa is not poor.
Everyone's opinions are truly earth-shattering, but the facts continue to tell the story.
Just trying to find out the facts here. Different facts or statistics can suggest quite different stories.
Showing that Tulsa has a lower than average cost of living doesnt tell you much. If you can afford health insurance, food, housing... Tulsa is great. It does have a low cost of living. But the number of people who can afford those things here is still lower than the national average.
Per capita income is indeed increasing, and above the national average, but the number of people living in poverty is also increasing and above the national average at the same time.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663
2005 national poverty rate 13.3%
2005 Tulsa poverty rate 17.6%
2005 children under 5 in poverty US 21.25%
2005 children under 5 in poverty Tulsa 31.60%
It still appears to me that yes we have a lot of well off, but we also have a lot of people not doing so well. The disparity is growing here and more so than in other places.
Here is an article that was posted in the UK that specifically talks about Tulsa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris
On the one hand I keep hearing how well we are doing, then the next day you hear how bad we are doing. How does this square up. If incomes are up and the number of people falling into poverty are also up...
Housing is more affordable than in most places, yet we have higher numbers of homeless.
Insurance and medical costs are lower, but we rank as having some of the highest rates of uninsured and people in poor health, obesity, etc.
The housing market is good, incomes are increasing, relative affordability is great, and we have very low unemployment...yet we always rank as having some of the worst statistics in poverty, hunger, homelessness, child neglect, high numbers of uninsured, poor health, etc.
Sure there are disparities in other cities and places, but the disparities according to the numbers I have seen are actually larger here than in other places and appear to be incresing. Thats what "better than average incomes and increasing" plus " some of the highest rates of poverty and hunger, and increasing" seems to tell me.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Cost of living comparison (//%22http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp?a=0&d1=50000&d2=100.355437475154&d3=90.1190707119429%22) between Tulsa and other cities.
Per capita personal income (//%22http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA1-3%C2%A7ion=2%22) stats for US MSAs.
Tulsa is not poor.
Everyone's opinions are truly earth-shattering, but the facts continue to tell the story.
Just trying to find out the facts here. Different facts or statistics can suggest quite different stories.
Showing that Tulsa has a lower than average cost of living doesnt tell you much. If you can afford health insurance, food, housing... Tulsa is great. It does have a low cost of living. But the number of people who can afford those things here is still lower than the national average.
Per capita income is indeed increasing, and above the national average, but the number of people living in poverty is also increasing and above the national average at the same time.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663
2005 national poverty rate 13.3%
2005 Tulsa poverty rate 17.6%
2005 children under 5 in poverty US 21.25%
2005 children under 5 in poverty Tulsa 31.60%
It still appears to me that yes we have a lot of well off, but we also have a lot of people not doing so well. The disparity is growing here and more so than in other places.
Here is an article that was posted in the UK that specifically talks about Tulsa.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris
On the one hand I keep hearing how well we are doing, then the next day you hear how bad we are doing. How does this square up. If incomes are up and the number of people falling into poverty are also up...
Housing is more affordable than in most places, yet we have higher numbers of homeless.
Insurance and medical costs are lower, but we rank as having some of the highest rates of uninsured and people in poor health, obesity, etc.
The housing market is good, incomes are increasing, relative affordability is great, and we have very low unemployment...yet we always rank as having some of the worst statistics in poverty, hunger, homelessness, child neglect, high numbers of uninsured, poor health, etc.
Sure there are disparities in other cities and places, but the disparities according to the numbers I have seen are actually larger here than in other places and appear to be incresing. Thats what "better than average incomes and increasing" plus " some of the highest rates of poverty and hunger, and increasing" seems to tell me.
The poverty stats are alarming. However, I do want to point out that Tulsa has made some great strides in the past two years or so. Per capita personal income has increased at a faster pace than most cities, as shown here. (//%22http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/drill.cfm%22). Tulsa finally gained back the 24,000 jobs lost in the post-2001 aftermath.
I think our stats shed light upon the diametrical nature of Tulsa's economy. Compared to the region, Tulsa has a strong upper-middle class and wealthy population. However, there is a less-visible poor population, living in very economically segregated parts of the city.
I am hopeful that Tulsa's poverty will decrease with continued investment in higher education, sustainable urban development, and health care. Free TCC tuition is a step in the right direction, as is the installation of Langston-Tulsa, and continued investment in the Tulsa Technology Center. The Morton Health Center, and the state's Quality Jobs Incentive program aim to stimulated health care expansion.
Poor Tulsa? ya'all got to be kidding... "T" Towne rockz. Tulsa has reocrd low unemployment rates. The anti-immigration bill #1804 helped boost Tulsa's economy by getting rid of illegals. Tulsa has a strong economic base.
quote:
Originally posted by pundit
This is an interesting topic and I would like to make a couple of points. Averages don't really tell you much in that they don't say anything about the distribution of income. Averages don't tell how it feels to live in a place.
I have lived in several locations (Tulsa included) and would like to give my observations on Tulsa compared to these other places. These areas are:
Madison / Florham Park / Chatham, NJ
Dallas (Highland Park area)
Los Angeles (Santa Monica / Westwood area)
Houston (Galleria / River Oaks /West U /Memorial area)
I lived in Madison and Houston and had close relatives in Santa Monica and Dallas – been there so often I felt like I could have lived there. In Tulsa I lived in the 2200 block between Woodward Park and Utica Square.
Here is the point.
There are vast stretches of NJ (Newark, Elizabeth Camden etc), Houston (East, near South and near North), Dallas (South) and LA that are wasteland with crime, dumpy houses and the like.
Yet the the specific areas I mentioned above are so large, they are mostly self contained and have everything one needs. One can live their whole life there and see only upscale digs, great eating places, nice cars and the like. After a while, one gets the impression that the whole world is like that. Of course we know it isn't but perception is everything.
The problem with Tulsa that even in a nice area one cannot do much if anything without confronting poverty up close and personal. Where I used to live, if you went east and got much past Harvard it went downhill quick. North, once you hit 11th it was all over. If you went South, past 36th you hit the dumpy crackerboxes in Brookside. West was OK until you crossed the river and it was all over.
Averages do not tell everything.
So what is your point? Basically anywhere you go you can drive a couple of miles and see poor people. Duh. Your 'reasoning' is silly, and here's why:
Just taking for example the places you mention- like Highland Park, Tx. It is only 2.2 miles square. Total. The 74114 area alone is over twice that size with twice the number of people. River Oaks in Houston? About a thousand acres total. Tiny. Funny that both of those locales you mentioned have some of the wealthiest residents in Texas, yet go a couple of miles out from either and you can drive through a number of poor neigborhoods, much worse than 'cracker box' Brookside.
Drive just south and east of Santa Monica and you are in a pretty dumpy part of Los Angeles (venice) that at one time had horrible crime and lots of gang violence. Its gotten better lately.
The Chatham area of New Jersey is one of the wealthiest area of the state, over 95% white, and very suburban. Not a very good comparison. However, drive just about 6 miles south and east and you are in some pretty slummy areas of NJ (Plainfield, etc.)
Tulsa is no different than any other city as far as distribution of wealth goes. In fact, I have always thought Tulsa appeared very prosperous- more so than it actually is, given the oil dynasty, arts endowments, etc. It's a very attractive city, with some very wealthy areas, and of course not so wealthy areas. Given the economic adversity that Tulsa has had to endure in the last 25 years, its pretty amazing that it is doing as well as it is. IMO it's a testament to the people that live there.
So, all you are really pointing out is if you live in a wealthy, segregated zip code and never leave it you will never have to see any diversity. That sounds like a fun life. Welcome to Stepford.
For the record, I grew up and lived in Tulsa over 14 years, and really never had to confront poverty, "up close and personal" as you describe. I also lived in one of your 'ivory tower' hoods, so it is possible to do that in Tulsa too, but why would you want to? I had no choice- it was my family home. Don't get me wrong- it was a really nice place to grow up, but I wouldn't live there now. I like seeing mixtures of people.
Your post smacks of Davaz-esque rhetoric. If you aren't him you sure sound like him.
Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.
1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.
2. I have seen lots of nicer areas that just seem to go on forever, that make even the nicest places in Tulsa look drab and poor.
For instance I had seriously thought of moving to Dallas a few years back and spent some time looking at apartments in the area. They had huge complexes that blew anything we have here away. http://www.move.com/apartments/listing/C425838?source=a15860 The average complex there or in Austin would rank as the best here. The best they have in those places, we dont even have anything to compare. So when people move here and look for a nice apartment... They are kind of shocked at how "poor" the choices are.
http://www.intowndallas.com/apartments.htm
http://www.intowndallas.com/highrises.htm
http://www.5fiftyfive.com/gallery.asp
http://www.intownaustin.com/austinapartments.htm
They say the average income is about the same or better in Tulsa as compared to Austin... but if you were to look at the best of what Austin and Tulsa has to offer apartment or condo wise, shopping/dining/entertainment wise, there is aaabsolutely no comparison. Same with Denver. You can go to areas that have highrise after highrise for block upon block of apartments and condos that put anything we have here to shame. When I visit my friends who live in those places then come here, you cant help but think, My god its like povertyville, we look very poor in comparison. If we have so many people that are doing so well here.... where are they living? Those soccer mom suburbs out south, every place has those as well. Every place has Brookside type areas too, but larger and nicer.
Now I am not saying that the "facts" arent correct. Just saying that perspective wise, it can sure not look like it. If your the type of person who lives in suburban neighborhoods and such, well then Tulsa can look just as good if not better than those other places. So what imo. But, if your an urban, apartment/condo dweller. The pickins are pretty shabby here. When you or a visitor want to go to areas that you would consider nice... they barely exist. Downtown is dead. Brookside and Cherry street can not compare.
To end on a positive note lol. We are starting to see signs of Downtown and mid-town revitalizing. Its exciting to watch as each small new development occurs. Still got a long ways to go though, and hopefully things will continue to get better.
Check out South Dallas some time. Oak Cliff and the Bishop Arts district. Greenvile Avenue for that matter, and the Vickery Park area. They're exactly like Tulsa.
What you are describing as so "nice" in Dallas is actually the suburbs (Addison, Plano) and it's pure white flight--much worse than in Tulsa. North Dallas makes it possible to wrap yourself in rich suburban whiteness and never get a peek of the real world.
Don't want to say you're wrong, but I think your travels give you a too-rosy picture of the rest of the world.
The National Troll Service has issued a Severe Davaz Watch until 12:00 midnight tonight in TulsaNow County. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.
1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.
2. I have seen lots of nicer areas that just seem to go on forever, that make even the nicest places in Tulsa look drab and poor.
For instance I had seriously thought of moving to Dallas a few years back and spent some time looking at apartments in the area. They had huge complexes that blew anything we have here away. http://www.move.com/apartments/listing/C425838?source=a15860 The average complex there or in Austin would rank as the best here. The best they have in those places, we dont even have anything to compare. So when people move here and look for a nice apartment... They are kind of shocked at how "poor" the choices are.
http://www.intowndallas.com/apartments.htm
http://www.intowndallas.com/highrises.htm
http://www.5fiftyfive.com/gallery.asp
http://www.intownaustin.com/austinapartments.htm
They say the average income is about the same or better in Tulsa as compared to Austin... but if you were to look at the best of what Austin and Tulsa has to offer apartment or condo wise, shopping/dining/entertainment wise, there is aaabsolutely no comparison. Same with Denver. You can go to areas that have highrise after highrise for block upon block of apartments and condos that put anything we have here to shame. When I visit my friends who live in those places then come here, you cant help but think, My god its like povertyville, we look very poor in comparison. If we have so many people that are doing so well here.... where are they living? Those soccer mom suburbs out south, every place has those as well. Every place has Brookside type areas too, but larger and nicer.
Now I am not saying that the "facts" arent correct. Just saying that perspective wise, it can sure not look like it. If your the type of person who lives in suburban neighborhoods and such, well then Tulsa can look just as good if not better than those other places. So what imo. But, if your an urban, apartment/condo dweller. The pickins are pretty shabby here. When you or a visitor want to go to areas that you would consider nice... they barely exist. Downtown is dead. Brookside and Cherry street can not compare.
To end on a positive note lol. We are starting to see signs of Downtown and mid-town revitalizing. Its exciting to watch as each small new development occurs. Still got a long ways to go though, and hopefully things will continue to get better.
Wow, we must be visiting two different cities, because when I go to Dallas I see quite a bit of poverty looking ghetto areas, and then miles and miles of flat, generic carbon copied suburbia, of which I find neither appealing nor attractive. Kind of looks like NW Oklahoma City.
Sure Dallas has its nice neighborhoods, but no more proportionately than Tulsa has. Dallas has something like 6 million people in its metro, so of course there will be more neighborhoods/apartments/living choices.
Dallas also has horrendous traffic and attitude for days (why?). Tulsa is not Dallas, thank god.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.
1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.
...
I'm not sure what that means. What's average-looking? Maple Ridge? Red Fork? What? I'm suspicious that your "average" look has a far different take than mine.
And apparently you've never been to St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Peoria, Memphis, San Bernardino, Flint, New Orleans ... I could go on. All of those cities have pockets of far-worse-looking "average" areas than any of Tulsa's.
And I've never seen a worse-looking place than several in the metro-east area of St. Louis -- East St. Louis, Venice, Brooklyn, Alorton, Fairmont City, Washington Park, Centreville and probably a few others that I'm forgetting.
We're talking about a deadly stew of drugs, gangs, crumbling infrastructure, chronic crime, corrupt local officials, a collapsing tax base, horrific unemployment, schools that make TPS look like a garden district, and toxic waste leftover from the long-abandoned factories.
I knew a woman from Brooklyn, N.Y., who thought she was tough and thought she saw blight until she saw East St. Louis and was positively terrified. There are more than 1,000 abandoned houses in East St. Louis alone. These are areas in which "normal" is an aberration.
I'm not trying to top anyone here. But to say that Tulsa's "normal" areas are worse-looking than anyone's is simply wrong. And it signifies to me that you need to get out more and stop whining.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.
1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.
...
I'm not sure what that means. What's average-looking? Maple Ridge? Red Fork? What? I'm suspicious that your "average" look has a far different take than mine.
And apparently you've never been to St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Peoria, Memphis, San Bernardino, Flint, New Orleans ... I could go on. All of those cities have pockets of far-worse-looking "average" areas than any of Tulsa's.
And I've never seen a worse-looking place than several in the metro-east area of St. Louis -- East St. Louis, Venice, Brooklyn, Alorton, Fairmont City, Washington Park, Centreville and probably a few others that I'm forgetting.
We're talking about a deadly stew of drugs, gangs, crumbling infrastructure, chronic crime, corrupt local officials, a collapsing tax base, horrific unemployment, schools that make TPS look like a garden district, and toxic waste leftover from the long-abandoned factories.
I knew a woman from Brooklyn, N.Y., who thought she was tough and thought she saw blight until she saw East St. Louis and was positively terrified. There are more than 1,000 abandoned houses in East St. Louis alone. These are areas in which "normal" is an aberration.
I'm not trying to top anyone here. But to say that Tulsa's "normal" areas are worse-looking than anyone's is simply wrong. And it signifies to me that you need to get out more and stop whining.
Cheers.
All good points. I am pretty well convinced. The combo of those other cities having larger populations of "urban dweller" types probably spurs the construction of those shiny apartment and condo buildings, and also the "trendy" areas are larger too because of the larger number of young urban dwellers in the city. My perspective on "average" must also be skewed in that I likely dont go to all areas of those cities, but yet do know all the areas in Tulsa. So even if I go to an area thats say, larger than most of Tulsa in and around Dallas, I should still remember its not ALL of Dallas.
I have seen photos of other cities online, especially some back east, that show huuuge swaths of depressed areas. Often with abandoned buldings that we would treasure here... well should, theoretically, treasure. When I have seen those pics, there is so much blight that it seems insurmountable to even consider imagining redevelopment and infill like we do here.
Wow, did you have a bad day Artist? I appreciate your opinion, but disagree strongly with much of your sentiment.
Poverty is decided on a national scale. A thresh hold is set for a family of a certain size and that number placed over a map. A family making $20,000 a year in Tulsa is directly compared to a family making $20,000 a year in San Francisco, as if everything was equal. So most Midwestern cities, where wages and property values are lower, have a high poverty thresh hold. Still not a good thing, just sayin' those numbers are skewed towards costlier coastal cities.
On a side note, the "poverty" guidelines do not take any assistance into account. $20,000 a year is a lot of money if you don't pay for food, housing, transportation, student loans, daycare, taxes, or health care. Not rich by any means, but in "poverty" making $20K a year in the US is still better off than 85% of the world.
BUT, while we are on the subject and if Poverty levels are your measure of success - in Dallas about 14.9% of families (4 points higher than Tulsa) and 17.8% of the population (3.7% higher) were below the poverty line, including 25.1% of those under age 18 (4.6% higher) and 13.1% of those aged 65 (4.2% higher) or over. So there is significantly more poverty by percentage & actual numbers in Dallas than in Tulsa. More for average families, more for the elderly, and more for children.
So you want to talk about disparity? Apparently the "average" areas you see in Dallas are being offset by much larger, and much poorer areas of the metroplex that you failed to visit. Or, perhaps, they aren't average. Which makes sense, if there are more and a higher percentage of poor people in Dallas...
For shear wealth Dallas/Tulsa:
Per Capita - 22,000/21,500
Median Family - 41,000/44,500
So averaging out the wealth, Tulsa is on par per capita but ahead by family unit. Take what you want from "average" numbers, but it doesn't indicate that Dallas is a far wealthier city. In fact, taken with the poverty figures it would seem to indicate there is much more income disparity in Dallas than in Tulsa.
The grass is always greener...
[edit]
In my opinion, many cities have vast areas of prosperity and equally large areas of poverty. Tulsa hides some poverty on the North Side, but much of the "working class" (how does that mean poor?) is mixed in between the richer areas. So you can't visit and/or live your life in a bubble of prosperity in Tulsa - there are no illusions that everyone lives as well as you do. Just my guess on why this notion persists.
[/edit]
Yay Dallas!
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080509_jh_disdcollege.e5ca60c9.html
75% of kids graduating from Dallas Independent School District this week can not read "proficiently at an 8th grade level." Their math skills are no better. Of the kids graduating from DISD who take advantage of community college programs, 80% have to take remedial course before being allowed to take college courses.
Lets make DAMN sure TCC's programs don't get put in a place where they are having to educate people UP TO the high school level as their mainstay. That's just a sad state of affairs.
/sorry for the tangent, I didn't want to start a thread just for this
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Check out South Dallas some time. Oak Cliff and the Bishop Arts district. Greenvile Avenue for that matter, and the Vickery Park area. They're exactly like Tulsa.
What you are describing as so "nice" in Dallas is actually the suburbs (Addison, Plano) and it's pure white flight--much worse than in Tulsa. North Dallas makes it possible to wrap yourself in rich suburban whiteness and never get a peek of the real world.
Don't want to say you're wrong, but I think your travels give you a too-rosy picture of the rest of the world.
That's correct, There are alot of bad areas in the D/FW area I use to live there, I dunno what it's like now but when I lived there in the 1980's I seen alot of bad areas. There are also alot of dangerous high crime areas.
quote:
Oklahoma as a state is poor
I disagree. In 2007, Oklahoma ranked 33rd in the nation in per capita personal income. I would say Oklahoma as a state is average.
You have to look at components of a state - rural vs. metro - to find that in every state, rural counties are poorer than metro counties.