Some jobs data, per the World, Tulsa has added 11,000 jobs in the last year. So, from the bottom of the recession in 2003, when the number of people employed in Tulsa metro was 381,500 we have now added 49,200 jobs in less than four years
Jobs have grown by nearly 13% or about 3% a year since 2003. The metro area is now back to full employment and these jobs numbers should now be translating into strong population growth. If population growth is moving at a similar rate to job the Tulsa CSA could pass 1 million people as soon as next year.
I think this data along with our improved per capita income and comparatively solid real estate market just might also explain some of the good news downtown and some of the really massive new proposed projects on the river.
Queue Aox, Bear and others for the doom and gloom (yes it's backwards of purpose) version of 50,000 new jobs in four years.
I missed that story in the Whirled. Is there still a good link you could provide?
Current data is in this article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070818_5_E2_spanc37332
The historical data from '03 was from one of the OSU reports on economic activity.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Current data is in this article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070818_5_E2_spanc37332
The historical data from '03 was from one of the OSU reports on economic activity.
So you're comparing numbers from two different sources?
The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (the source of the Whirled's numbers) gives a 2003 employment trough of 391,800 (in July 2003). That gives us employment growth of 38,900 in exactly 4 years. 9.9% growth in 4 years. Not too shabby...
What is the average wage, though? A lot of the job losses were high-paying Williams and aerospace jobs? I am glad to see the growth but it is difficult to stomach the types of losses we experienced.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Current data is in this article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070818_5_E2_spanc37332
The historical data from '03 was from one of the OSU reports on economic activity.
So you're comparing numbers from two different sources?
The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (the source of the Whirled's numbers) gives a 2003 employment trough of 391,800 (in July 2003). That gives us employment growth of 38,900 in exactly 4 years. 9.9% growth in 4 years. Not too shabby... but a little less than 2.4% per year, not 3% per year.
these new jobs != to the ones we lost. This is the same "good news" that Bushanomics preaches. The jobs are jobs mantra is BS. Trading out the 1000s of lost telecom and energy sector jobs with call center jobs is not what I call growth....it is barely even catch up.
This Swake character really has it out for me. Seems like the only people that get bashed by this moniker are those that question the Tulsa Whirled of information or disinformation. I'm wondering if there is a connection between him and the newspaper.
TH and Inteller make the obvious and correct conclusion to this "set up" of a thread. What will the 1084 results do? 20,000 currently have left. Were they in these numbers? How many more to follow? Or will there be a mass movement here to fill those low paying jobs? And will wages be forced up making the cost of living escalate?
I am all for increasing our economic base. Bush has done wonders for the economies dependent on energy and the military. Someday, America, like Tulsa, will change priorities and the military industries will take a back seat to rebuilding our neglected infrastructure. Fortunately for Tulsa, Bush has left the military so spent that there will remain lots of military disbursements for many years to come. I'm not feeling good about the cost nationally to benefit us locally.
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.
I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.
Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.
I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.
Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.
My response will be to quote you on one of your most insightful recent quotes:
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Pigeon poop....
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.
I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.
Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.
My response will be to quote you on one of your most insightful recent quotes:
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Pigeon poop....
A perfect example of taking information out of the original context and then manipulating it to make it appear what you want it to mean.
way to go!
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
First, the war is not a perceived problem by just me. Secondly, the fact that employment numbers are good today does not indicate any underlying inequities nor differentiate between sectors.
"When life looks like easy street there is danger at your door". The reccesion went from 1983 until 1994. This event left many of us extremely cautious. Third, you prefer the aggressive approach of arrogance over discussion.
I'm a fan of Tulsa. I worry about its future rather than feeling comfortable with our status quo.
Those of us that are skeptics will continue to scour the information provided and look for what's not there.
My response will be to quote you on one of your most insightful recent quotes:
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Pigeon poop....
A perfect example of taking information out of the original context and then manipulating it to make it appear what you want it to mean.
way to go!
No, it's just pretty damn funny
For those witnessing this parody, understand the pigeon poop caused the bridge collapse in Minnesota. It came from information in a separate study and was applied here. This has become normal ever since the neo cons took over when the supremes kinged George..
It has nothing to do with Tulsa's enlarged income.
On a separate matter, cubs are down in the 9th. So I am signing off.
Speaking of parodies, whatever happened to Cubs?
They lost. But not to worry. Things look good for the cubbies this year.
Here's an article in this mornings NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/26housing.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin and basically what it implies (Drop Foreseen in Median Price of U.S. Homes) is the average American is going to see their net asset value drop as their homes decline in value. This means the net worth of our citizens across America will go down or stagnate no matter what their average income is doing and don't expect to use your home's increase in value any longer (for at least 10 years) to facilitate borrowing. Most American credit is at a standstill....This will lead to a consumer tightening. Let's hope the job situation remains stable. As I said before, job stability will here in Tulsa for awhile. But Tulsa has been a bit counter cyclicle to the rest the country over the past 60 years.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
Here's the problem with your income stats. Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income. All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices. No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa. I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
Here's the problem with your income stats. Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income. All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices. No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa. I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.
Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.
http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome
And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.
Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
Here's the problem with your income stats. Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income. All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices. No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa. I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.
Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.
http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome
And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.
Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.
Same issue applies to household income stats. It's still skewed by the trust fund babies and royalty incomes, which of course had huge growth in that time period, and which of course greatly skew Tulsa's numbers, perhaps more so than any other city/metro.
If anything, it probably underreports the income growth.
Anyone who's had a 401(k) invested in the stock market would have seen huge increases during that time period.
Of course, this is money you can't touch right now. But this money is real, and it's important down the road.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If anything, it probably underreports the income growth.
Anyone who's had a 401(k) invested in the stock market would have seen huge increases during that time period.
Of course, this is money you can't touch right now. But this money is real, and it's important down the road.
That ignores the point. The household income numbers (whether including or excluding 401(k) income) do not tell us much about the health and growth of the Tulsa economy. The fact that 401(k) numbers are not included makes the reported numbers a little more useful, but they still include a LOT of stuff that gives no indication about the Tulsa employment market and the growth of the Tulsa economy (or the lack thereof).
To see that picture, we need to see wage and salary income and only the wage and salary income, without the irrelevancies of investment income and royalty checks and trust fund checks.
If you think royalty checks and investment income are "irrelevant," tell that to any retiree or land owner who uses them to help live on.
And, yes, 401(k) money is part of income if you draw from it -- as many retirees do. And that stock market growth helps keep the nest egg's value up.
Income is income. All of it is relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
Here's the problem with your income stats. Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income. All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices. No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa. I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.
Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.
http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome
And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.
Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.
Same issue applies to household income stats. It's still skewed by the trust fund babies and royalty incomes, which of course had huge growth in that time period, and which of course greatly skew Tulsa's numbers, perhaps more so than any other city/metro.
No, household numbers are median numbers, so a spike at one end of the spectum would not influence household.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If you think royalty checks and investment income are "irrelevant," tell that to any retiree or land owner who uses them to help live on.
And, yes, 401(k) money is part of income if you draw from it -- as many retirees do. And that stock market growth helps keep the nest egg's value up.
Income is income. All of it is relevant.
LOL Somehow I knew that would be your response. As you surely know, when I said they were irrelevant, I meant irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. We are discussing the use of income stats to show that Tulsa's employment market is strong and growing. For that purpose 401(k) income and investment income and trust fund income and royalty income is clearly irrelevant. The only income that is relevant for this purpose is wage and salary income.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Tulsa income was up 8.3% from 2005 to 2006 alone, Tulsa metro now ranks 66th for per capita income out of 363 metro areas, or in the top 20%. Oklahoma City ranks a very respectable 103rd.
Combine that income with a very low cost of living and these are very good numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20185241/
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_220123035.html
You know what I don't like? People like you and inteller whining and complaining about perceived problems that don't exist.
Your complaints completely fly in the face of the facts. The recession is way over in Tulsa now, job are way up, income is way up.
The facts may not fit with your "Tulsa Sucks" world view or intellers "I love sprawl and wal-mart" fixation, but these are still the facts.
Here's the problem with your income stats. Those numbers almost certainly include royalty income. All of Tulsa's trust fund babies and those living on royalty checks have had large increases in their income caused by the jump in oil prices. No doubt that substantially skews the averages for Tulsa. I am just guessing here, but I would guess that Tulsa's average salary and wage income is probably pretty stagnant.
Tulsa's median household income up 15% from 2004 to 2007.
http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/censusproducts.htm#MSAincome
And Tulsa's (and Oklahoma's) household income is badly hurt by our divorce rate.
Oklahoma City was up a huge 19% in the same period.
Same issue applies to household income stats. It's still skewed by the trust fund babies and royalty incomes, which of course had huge growth in that time period, and which of course greatly skew Tulsa's numbers, perhaps more so than any other city/metro.
No, household numbers are median numbers, so a spike at one end of the spectum would not influence household.
Good point. But it's still not a particularly accurate measure of the employment market, because it still mixes in all the other non-employment income at all levels of the spectrum. While most of the spike in royalty income and trust fund income is no doubt at the top of the spectrum, not all of it is, and certainly not all of the spike in investment income is at the very top of the spectrum.
Bottom line, I think that stat probably still overstates the strength of the Tulsa employment picture. I've been searching for wage and salary income stats but have not been able to find anything recent. Would love to see them if you know of a place to access them.
1) Yes, we lost what appeared to be good telecom and aerospace jobs. (they were not good as they were not sustainable in hindsight)
2) The aerospace employment in Tulsa now exceeds its 2001 employment. Credit V2025 if you want, but the numbers back it up.
3) The telecom jobs have been offset by oil sector jobs. OneOk, Devon, Haliburton , H&P, and even Williams are all hiring highly skilled well paid engineers, account managers, and contractors.
4) Total employment is higher than ever.
5) Average household income is higher than ever.
All the data suggests that there are more jobs and more money being earned. Yes, we lost good jobs and some of the new jobs are not as good as the high profile jobs we lost. However, we also lost plenty of crappy jobs in the downturn too. The data suggests that we gained back jobs at all levels at a rapid rate.
Again, there are more jobs in Tulsa than ever and more money being earned than ever. What horrible news.
- - - - - - - -
And AOX...
you can not count the housing slump against the economy because you refused to count it in favor of the economy.
As personal wealth was exploding you quiped that it was "due to the over priced real estate and was not real." Now that it is set to correct itself you are crying doom and gloom that personal net worth might fall. That's double dipping... if it was not real worth before, it is not real worth now.
Not that I want to stop your nay saying.
I thought all Cubs fans were optimists?
You make good points, but, the growing gap between wealth holders and wage earners overall in the economy is not a unique phenomenon to Tulsa, though it is likely more pronounced here with all the old oil money and trust funds.
From an economic perspective money brought into the Tulsa economy is the actual economic condition of Tulsa. The fact that there may be a pronounced earning gap is more a societal issue than an economic one, just as our depressed household income numbers due to the high divorce rate is a societal issue.
My guess would be that the upper third of the earners in Tulsa do very well compared to national numbers, and that the middle third does just about average and that the bottom third does well worse than average, mostly due to a lack a union presence here and our "by your own bootstraps" culture where society looks down on the poor and doesn't really seem to want to help their situation. I think you would find that the divorce rate also hits that bottom third hard as well. Our crime rate is at least partially an outgrowth of that underlying weakness.
These are issues that we need to work on, but they are not technically economic issues. In any case, by recent measures Tulsa and Oklahoma City are at the very top of the list for cities with the largest percentage of income that is discretionary. Average wages in Tulsa are about just that, average and the cost of living by any measure is well below average. However, with the recent up tick in energy costs here and the collapse of the national housing market I'm thinking that gap may be closing somewhat.
Good jobs data can be found at OESC, like you have stated. There are numbers tied to demographics at the census, but they are mostly estimates of dubious quality, like their population estimates that I really don't place a lot of faith in. Better estimates are found at OSU at this link.
http://economy.okstate.edu/outlook/
Tulsa is number 5 in the nation for "value"
Quote:
US metros for building personal net worth (taking into account local salaries, cost of living, and unemployment relative to the national average). Median base pay was correlated across more than 2,500 different benchmark jobs in our calculations. Housing costs, living costs, and metro unemployment/job growth figures were also used to rank the metro areas.
http://www.salary.com/personal/layoutscripts/psnl_articles.asp?tab=psn&cat=cat282&ser=ser031&part=par097
Really impressive.
quote:
My guess would be that the upper third of the earners in Tulsa do very well compared to national numbers, and that the middle third does just about average and that the bottom third does well worse than average, mostly due to a lack a union presence here and our "by your own bootstraps" culture where society looks down on the poor and doesn't really seem to want to help their situation. I think you would find that the divorce rate also hits that bottom third hard as well. Our crime rate is at least partially an outgrowth of that underlying weakness.
Now that's a good guess....
Salary Value? Sounds Wal Martish....