tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post6783876645974509174..comments2022-03-01T02:13:04.240-07:00Comments on Big Sky Political Analysis: Montana 49th in Wages? Not Exactly.David Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16269564495760820631noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-80610482708854859962016-01-31T16:35:19.704-07:002016-01-31T16:35:19.704-07:00Montana is ranked 49th in median individual annual...Montana is ranked 49th in median individual annual earnings by the U.S. Census Bureau, where earnings are defined as the sum of wage or salary income and net income from self-employment, and the population is persons ages16 years and over with earnings. This is according to Table S2001, EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Please see the following link: <br /><br />http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_S2001&prodType=table<br /><br />To Dick's point, the difference between Montana's median individual annual earnings ($25,994) and that of the U.S. ($30,815) is quite substantial as a percentage of the Montana total. This seems to be a legitimate and important (if not new) topic. I'd love to hear specifics from either gubernatorial candidate about raising Montanans' earnings.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042969266104284981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-62465649376506215742016-01-31T16:08:08.884-07:002016-01-31T16:08:08.884-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042969266104284981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-24616915745421486572016-01-31T11:14:54.355-07:002016-01-31T11:14:54.355-07:00Playing loosey goosey with the data in this case i...Playing loosey goosey with the data in this case is minor (but not unexpected) from someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, despite the scientific data to the contrary. Will you be addressing today on the show, the question of how Mr. Gianforte will protect Montana's natural resources (and their ability to both enrich our lives and attract good, clean jobs in high tech) when he believes that most of the Natural Sciences upon which policy decisions are based are fraudulent fantasy?Kent Madinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705672982753899232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-76473540479285916732016-01-31T10:44:35.103-07:002016-01-31T10:44:35.103-07:00Rankings are not really what one should be looking...Rankings are not really what one should be looking at, After all, even if there was hardly any difference at all in state wage levels ( say a few dollars per year) some state would still be in 49th. place, but it would be meaningless. What is interesting is the actual deviations of wages from average. And when you begin to analyze the sources of those deviations, there are some interesting findings. For example, the difference between wages in Montana and in other states is greater, the higher the level of educational attainment of the group's of workers whose wages are being compared; for high school graduates, for example, there is no difference. Or I'd you make the comparison based on size of place, people living in Montana's cities earn about the same as other Americans living in cities of the same size. It's a little out of date now, but you can see more of this in Post Cowboy Economics - Pay and Prosperity in the New American West, which Tom Power and I published in 2002.Dick Barrettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-31880408552562251672016-01-28T23:53:26.738-07:002016-01-28T23:53:26.738-07:00This article and the comments make many useful poi...This article and the comments make many useful points. My husband and I retired to the state of Montana. We have beautiful 1099's, but no wages. Many of my friends in Bozeman came to be near their grandchildren. We refer to ourselves as "trailers," since we trailed after our children and grandchildren. <br /> Two of my sons who file tax in Montana are in grad school and have very low incomes, since their ultimate goal right now is education, not work force. One is on GI Bill. Neither would raise the average wage at this time.<br /> The true measure of how well Montana is doing economically is the unemployment figure. This figure should represent those who are truly looking for a job and have not yet found one. Although we do have those in our state who are "underemployed," individuals with vastly more education than their current job requires, these same people are the ones who get motivated to go out and start their own businesses. <br /> Current politicians should be more concerned about quality and quantity of education available than "average wage," since so many Montanans choose to work for themselves, and not for the average wage!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-24189294421579101122016-01-28T16:48:10.599-07:002016-01-28T16:48:10.599-07:00CT isn't a fair comparison to MT. Using the Co...CT isn't a fair comparison to MT. Using the Cost of Living calculator at Bankrate, you can see that Hartford is 20.5% more expensive than Bozeman, and the Bridgeport/Stamford area is 41% more expensive than Bozeman. This is the same Bozeman that is roundly criticized for its unaffordable cost of living that is far more expensive than the rest of MT. You also have lots of older working families in CT, because you have to have a high income to afford to live there, but it's close enough to NYC and Boston to commute. An older population is not the same as a retired population. Montana has a population with a bi-modal distribution: It has many young people under 30, and many retirement-aged citizens. CT has a cost of living that is very unfriendly to younger workers and to retirees with only passive income (except those who are incredibly wealthy). This makes it have a higher population of high-earning workers in the latter half of their careers.Ford Hayesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-22502111235381717182016-01-28T13:18:39.338-07:002016-01-28T13:18:39.338-07:00So if we're not 49th in wages then what place ...So if we're not 49th in wages then what place are we? gpstberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388470847179787109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-12008648573416768702016-01-28T13:02:56.717-07:002016-01-28T13:02:56.717-07:00Keep up the conversation! WHERE ARE WE? Keep up the conversation! WHERE ARE WE? David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269564495760820631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-46373222160628477432016-01-28T13:01:54.868-07:002016-01-28T13:01:54.868-07:00Good point about CT, which ranks 1 in wages. Also,...Good point about CT, which ranks 1 in wages. Also, it ranked 35th on the Kauffman Index. I'd like to see numbers on business income to flesh this out.David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269564495760820631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-51651365371027938252016-01-28T13:00:42.948-07:002016-01-28T13:00:42.948-07:00I don't normally publish anonymous comments, b...I don't normally publish anonymous comments, but I thought this comment was useful because it makes some excellent points.David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269564495760820631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6695411995525437118.post-56332701694436412862016-01-28T12:58:29.065-07:002016-01-28T12:58:29.065-07:00Interesting assessment, I agree that there are som...Interesting assessment, I agree that there are some nuances to the measurement to keep in context but to say it is completely useless? I am not so sure that conclusion follows from your logic or the numbers under scrutiny. <br /><br />Consider that Montana is 44th in both age and per capita GDP. There are older states who don’t rank as low in the wage study in question. What does this say about our wages? And most of the states who have low GDP, command the bottom end of the low wage study. <br /><br />Reasonably, economic activity should be lower in states with more retirees. Sure, but that doesn’t explain the whole of it. For example, Connecticut ranks 1st in the TRAC study for wages, and 4th for per cap GDP but also trends older, like Montana (rank 45).<br /><br />Another ranking that you might find interesting. It co-relates to these issues but tries to take in more variables to take in opportunity is the Human Development index, which also ranks Montana in the mid-40s. <br /><br />Lastly, there are some confirming studies, although bottom of the pack does not equal ranking in the bottom 10. Rasmussen College pulled together BLS and BEA studies to compare and MT ranks similarly and confirms similar wage rates in relation to other states. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com