The numbers seem to be contradicting (Johnson City, Kingsport: sales, 2015, houses)

[Page2]

In January the average private sector week wage in the Johnson City MSA ranked the lowest in Tennessee. It has declined for two years. Kingsport-Bristol's average wage increased. At the same time seasonally adjusted year-to-year sales tax collection in both MSA have been increasing.

Tri-Cities sales tax collections post another increase

Johnson City avg. weekly wage lowest in Tenn; Kingsport-Bristol January wages up

[Rangerred]

I'm assuming the not-for-profit medical sector doesn't factor into private sector week wage? Johnson City contains a large amount of medical/government/education jobs that could perhaps skew these numbers. There are some industrial-type jobs in the metro but not on the scale of Eastman, HAAP, etc. found in Kingsport. JC also has a much younger population (Sullivan Co. has one of the oldest populations in the state) probably making lower wages.

While I'm definitely not a statistician I do work in an economic development capacity and can tell you the JC metro is sure not in a depressed state. The sales tax numbers back this up and I think a lot of what you have are people who work at Eastman and other places in the Bristol-Kingsport metro, make very good money, and live in JC due to the more "cosmopolitan feel" compared to the rest of the Tri-Cities. All one has to do is look at the location of subdivisions full of $300,000+ houses. Kingsport is desperately trying to change this but so far is having little success.

The Tri-Cities being split into two metros but still effectively functioning as a single unit in many capacities makes it difficult to get a clear picture with these numbers. In terms of wages especially it is really better to still look at the Tri-Cities as one metro.

[Serious Conversation]

I also don't see this. Yes, intellectually I "get it," being that so many people in JC are students and don't make much, but JC has always seemed to be the most affluent of the Tri-Cities to me. It's where the development has historically gone first, and it's been on the local cutting edge. For instance, JC has a lot of quality local restaurants for a city its size, and those restaurants are not cheap and are often busy. Sahib, Babylon, Scratch, Battery, and Freiberg's are local options that come to mind, and none of those places have dollar menus. They're quality restaurants and don't seem to be hurting for business. This implies a level of affluence not reflected by this stated wage.

You also see the downtown undergoing a sort of rebirth and people are out at these businesses and spending money. Also, Johnson City has been the first in the area to get a lot of things. When I was little, it had the first supercenter (KMart). I think they also had the area's first Best Buy, Home Depot, Circuit City, etc. To me, Johnson City is a clear cut above Bristol, which itself is now head and shoulders above Kingsport. Aside from the lousy employment situation, Johnson City is quite nice for a place its size.

[kamoshika]

Originally Posted by Rangerred

I'm assuming the not-for-profit medical sector doesn't factor into private sector week wage? Johnson City contains a large amount of medical/government/education jobs that could perhaps skew these numbers.

FWIW, CES (Current Employment Statistics) surveys include not-for-profit companies.

[Page2]

Originally Posted by Rangerred

While I'm definitely not a statistician I do work in an economic development capacity and can tell you the JC metro is sure not in a depressed state.

I don't look at the numbers saying that the three-county Johnson City MSA is in a depressed state. In fact, the opposite is obvious. Rather they speak to the evolution of new economic demographics.

[Ted Bear]

Just a comment about the veracity of the numbers...and admittedly , there are a LOT of things which go into it, especially on the national level, but why wouldn't they also hold true at the regional and local level if it is a "bottom up" process?

BUT, when we heard the cookie lady (Yellin) speak on Wednesday, she inferred that the economy was not strong enough to consider raising rates at this time. Previous rhetoric was all about "when we get the jobless rate down to 5 1/2% we WILL raise rates". That was many months ago that we supposedly passed that threshold (which implies to me that the Fed has lost control of the markets--notice how the rhetoric from a year or six months ago about how "we WILL do thus and such" is now ignored by the Fed?, but that is a whole another conversation).

One of two things are going on. Either the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the economy is not strong enough to raise rates, OR, the jobs numbers do not accurately reflect the real employment situation.

Oddly, the jobs numbers were "believable", or so we were led to think, when they were "weak" and rates needed to be cut. Now, they seem to be "less believable" when they are suggesting strength and a time to raise interest rates.

Clearly there are number of variables, but simply stated: the jobs numbers may not reflect a true picture of employment/economic health in a particular local, nor national, level.

That MIGHT be why we "feel" that our economy here in JC is better than the " jobs numbers" imply.

[Serious Conversation]

I think the most obvious answer in Johnson City's case is probably the correct one. There are a lot of young folks, adjuncts/instructors, and college kids there who, safe to say, could use some more income.