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.
UH, you can't really believe the median on Oahu is only 8% higher than outer islands. That makes no sense.
Why? Hmmmm, what is really located on those islands that pay well?
Let's take Oahu, just off the top of my head: Hawaiian Airlines, HMSA, Bank of Hawaii, American Savings, Central Pacific Bank, Queens Medical, Hawaiian Electric, Hawaiian Telcom, IBM, even a lot of non-civil positions for the State of Hawaii pay over $100K as they keep sweetening the offer to me. The list goes on and on. Even Waikiki bartenders often make more than $70K.
I'd peg Oahu at least 20% higher pay than outer islands.
You are probably right that Oahu is 20% higher than outer islands on the whole. But I compared Oahu to state numbers not outer island numbers. I said in very logical order:
1) Most of the data available is not Island specific, most of the data is state level (like the very relevant median income for full-time year-round workers)
2) Based on median household incomes for the various islands, Oahu is 8% higher than the state as a whole.
3) Oahu makes up about 70% of the state workforce based on job numbers so it will make up a large percentage of the state average to begin with.
4) When you scale Oahu median household income to state numbers you see about an 8% increase (but Oahu already makes up about 70% of this number with outer islands contributing the other 30%)
5) So those State numbers for median income per full-time year-round worker should be scaled up about 8% to reflect salaries on Oahu.
That is very different than saying Oahu salaries are 8% higher than outer island.
State = $68,020
Hawaii County = $48,399
Honolulu County = $73,888
Kauai County = $60,155
Maui County = $65,558
So the data says that Oahu is about 8.63% higher than the state (of which Oahu makes up 70%), 53.66% higher than Big Island, 22.83% higher than Kauai, and 12.71% higher than Maui. Just consider that for every 10 incomes that are calculated in the state median 7 of them come from Oahu. If you wanted Oahu vs outer island as a whole you would have to scale each of those county incomes by the population of each county. I could do it pretty easily in excel but it really isn't worth the headache to me, I will leave that to you if you are interested.
All I am saying is that there is no way a single workers median income on Oahu is $67,000 and that the data backed that up. That was the big point of contention here.
HUD numbers explained. Response I got from a friend who deals with this.
HUD numbers aren't adjusted by housing data. It is real median income but it means this:
For people who choose to live alone, the median is $70K. So I'll back off EVERY worker median is $70K.
We did agree it's probably 15% higher on Oahu than outer islands. I was told individual median is difficult as the census always goes by households.
Although this makes a lot more sense, as you pretty much need $70k to live on your own in town (LOL), I am still a bit skeptical of your (or friends) explanation because of this line at the top of the report you linked.
"THE FOLLOWING TABLE PRESENTS INCOME LIMITS BY FAMILY SIZE AND BY PERCENTAGES OF THE VERY LOW INCOME LEVELSESTABLISHED BY HUD. THESE INCOME LIMITS SERVE AS
GUIDELINES TO ESTABLISH SALES/RENTAL PREFERENCE"
Then the report I linked about how income limits are determined says:
"Very low-income limits are calculated using a set of formulae as follows. The first step is to calculate a four-person income limit equal to 50 percent of the estimated area median family income. Adjustments are then made if this estimate is outside formula constraints."
Then it lists reasons why VLI is adjusted. High housing costs is the reason cited for Hawaii in attachment 3 of the report.
I don't work with this stuff for a living but having looked at the reports I still think they are adjusted upward for housing costs. Those numbers in the HUD table are based on percentage of VLI, and VLI is adjusted, so those numbers are in effect adjusted.
Either way, I think we are a lot closer to the truth here. I am with you in the sense that I think people exaggerate how hard it is for a single person without kids or even your typical DINK couple to make it out there. But I think, in trying to make your point, you are painting a rosier picture than reality.
It is tough for families, particularly with poor public schools, high cost of private schools, high daycare costs, high food costs, and high cost of multi-room units. When you are feeding and housing 2 people on 2 incomes things aren't so bad. Once it becomes 4 mouths to feed and bodies to shelter on 1 or 2 incomes things get tight real quick.
We didn't leave because we hated it there, my wife misses home and there are days where I pine for sunny skies and trade winds (after this brutal winter especially), but neither of us LOVE it there and the numbers just don't add up for raising a family. We each make 15 - 20% more in Virginia for very comparable jobs, our house costs less than half of what a single wall 1965 shack costs on Oahu, food costs 20% less, we have great in-state college choices, our income tax burden is lower, and we can send the kid to public schools without hesitation. That's why I get worked up when someone implies it is easy to get by there, having been a family of 2 working professionals on Oahu we already did the math on this and decided to leave...
HUD numbers explained. Response I got from a friend who deals with this.
HUD numbers aren't adjusted by housing data. It is real median income but it means this:
For people who choose to live alone, the median is $70K. So I'll back off EVERY worker median is $70K.
Also, if you look at the report they base the family of 4 on median FAMILY income not household. Family incomes are when everyone in the household is related. These tend to be higher than household incomes. This is where Hawaii's high percentage of multi-generational households comes in to play. Throw grandmas pension and social security on top of mom and dads income and you get a bigger number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by From Report you Cited
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) sets income limits that determine the eligibility of applicants for its assisted housing programs. HUD typically uses the
Section 8 very low-income level (VLIL) as the basis for deriving other income limits. The VLIL is calculated by taking the 4-person income limit equal to 50% of the estimated area median
family income and making adjustments if this income is outside formula constraints. For example, the VLIL is increased for areas where rental housing costs are unusually high in relation
to the median income or if it is less that the relevant State non-metropolitan median familyincome level.
See "FY2014 HUD Income Limits Briefing Material" http://www.huduser.org/portal/datase...4/IncomeLimits BriefingMaterial_FY14.pdf"
Median FAMILY income for Oahu, according to the ACS report, is the $85,608 number you cited earlier in that article. However, if you look at the HUD table, 100% level for a family of 4 is $95,800 implying once again that the VLI base number is adjusted before all of those numbers are calculated and scaled accordingly.
Edit.
So I think I have cracked the code... The $67,100 number you cited is simply the $95,800 multiplied by .7 (and rounded up to the nearest 100 dollars) which is their adjustment for family size from 4 down to 1. It actually has nothing to do with individual incomes since all of the HUD data is based on VLIL which is based on median family income, it is just 70% of the family of 4 value. Click on the button that says "Click here for FY2014 IL Documentation" then select Hawaii for the state, then select Honolulu county, then click "next screen". That should answer all of your questions about the HUD numbers.
We can agree to disagree - how about that?. I believe the median income for a full-time worker is actually well understated and above $70K. Once you clump in stay at home mothers, people who choose to work part-time, people who are caregivers, elderly, etc - yeah, it drags down the median - I've maintained that it is for able-bodied full-time workers.
I have a harder time thinking of people who make less than $70K, like a Target/Walmart worker, maid, ABC store worker - and then I think of the folks who make well over $70K, like most of downtown, practically of Federal Government workers, programmers, sales people, plumbers, electricians, police, fire, bartenders, etc.....
This is not the under $70K/year slum folks suggest it is - nobody would ever be able to go out. If all HUD is doing is adjusting a 4 person household to 1, that suggest to me the individual median is far higher.
Individual males are making so much money here they can afford to tell their girlfriend/wife with the kids to stay at home/work part-time, creating a disparity of income between males/females.
We can agree to disagree - how about that?. I believe the median income for a full-time worker is actually well understated and above $70K. Once you clump in stay at home mothers, people who choose to work part-time, people who are caregivers, elderly, etc - yeah, it drags down the median - I've maintained that it is for able-bodied full-time workers.
I have a harder time thinking of people who make less than $70K, like a Target/Walmart worker, maid, ABC store worker - and then I think of the folks who make well over $70K, like most of downtown, practically of Federal Government workers, programmers, sales people, plumbers, electricians, police, fire, bartenders, etc.....
This is not the under $70K/year slum folks suggest it is - nobody would ever be able to go out. If all HUD is doing is adjusting a 4 person household to 1, that suggest to me the individual median is far higher.
Individual males are making so much money here they can afford to tell their girlfriend/wife with the kids to stay at home/work part-time, creating a disparity of income between males/females.
Every piece of data I have gone through during this exercise suggests that median income is more like $48.5k for full-time year-round workers on Oahu and I cited the reports that back that number up. You asked for data, I showed you data, and you respond with anecdotes... I am not sure what else to say at this point. Like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Every piece of data I have gone through during this exercise suggests that median income is more like $48.5k for full-time year-round workers on Oahu and I cited the reports that back that number up. You asked for data, I showed you data, and you respond with anecdotes... I am not sure what else to say at this point. Like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
No, I've stated I believe the HUD data, $70K (or much more) seems about right to me
For instance, if you were correct, nearly everyone on Oahu is eligible for Federal housing with the income limit at $54,000
That makes no sense public housing median is above actual median. But 80% of actual median makes more sense.
Found this interesting tidbit:
State median income by number of earners per family:
For Hawaii, statewide, per ACS - the median for a family of 1 earner is $61,107, again - Statewide. Even if we took what I believe is a lowball 8% more for Oahu, that puts Oahu for a 1 earner at $66,000.
Click excel for State median family income by number of earners in family:
That makes no sense public housing median is above actual median. But 80% of actual median makes more sense.
Found this interesting tidbit:
State median income by number of earners per family:
For Hawaii, statewide, per ACS - the median for a family of 1 earner is $61,107, again - Statewide. Even if we took what I believe is a lowball 8% more for Oahu, that puts Oahu for a 1 earner at $66,000.
Click excel for State median family income by number of earners in family:
Your number is more in line when you include all workers, like part timers and retiree's.
Well, no. I have debunked everything you have just stated somewhere in this thread already. But for the sake of us agreeing to disagree let me just summarize here so that I can walk away from this conversation.
1) Despite your adamant claims to the contrary earlier in the thread, the HUD number has nothing to do with median individual income, it is based on median family income then adjusted for the high housing costs of Hawaii. I repeat, it has nothing to do with individual income. The single person HUD number is just 70% of the family of 4 HUD number. Nothing more, nothing less.
2) It is not correct to say that nearly everyone on Oahu would qualify for Federal housing given the link you posted. What would be correct is that IF every full-time year-round earner on Oahu lived on their own, slightly more than half would qualify. There is a big difference. Given the average household size of 3 in Hawaii (2nd highest in the nation) clearly most do not live on their own. Most have families or roommates that they live with.
3) A median income for a 1 earner household is much different than a median earner in general. 1 earner households are people that live on their own. Of course there will be a bias towards higher incomes for people that live on their own... they are the ones that can afford to live on their own. You can't just throw out every person that lives with with a spouse, children, roommates, or parents in their household because you don't like them messing up your data. They have jobs too. 52.3% of households are "married couple families" (R1101) so without even considering roommates or parents you have already eliminated over half of the households from your subset. If you want to keep qualifying your answer to include only people that are college grads, business owners, and Jaguar drivers I'm sure you can get the number up to $100,000... but this thread was about average locals getting by.
4) The 8% estimate is based on the actual difference between Statewide wages and Oahu wages based on the ACS data and the ratio of median incomes on Oahu vs the state as a whole... and I showed you the calculation. It is nice that you think it is a lowball but your only evidence for it being lowball is personal opinion. There is actually a reason the numbers are not far apart, because for every 100 data points in the Statewide number 70 of them come from Oahu. Even if you assumed that every earner on Oahu makes more than every earner on every outer island (which is absurd), the median worker still resides on Oahu. There is no way around it due to the distribution of population in the state. Here is how you calculate median in case you are unfamiliar.
5) Despite having the highest state-wide real estate values (R2510), 3rd highest median monthly housing costs (R2511), and highest median monthly rents (R2514) in the country, Hawaii is not a high wage state, it is just slightly above average. Median earnings for male full-time workers in Hawaii rank 22nd and for female workers it ranks 17th out of 51 states (and DC). As a result, (R2513) 43.5% of mortgaged owners and 50.8% or renters are spending 30% or more of their monthly income on selected monthly housings costs which ranks #1 and #4 in the country respectively.
6) The number I calculated for Oahu is based on median income for FULL-TIME YEAR-ROUND workers in the state of Hawaii. I don't think it can be any more explicitly stated that it does not include part timers and retirees. Once again, the median is the point at which an equal number of people earn more and less. Since people on Oahu make up 70% of the state workforce, most of the state data is data from Oahu, so Oahu wages are the largest influence on the state number. The state number, for men and women who are full-time year-round workers, is about $45,000 for men and women combined based on the ratios of state median income to oahu median income presented in the report. This is because 70% of those earners in the statewide numbers reside on Oahu. Page 12 R2001 and R2002.
To get from $45,000 to $70,000, people on Oahu would have to earn 55% more than the state as a whole despite the fact that 70% of the state population is already on Oahu. It is, for all intents and purposes, statistically impossible. So unless you think that the Census Bureau is completely wrong in its calculation of median incomes for FULL-TIME YEAR-ROUND workers, and I don't think you do
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
The U.S. Census is based on facts.
Then what you are saying is just plain false. There is really no way around it.
I never called the place a slum, I said that cost of living is very high and wages are nothing special... which I think the ACS and census data demonstrates in a very straightforward way. You seem like an intelligent person but you are just off base on this one. Perhaps you should just be grateful for whatever combination of hard work, natural ability, and luck that has put you in a position to think that the median full-time worker on Oahu makes $70,000. Perhaps it is true for the part of town you live in and the social circles you frequent but every piece of data suggests that number is far too high for full-time year-round workers on the whole. I have said my piece, I have linked to all of the relevant data, this conversation is going nowhere at this point. Feel free to get in a last word if it suits you this is my last post on the topic... this should be a sticky already so people can avoid this same conversation over and over again.
Well, no. I have debunked everything you have just stated somewhere in this thread already.
Well, no - you've simply strengthened my position. Based on facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UHgrad
1) Despite your adamant claims to the contrary earlier in the thread, the HUD number has nothing to do with median individual income, it is based on median family income then adjusted for the high housing costs of Hawaii. I repeat, it has nothing to do with individual income. The single person HUD number is just 70% of the family of 4 HUD number. Nothing more, nothing less.
Even if it is calculated as 70% of the family of 4 - ACS breaks down earners by family size.
See State Median income by family size. A family size of 1 earner is over $61,000 statewide. Therefore, Oahu is higher even if we take the lowball 8% higher than the rest of the state. A family size of 2 earners is over $81,000 and that also makes sense - lots of single mothers and caring for an elderly parent or disables sibling, etc.....
2) What would be correct is that IF every full-time year-round earner on Oahu lived on their own, slightly more than half would qualify.
No, no, and no. Seriously, you can't possibly believe more than 50% of the population who choose to live on their own would qualify for federal housing. If that statement were to be true - you'd have a massive housing and rental collapse.
As of today, average rent for a 1 bedroom is $1,884/month and a 2 bedroom is $2,524 - and rent has gone up 18% the past 6 months. If income was that low - it couldn't satisfy that rate climb. Anybody who has been living here the past 7 years knows rent is increasing dramatically because the income supports those increased rents.
I own multiple rental properties around the island - I hate to tell you, it isn't like I get a family of 6 applying to rent my 3 bedroom unit - 99% of the applicants are single, a couple, or a couple and a child.
At the numbers you suggest, the collapse on the rental market would be massive.
Interestingly, a person who makes $70,000/year can afford a rental at $1,750 which maps to about the average in Honolulu
3) A median income for a 1 earner household is much different than a median earner in general. 1 earner households are people that live on their own. Of course there will be a bias towards higher incomes for people that live on their own... they are the ones that can afford to live on their own. You can't just throw out every person that lives with with a spouse, children, roommates, or parents in their household because you don't like them messing up your data. They have jobs too. 52.3% of households are "married couple families" (R1101) so without even considering roommates or parents you have already eliminated over half of the households from your subset.
I haven't eliminated anyone - the data is the data. A family of 1 earner is $61,107 - 2 earners jumps to over $89,000 - that reflects families of 2 that both work - but also would reflect single parents (and there are a lot), caring for a elderly parent, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UHgrad
4) The 8% estimate is based on the actual difference between Statewide wages and Oahu wages based on the ACS data and the ratio of median incomes on Oahu vs the state as a whole... and I showed you the calculation.
I already stated that even if we discounted all the high wage earner positions on Oahu that don't exist on outer islands and I accepted the 8% number you get the following for Oahu as median income:
1 Earner family: $66,000 2 Earner family: $96,861
While I don't personally buy only 8% uplift on Oahu, even taking your number shows healthy wages on Oahu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UHgrad
5) Despite having the highest state-wide real estate values (R2510), 3rd highest median monthly housing costs (R2511), and highest median monthly rents (R2514) in the country, Hawaii is not a high wage state, it is just slightly above average. Median earnings for male full-time workers in Hawaii rank 22nd and for female workers it ranks 17th out of 51 states (and DC). As a result, (R2513) 43.5% of mortgaged owners and 50.8% or renters are spending 30% or more of their monthly income on selected monthly housings costs which ranks #1 and #4 in the country respectively.
I'm not sure why the above statement is needed - Hawaii is an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with limited land, resources, manufacturing, tech, etc - one would expect a person to may more of their income in Hawaii towards housing than lets say Mississippi. Why wouldn't housing be expensive relative to wages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UHgrad
The number I calculated for Oahu is based on median income for FULL-TIME YEAR-ROUND workers in the state of Hawaii. I don't think it can be any more explicitly stated that it does not include part timers and retirees. Once again, the median is the point at which an equal number of people earn more and less. Since people on Oahu make up 70% of the state workforce, most of the state data is data from Oahu, so Oahu wages are the largest influence on the state number. The state number, for men and women who are full-time year-round workers, is about $45,000 for men and women combined based on the ratios of state median income to oahu median income presented in the report. This is because 70% of those earners in the statewide numbers reside on Oahu. Page 12 R2001 and R2002.
To get from $45,000 to $70,000, people on Oahu would have to earn 55% more than the state as a whole despite the fact that 70% of the state population is already on Oahu. It is, for all intents and purposes, statistically impossible. So unless you think that the Census Bureau is completely wrong in its calculation of median incomes for FULL-TIME YEAR-ROUND workers, and I don't think you do
Family size of 1 statewide $61,000, family size of 2 statewide, $89,600
Well, no. The only position I have strengthened is that either you just don't get it (maybe I assume you have a better understanding of statistics than you do) or you are so set on proving your position that you are deliberately misrepresenting the data... I don't know what else to say. That table you linked showed that households with no earners make about $39k a year yet you take that data to be more representative of peoples wages than the actual statistic for median income for FULL-TIME YEAR-ROUND workers. Based on your logic the median single earner makes $22k because that's the number you get when you subtract 1 earner ($61k) from 0 earners ($39k). It is actually baffling to me as to why you would think this table is more representative of wages than actual wage data.
All your number shows is that lots of households get income from non-wage sources like social security, pensions, retirement, military BAH, welfare etc... it has little to do with people's actual wages. Given the high number of military, large number of retirees, and the high number of people in multi-generational housing this is not surprising at all to see this as a high number for Hawaii. ACS has the number for wages yet you choose to ignore it. You can keep linking that table all you want but, just like the HUD table, it does not mean what you are saying it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
No, no, and no. Seriously, you can't possibly believe more than 50% of the population who choose to live on their own would qualify for federal housing. If that statement were to be true - you'd have a massive housing and rental collapse.
It's not what I said at all. I said based on the current HUD numbers, if every full-time year-round worker chose to live on their own then more than 50% of the population would qualify for federal housing. It was just a response to your misinterpretation of an earlier statement I made. You didn't like the BLS data because it included part-time workers etc... so we settled on ACS median income for full-time year-round workers. Most people don't live on their own, that is why family income is so much higher than individual income.
At the end of the dayit is a moot point anyways. It was just a thought experiment based on a hypothetical situation. HUD qualifications for individuals are based on 70% of the adjusted VLI number which is based on median family income. If this imaginary land existed where everyone lived on their own, housing costs would be lower and median family income would be lower so the HUD rate would also be much lower. I think this is the key point you are missing about the HUD numbers. They don't represent individual incomes at all. They represent VLI numbers, which in Hawaii are based on larger than average families (compared to other states), and adjusted for higher than average housing costs (compared to other states). That is all the HUD number is. HUD numbers are high because housing costs are high and family incomes are high. It has NOTHING to do with single peoples wages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
Lastly, the US Census themselves say the data is based on fact, I didn't - they do..
Well, no. That is exactly what you said on post #15 of this thread. Page 2 in response to pj737. It is actually the reason I got involved in this thread because you were misrepresenting HUD data as median individual income data then being condescending towards people that argued with your position. That is the funny thing about a forum that freezes the old posts, all of the information (and some misinformation) you have posted is still there for everyone to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
The U.S. Census is based on facts. Do you have any supporting material your opinion is based on?
HUD says the median income for a single resident is $67,000, are they incorrect also? At that median, more than half the population does quite well.
Hawaii homeownership is at the highest level in its history. Incorrect?
7% of Hawaii households have assets more than $1 million excluding retirement funds and primary home. Incorrect?
I know it is sexy to suggest everyone is poor in Hawaii but factual data says otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
I own multiple rental properties around the island - I hate to tell you, it isn't like I get a family of 6 applying to rent my 3 bedroom unit - 99% of the applicants are single, a couple, or a couple and a child.
That's an awesome anecdote! We too have a rental property in a decent part of town (we didn't sell when we moved away), and it gets rented to a young couple with no kids that makes a decent living, but that doesn't mean they are "average locals". They are considered residents but they are east coast transplants with college degrees and government jobs. Median means equal number above and below, they are just above the median. ACS has the wage data, I showed you the wage data, you just choose to ignore the wage data. Once again, be grateful that whatever combination of hard work, natural abilities, good decision making, and luck that has put you in a position to think the average person on Oahu makes $70k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
I'm not sure why the above statement is needed - Hawaii is an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with limited land, resources, manufacturing, tech, etc - one would expect a person to may more of their income in Hawaii towards housing than lets say Mississippi. Why wouldn't housing be expensive relative to wages?
Sweet! It is agreed then that Hawaii has high COL relative to wages! And this means people have to adjust their habits to live there. We can finally get on with our lives.
Not only do they use the word "fact" in the url, the page is littered with the word "fact", should they instead say "best guess".
Quote:
Originally Posted by UHgrad
has put you in a position to think the average person on Oahu makes $70k.
Actually, I think it is higher than that. Fully 1/3 of households on Oahu are people who live alone - average rent for a 1 bedroom is over $1,700/month - they are getting the money from somewhere. Rents are going up, way up - nearly 20% the past 6 months alone - if people didn't have the rent to support those rent increases, you'd have a massive housing collapse.
When police, fire, electricians, bartenders, plumbers, lawn cutters, all the corporate offices downtown all make at least $70K - you start getting hard pressed to think of people who make less than that such as maids, fast food restaurants, and retail stores. 95% of my corporate office make well over $70K, and over 50 off the top of my head make over $300K - considered one of the largest employers of the state.
Last edited by whtviper1; 03-25-2015 at 02:21 PM..
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.
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.
