Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2010, 04:18 PM
 
1,687 posts, read 6,086,543 times
Reputation: 830

Advertisements

It is a per capita measure, and not using just wage or salary income.

The calculation is all personal income from all sources (i.e. wages/salaries, dividends/interest income, social security, as well as benefits like employer-provided health insurance, etc.) divided by population.

Some things will skew the number a little and need to be looked at, a couple of examples.

Including employer-provided health insurance means areas with a larger percentage of jobs with that benefit will show a higher per capita income than those without as many jobs with that benefit package.

Dividing by population will impact it if there is a larger percentage of people in the workforce age group, particularly if the median age is in the peak earning years. Areas with a larger percentage below 18 or over 67 will of course have to spread the total income over more not in the workforce.

There are other factors to look for also, of course.

The measure is useful but it also needs to be interpreted with other data to understand an individual area. It is not just about the average pay of jobs in an area, although that is a big part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2010, 04:45 PM
 
2,963 posts, read 6,279,958 times
Reputation: 1578
Some more digging may be needed to interpret what these numbers really mean but the positions on that list aren't really too surprising from what the common wisdom is.

Now that I re-look over the list, I do find placer county's number very low for the amount of wealth in that county.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 12:16 AM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,511 posts, read 6,320,928 times
Reputation: 2264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Surprised the average of Sacramento is only $1000 less than Orange or LA. Must be a lot of poor people on those counties bringing the average down.

I think the data also shows how much different of a place Sacramento is than the rest of the central valley.
This is a good example of looking past raw numbers when looking at data.

Under normal conditions you can make a fair living in Sacramento for anyone with the motivation to do something with themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
It is a per capita measure, and not using just wage or salary income.

The calculation is all personal income from all sources (i.e. wages/salaries, dividends/interest income, social security, as well as benefits like employer-provided health insurance, etc.) divided by population.
I questioned the "per job" thing because it almost appears as if the poster is trying to be passive-aggressive about some point with how much people make.

Data for per capita income comes from income tax returns, so I can't see how the value of health insurance would be included in the data.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Some more digging may be needed to interpret what these numbers really mean but the positions on that list aren't really too surprising from what the common wisdom is.

Now that I re-look over the list, I do find placer county's number very low for the amount of wealth in that county.
Maybe what appears to be wealth is the result of of credit used as purchasing power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 09:20 AM
 
1,687 posts, read 6,086,543 times
Reputation: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
Data for per capita income comes from income tax returns, so I can't see how the value of health insurance would be included in the data.
Good question. We'd have to do some digging around in the BEA's data to see the source of the health insurance value number for inclusion, but they do say it is included.

This is directly from the press release of the personal income data. "Personal income is a comprehensive measure of the income of all persons from all sources. In addition to wages and salaries, it includes employer-provided health insurance, dividends and interest income, social security benefits, and other types of income."

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regi...ewsrelease.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Up in the air
19,112 posts, read 30,693,070 times
Reputation: 16397
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
Good question. We'd have to do some digging around in the BEA's data to see the source of the health insurance value number for inclusion, but they do say it is included.

This is directly from the press release of the personal income data. "Personal income is a comprehensive measure of the income of all persons from all sources. In addition to wages and salaries, it includes employer-provided health insurance, dividends and interest income, social security benefits, and other types of income."

BEA : News Release: Local Area Personal Income, 2008
Ah, that could be a good reason why SLO is so low... not a whole lot of companies offer benefits, unfortunately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,698 posts, read 67,735,576 times
Reputation: 21282
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
It is a per capita measure, and not using just wage or salary income.
Actually its not per capita, but literally titled:

Average Wage Per Job.

There is a per capita income measure but that looks at every man, woman and child and it doesnt only count wages from jobs but also other factors. This only counts workers and the average wage for employed adults in that county.


Quote:
The calculation is all personal income from all sources (i.e. wages/salaries, dividends/interest income, social security, as well as benefits like employer-provided health insurance, etc.) divided by population.

Some things will skew the number a little and need to be looked at, a couple of examples.

Including employer-provided health insurance means areas with a larger percentage of jobs with that benefit will show a higher per capita income than those without as many jobs with that benefit package.
This would not be considered wages, but total compensation, which is wages plus benefits.

Quote:
Dividing by population will impact it if there is a larger percentage of people in the workforce age group, particularly if the median age is in the peak earning years. Areas with a larger percentage below 18 or over 67 will of course have to spread the total income over more not in the workforce.
But then that's just how the cookie crumbles. All areas are not created the same and their economies are not equal either.

Quote:
There are other factors to look for also, of course.
I agree. Cost-of-living would be probably the most important factor to consider when looking at wages because wages usually reflect the cost of living, hence SF having such a high average wage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 03:35 PM
 
1,687 posts, read 6,086,543 times
Reputation: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Actually its not per capita, but literally titled:

Average Wage Per Job.
My mistake 18Montclair, you said the April 22 release, but I had set aside the BEA press release about the data release from that day. It only discussed Personal Income in the release. I didn't think about the Avg Wage Table.

I should have looked at your numbers closer. You are using the Average Wage table at BEA.

Sorry, I'm working long days lately in other numbers for work and only skimmed your thread. Mea Culpa, mea culpa.

18Montclair correct me if I'm wrong but without looking I do not remember any adjustment in BEA's Average Wage By Job for full-time vs. part-time or year-round vs seasonal employment, etc.

I believe that number is calculated by total wage and salary disbursed divided by total number of jobs (any job).

So if I remember right, the Average Wage table will be impacted by less-than-40-hour-per-week jobs or seasonal employment and even part-time second jobs (like 2nd jobs during Christmas in retail).

Am I remembering the table methodology correctly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top