2016 First Quarter
Volume 18, Issue 1
Kern Economic Journal
Winner of the Award for Merit from California Association
for Local Economic Development
2016 First Quarter
SCHOOL OF
BUSINESS AND PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
Featured Articles:
The Impacts of the
Minimum Wage in Kern
County
Ecomonic and Fiscal
Impact: California State
University, Bakersfield
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
1
Kern Economic Journal
wishtotogratefully
gratefully acknowledge
Sponsors:
WeWe
wish
acknowledgethe
theJournal
Journal
Sponsors:
KERN
ECONOMIC
JOURNAL
a quarterly
publication
(February,
May,November)
August, November)
California
KERN
ECONOMIC JOURNAL
is aisquarterly
publication
(February,
May, August,
of California of
State
University,State
University,
Bakersfield.
Itstopurpose
to track
trends
andnational,
analyze
regional,
national,
andthe
global
issues
that
Bakersfield.
Its purpose is
track localistrends
and local
analyze
regional,
and
global issues
that affect
economic
wellbeing
of
Kern
County.
The
journal
provides
useful
information
and
data
that
can
help
the
community
make
informed
affect the economic well-being of Kern County. The journal provides useful information and data that can help
decisions. Sources of funding for this journal include university contributions and sponsorship and subscription
theeconomic
community
make informed economic decisions. Sources of funding for this journal include university confees.
tributions and sponsorship and subscription fees.
Editorial and analytical articles on important local, regional, national, and international issues and trends are invited for
consideration
of publication
in theon
journal.
Articleslocal,
(not exceeding
words inand
length)
must be submitted
thetrends
Managing
Editorial
and analytical
articles
important
regional,800
national,
international
issues to
and
are
Editor in electronic copy. Individual authors are responsible for the views and research results.
invited for consideration of publication in the journal. Articles (not exceeding 800 words in length) must be
submitted to the Managing Editor in electric copy. Individual authors are responsible for the views and research
results.
Editorial Board
Dr. Richard S. Gearhart, Assistant Professor of Economics, CSUB - Publisher and Managing Editor
Dr. Nyakundi M. Michieka, Assistant Professor of Economics, CSUB - Publisher and Managing Editor
Contact Information
Dr. Richard S. Gearhart, [email protected], 661-654-3962
Dr. Nyakundi M. Michieka, [email protected], 661-654-2465
To become a sponsor, please contact the Managing Editor for sponsorship form and benefits.
2
2016 First Quarter
Kern Economic Journal
Inside this Issue:
Economy at a Glance! ….……………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Tracking Kern’s Economy
Economy……………………………………………...……………………………………………. 6
Labor Market……………………………………………...……………………………………….. 6
Housing Market……………………………………………...…………………………………….. 8
Stock Market……………………………………………...…………………………………….… 10
Inflation ……………………………………………...………………………………………..… 11
Commodity Prices……………………………………………...…………………………...…….. 12
Econ Brief
A Note on Kern County Healthcare ……………..…………………………………………………13
The Impacts of the Minimum Wage in Kern County……………..…………………………………14
Featured Article
Economic and Fiscal Impacts: California State University, Bakersfield……………………………17
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
3
Kern Economic Journal
Economy at a Glance!
National Economy1
by Dr. Richard S. Gearhart III and
Dr. Nyakundi M. Michieka
The world’s largest economy of more than $16.5 trillion, the
United States, grew by 0.5 percent, but at a much slower rate
than the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate from
the fourth quarter of 2015, where real GDP grew by a modest
1.4 percent. Real GDP increased largely because of an increase
in consumer spending on services, mainly accounted for by
increases in spending on housing, utilities, and healthcare. The
growth rate was moderated in part by a decrease in spending on
durable goods, notably on motor vehicles and parts, as well as a
decrease in federal government spending (for the most part on
national defense).
123.4 in March of 2016, after rising 0.1 and 0.2 percent in January
and February, respectively. This compares to the indicator
being 123.7 at the end of December of 2015. Though the fall in
the index in December could hint at the potential of increased
recessionary risk, it is unlikely that this is the case. A continuing
decline in housing is the likely culprit behind the modest
decrease. Conversely, the University of Michigan’s Consumer
Sentiment Index increased modestly from 91.3 to 91.6. This
is a much more modest gain than seen in previous quarters,
hinting that consumer expectations about the economy may be
moderating.
Real disposable personal income, which is adjusted for inflation
and taxes, increased by a modest 0.3 percent in the first quarter
of 2016. Increases happened in the later part of the year, as
March saw a majority of the increase. This modest increase in
real disposable income growth was met with almost no change
in real consumer spending, which increased by 0.3% in February,
after not increasing at all in January or March. Coupled with this
stagnation in real personal income was a slight fall in the fraction
of income saved by households. Only 5.25% of disposable
personal income is being saved by families, as opposed to 5.4% in
the fourth quarter of 2015, highlighting that stagnation in wages
is being compensated for by drawing down family savings. This
could hint at future difficulties; as families draw down savings
enough, they will have to rely on short-term debt vehicles (loans,
credit cards, etc.) that could worsen their long-term economic
position.
State Economy2
The Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators
– a measure of future economic activity – increased slightly, to
1
U.S. economic numbers were obtained from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis “U.S. Economy at a Glance”. This is found at http://www.bea.gov/
newsreleases/glance.htm. The information for the Index of Leading Economic
Indicators is found at https://www.conference-board.org/data/bcicountry.
cfm?cid=1. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index is found at
http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/tables.html.
4 Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | Economy at a Glance!
In California, the unemployment rate went down to 5.4 from
5.8 percent. Among counties, San Francisco (3.3 percent), Santa
Clara (3.8 percent), Orange (4.0 percent), San Luis Obispo (4.3
percent), San Diego (4.7 percent), and Los Angeles (5.0 percent)
had unemployment rates below the state average. In contrast,
Sacramento (5.5 percent), Riverside (5.9 percent), San Joaquin
(8.8), Fresno (10.6 percent), Kern (11.1 percent), and Kings (11.4
percent) had unemployment rates above the state average.
The state’s civilian labor force gained 46,467 members, where
83,500 secured paying jobs (employed) and 37,000 fewer were
left jobless (unemployed). While nonfarm industries hired
24,300 more workers, farming enterprises employed only 10,967
more workers. A wide range of industries added jobs, including
goods producing, manufacturing, information, financial
activities, education and health services, leisure and hospitality,
and government. However, jobs were lost in service providing,
wholesale trade, and professional and business services,
2
The California economic numbers were obtained from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics “Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map”. This is found at
http://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet.
2016 First Quarter
Local Economy
Even though Kern County’s labor force decreased only slightly,
the number of employed persons fell sizably, while the number
of unemployed persons (as well as the unemployment rate)
rose. This hints that although Kern County still continues to
benefit from the move away from the recession, the continued
low oil prices continue to dominate the economy. This has
had the impact of stalling residential and retail development,
which has halted diversified economic growth. There were
large increases in nonfarm employment (3,633 fewer workers
in the first quarter of 2016, compared to the fourth quarter of
2015), declines in employment in nearly all industries led the
way. In fact, only department and general merchandise stores,
hospitals, information, and financial activities saw an increase
in employment. Coupled with the increase in the county
unemployment rate was a sizable reduction in personal income,
falling by nearly $3 billion between the fourth quarter of 2015
and first quarter of 2016, largely led by decreases in labor income
and property income, as oil price shocks continue to reverberate
throughout the economy.
The rate of unemployment ranged from 5.2 percent in Inyokern
to 22.4 percent in California City. No city in Kern County
experienced a decrease in the unemployment rate. In Bakersfield,
9.9 percent of persons in the labor force are unemployed.
With the continued stagnation in oil prices, gas prices increased
sizably, up $0.25 per gallon since the last quarter, averaging
$2.80 a gallon. The unit price of California’s Class III milk also
decreased, though only marginally, from $15.25 in the fourth
quarter of 2015 to $15.03 in the first quarter of 2016. Farmers
benefited from receiving higher prices for the products, with
prices received increasing by 1.3 percentage points. However,
costs to farmers increased by the same amount, leaving farmers
no better off, with the index of farm price parity remaining at
85.7%, continuing the trend of a year-long decrease in farmer
incomes. This is, in part, to the long-term effects of the drought
in California.
The continued fall in oil prices has started to impact secondary
economic sectors, such as the housing market, though the impact
has slowed. Kern County’s median sales price of houses fell by
over $8,000, from $206,083 in the fourth quarter of 2015, to
$197,917 in the first quarter of 2016, as migration to the area
is limiting housing sales. In fact, home sales fell again in Kern
County, as 161 fewer units were sold in the first quarter of 2016,
compared to the fourth quarter of 2015. Most of the housing
market impact was felt outside of Bakersfield. In Bakersfield,
compared to the fourth quarter of 2015, only 18 fewer units
were sold. This means that the struggles felt in Bakersfield are
being reverberated in other areas of Kern County. Interestingly,
the number of new building permits increased slightly to 537
permits in the first quarter of 2016, perhaps highlighting that
expectations of future economic activity in Kern County are
better than current conditions. Unfortunately, the number of
loan default notices sent to homeowners increased by 22 units.
Though still lower than the height of the Great Recession, this
perhaps hints that mortgage companies have a more pessimistic
near-term outlook than new home builders.
The weighted price index for the five publicly traded companies
doing business in Kern County (Sierra Bancorp, Tejon Ranch
Company, Chevron Corporation U.S., Granite Construction,
and Wells Fargo Company) increased significantly from 95.6 in
the fourth quarter of 2015 to 98.9 in the first quarter of 2016,
an increase of 3.3 percentage points. Future expectations of the
economic activity of local “market-makers” is optimistic, even
with the continued stagnation of oil prices in Kern County.
Chevron (13.2 percent), Tejon Ranch (17.5 percent), Granite
Construction (4.3 percent), and Sierra Bancorp (0.4 percent)
all experienced an increase in share prices; only Wells Faro (7.5
percent) experienced a decrease in share prices, likely related to
larger, state-wide economic issues.
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
5
Kern Economic Journal
Tracking Kern’s Economy
by Dr. Richard S. Gearhart III and
Dr. Nyakundi M. Michieka
Growth of Personal Income – With further declines to the first quarter of 2015. The most recent oil price
of oil prices and layoffs continuing to affect regional shocks continue to have a large and adverse impact on
oil companies (along with proposed decreases in oil
Kern County, as 4,033 fewer workers represents about
1
employmentTracking
for 2016),
there
was
a
sizable
decrease
in
1% of the total labor force.
Kern’s Economy
2016
First
Quarter
personal income, increasing by 37.89%, on an annual basis, compared to the fourth quarter of 2015. This
DR. RICHARD S. GEARHART III & DR. NYAKUNDI MICHIEKA
Labor Force
amounted to a decrease, in total income, of nearly $3
Labor
Force
420000
Growth of billion.
Personal This
Income
–
With
further
declines
of
oil
prices
and
layoffs
continuing
decrease was largely driven by sizable de420000
o affect regional oil companies (along with proposed decreases in oil employment for
400000
in labor
(falling
by $2.5 by
billion)
016), therecreases
was a sizable
decreaseincome
in personal
income, increasing
37.89%, and
on an annual
400000380000
property
income
(falling
nearly
$14tomillion)
asis, compared
to the fourth
quarter
of 2015.by
This
amounted
a decrease,during
in total income,
f nearly $3the
billion.
This
decrease
was
largely
driven
by
sizable
decreases
in
labor
income
first quarter of 2016. This means that the long-term
380000360000
falling by $2.5 billion) and property income (falling by nearly $14 million) during the first
oil
price
affects
are
starting
to
impact
a
variety
of
secuarter of 2016. This means that the long-term oil price affects are starting to impact a
340000
ariety of sectors
in Kern
Kern County.
360000
tors in
County.
320000
340000300000
Growth Rate of Personal
Income
320000
40.00%
300000
30.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
-20.00%
2015.1
2015.2
-30.00%
-40.00%
-50.00%
Labor Market
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2015.3
2016.1
2015.4
2016.1
349,600 in the first quarter of 2016. It appears, however,
Employment – In the first quarter of 2016, Kern County hired 10,200 fewer worker
that Kern
County
becoming
the to
full349,600 in
Employment
total employment
decreased
fromis359,800
in themore
fourthimmune
quarter ofto2015
370000
pricehowever,
shocks,that
as Kern
2,367
moreis workers
first quarter power
of 2016.ofIt oil
appears,
County
becoming are
more immun
the full power
of
oil
price
shocks,
as
2,367
more
workers
are
working
this
working this quarter than in the first quarter of 2015. quarter tha
the first quarter of 2015. 350000
We adjust published data in three ways. Firstly, we averaged monthly data to calculate
uarterly data. Secondly, we recalculated quarterly data to take into account workers
mployed in the “informal” market (i.e., self-employed labor and those who work outside
heir county of residence). Finally, we adjusted quarterly data for the effects of seasonal
ariations.
Labor Market
We adjust published data in three ways. Firstly, we
averaged
monthly
data
to calculate
quarterly
data. in the
Labor Force
- The civilian
labor force
decreased
by 4,033 members
from 397,200
ourth quarter
of
2015
to
393,167
in
the
first
quarter
of
2016.
Not
all
gains
over the past
Secondly, we recalculated quarterly data to take into
ear have been erased, as 2,634 more workers were available for work this quarter relative
account
workers
employed
in the
“informal”
o the first quarter
of 2015.
The most
recent oil price
shocks
continue tomarket
have a large and
dverse impact
Kern County, as 4,033
about
1% of the total
(i.e.,onself-employed
laborfewer
andworkers
those represents
who work
outside
abor force.their county of residence). Finally, we adjusted quarterly
data for the effects of seasonal variations.
Labor Force - The civilian labor force decreased by
4,033 members from 397,200 in the fourth quarter of
2015 to 393,167 in the first quarter of 2016. Not all
gains over the past year have been erased, as 2,634 more
workers were available for work this quarter relative
6
2015.1
2015.2
Employment – In the first quarter of 2016, Kern County hired 10,200 fewer workers as
Employment
– Infrom
the359,800
first quarter
ofquarter
2016,
Kern
County
total
employment decreased
in the fourth
of 2015
to 349,600
in the
firsthired
quarter of10,200
2016. It appears,
however,
that
Kern
County
is
becoming
more
immune to
fewer workers as total employment
the full power of oil price shocks, as 2,367 more workers are working this quarter than in
from 359,800 in the fourth quarter of 2015 to
thedecreased
first quarter of 2015.
20.00%
10.00%
2015.1
Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | Tracking Kern's Economy
330000
Employment
310000
370000
290000
350000
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
330000
310000
290000
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
2016 First Quarter
City. No city in Kern County experienced a decrease in the unemployment rate. The largest
increase was experienced by McKittrick, which saw a 4.6-percentage point increase in the
unemployment rate. In Bakersfield, the rate of unemployment was 9.9 percent.
City. No city in Kern County experienced a decrease in the unemployment rate. The largest
Unemployment
increase was experienced by McKittrick,
whichRate
sawofa Cities
4.6-percentage point increase in the
Locationrate. In Bakersfield,
Unemployment
Location
Unemployment
Rate (%)
Unemployment – In the meantime, 6,200 more workers
unemployment
theRate
rate(%)of unemployment
was 9.9 percent.
Inyokern
were unemployed, as the number of jobless workers
Taft
Lamont
increased from 37,366 to 43,567. Unfortunately, it Location
Ridgecrest
appears –asIn if
reached
a recentashigh,
Unemployment
theunemployment
meantime, 6,200 morehas
Inyokern
workers
were unemployed,
the number
Tehachapi
of jobless
workers
increased
from 37,366
to 43,567. Unfortunately,
it appearsasasTaft
if Frazier Park
as 267
more
workers
are unemployed
this quarter,
Lamont
unemployment has reached a recent high, as 267 more workers are unemployed this
Rosamond
compared to the first quarter of 2016.
Ridgecrest
quarter, as compared to the first quarter of 2016.
5.2
Bakersfield
7.2
Arvin
Unemployment
Rate
of Cities
7.4
Unemployment
Rate (%)
7.5
Shafter
Unemployment
Rate (%)
14.2
5.2
8.5
7.2
8.6
7.4
9.2
Bakersfield
Wasco
Arvin
McFarland
Delano
Edwards
9.9
14.6
8.5
9.6
Wasco
California City
14.6
22.4
7.5
9.5
Tehachapi
Lake Isabella
Delano
Location
Oildale
9.9
12.9
13.2
12.9
17.1
13.2
19.0
Oildale
Mojave
14.2
19.8
Note:
City-level data are not adjusted
and “informal” market workers.
Frazier
Park
8.6 for seasonalityMcFarland
17.1
Unemployment Rate
Rosamond
9.2
Edwards
19.0
Farm
Employment
– In the first
2016,
Kernquarter
County hired
13,100
Farm
Employment
– In ofthe
first
of 2016,
Kernfarm
Shafter
9.5quarter
Mojave
19.8 fewer
workers. As a result, farm employment decreased from 62,500 to 49,400. Though this is
workers.
farm
LakeCounty
Isabella hired 13,1009.6fewer farmCalifornia
City As a result,
10.00%
the
cyclical
nature of farm employment, part of this may
stem from a 22.4
relative lack of
from
62,500
to
49,400.
Though
this
isbeing
Note:employment
City-level
datathe
aredecreased
not adjusted
for
seasonality
and
“informal”
market
workers.
precipitation
from
recent
El
Nino,
as
well
as
a
disappointing
amount
of
water
8.00%
anticipated
for farmers
this fiscal
year employment,
from the state. Conversely,
the farming
industry
the cyclical
nature
of farm
part of this
may stem
Unemployment – In the meantime, 6,200 more workers were unemployed, as the number
6.00% increased from 37,366 to 43,567. Unfortunately, it appears
hired
1,200 a
more
workers
this
quarter
thanoffour
quarters
Farm
Employment
– In the
first
quarter
2016,
Kernago.
County
hiredEl13,100
of jobless workers
as
if from
relative
lack
of
precipitation
from
the recent
Nino,fewer
as farm
unemployment
has reached a recent high, as 267 more workers are unemployed
this As a result, farm employment decreased from 62,500 to 49,400. Though this is
workers.
4.00%
well as a disappointing amount of water being anticipated for
quarter, as compared to the first quarter of 2016.
the cyclical nature of farm employment, part of this may stem from a relative lack of
12.00%
2.00%
0.00%
12.00%
10.00%
2015.1
Unemployment
Rate2016.1
2015.3
2015.4
2015.2
farmers
fiscalEl
year
from
the
state.
Conversely,amount
the farming
Farm
Employment
precipitation
from this
the recent
Nino,
as well
as a disappointing
of water being
75000
industry
hired
more
workers
quarterthethan
fourindustry
anticipated
for farmers
this 1,200
fiscal year
from
the state.this
Conversely,
farming
hired 1,200
more65000
workers
quarters
ago. this quarter than four quarters ago.
55000
8.00%
Unemployment6.00%
Rate – Kern County’s unemployment rate increased 1.7 percentage points
to 11.1Unemployment
percent. 4.00%
The county’s unemployment
rate County’s
was 11.1 percent
four quarters ago. Even
Rate – Kern
unemployment
though there are more unemployed compared to the first quarter of 2015, the
2.00%
rate increased
1.7 percentage
11.1
percent.
unemployment
rate
has not increased
since the firstpoints
quarter of to
2015,
highlighting
that jobs
0.00%
are being
even during
the oil price decline.
Thecreated
county’s
unemployment
rate was 11.1 percent four
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Farm Employment
45000
75000
35000
65000
25000
55000
15000
45000
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
quarters ago. Even though there are more unemployed
35000
compared to the first quarter
of 2015, the unemployment
Unemployment
Rate
Nonfarm Employment – Local nonfarm industries employed 3,633 fewer workers this
12.00%
quarter. Hence,
rate has Rate
not– increased
the first
quarter
of 2015,points
25000 the number of nonfarm workers decreased from 264,600 to 260,967.
Unemployment
Kern County’s since
unemployment
rate increased
1.7 percentage
Conversely, nonfarm industries hired 2,534 more workers than four quarters ago.
10.00%
to 11.1
percent.
The
county’s
unemployment
rate
was
11.1
percent
four
quarters
ago.
Even
highlighting that jobs are being created even during the
15000
though there are more unemployed compared to the first quarter of 2015, the
8.00%
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
oil price
decline.
unemployment
rate
has not increased since the first quarter of 2015, highlighting that jobs
are being created
even during the oil price decline.
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
12.00%
0.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
Unemployment Rate
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
Nonfarm Employment – Local nonfarm industries employed 3,633 fewer workers this
quarter. Hence, the number of nonfarm workers decreased from 264,600 to 260,967.
Conversely,
nonfarm industries
hired 2,534
more nonfarm
workers than
four quarters
ago.
Nonfarm
Employment
– Local
industries
employed
3,633 fewer workers this quarter. Hence, the number of nonfarm
workers decreased from 264,600 to 260,967. Conversely, nonfarm
industries hired 2,534 more workers than four quarters ago.
2016.1
4.00%
The rate of unemployment
varied considerably across cities. Among cities shown below,
2.00%
the unemployment rate varied between 5.2 percent in Inyokern to 22.4 percent in California
0.00%
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
The The
rate ofrate
unemployment
varied considerably
across considerably
cities. Among citiesacross
shown below,
of unemployment
varied
the unemployment rate varied between 5.2 percent in Inyokern to 22.4 percent in California
270000
Nonfarm Employment
260000
250000
cities. Among cities shown below, the unemployment
240000
rate varied between 5.2 percent in Inyokern to 22.4
percent in California City. No city in Kern County
230000
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
experienced a decrease in the unemployment rate.
The largest increase was experienced by McKittrick,
which saw a 4.6-percentage point increase in the
In Bakersfield, however, few nonfarm industries gained jobs: general merchandise stores,
unemployment rate. In Bakersfield, the rate of
information, department stores, financial activities, and hospitals. This hints that the
unemployment was 9.9 percent.
economy of Bakersfield continues to diversify in a number of ways that will make the city
less responsive to oil price shocks CSU,
in the Bakersfield
future. However,
due to the continued declines in
| www.csub.edu/kej
7
oil prices, jobs were lost in farming, oil and gas extraction, manufacturing, retail trade,
food and beverage stores, and service providing.
Kern Economic
270000 Journal
196000
Nonfarm Employment
192000
188000
260000
184000
180000
In Bakersfield,
however, few nonfarm industries gained jobs:
250000
Public-Sector 2015.1
Employment
– 2015.3
The public
sector2016.1
consists of
2015.2
2015.4
general merchandise stores, information, department stores,
federal, state, and local government agencies. The local government
financial
activities, and hospitals. This hints that the economy of
240000
labor market includes county and city agencies and public
Bakersfield continues to diversify in a number of ways that will
education.
In the first quarter of 2016, government agencies hired
Employment – The public sector consists of federal, state, and local
230000
make the
city less responsive to oil price shocks in the future. Public-Sector
867
fewer
workers
their
employment
fromcounty
63,867and
to city
government
agencies.
The as
local
government
labor decreased
market includes
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
However, due to2015.1
the continued
declines
in oil
prices, 2016.1
jobs were agencies
and public
education.
the first
quarter
of 2016, government
agencies
hired
63,000,
spurred
1,600Infewer
local
government
workers,
mainly
in 867
lost in farming, oil and gas extraction, manufacturing, retail trade, fewerthe
workers
as their sector.
employment
from 63,867
to 63,000,
1,600 fewer
education
Thisdecreased
one quarter
decrease
bucksspurred
the general
local government workers, mainly in the education sector. This one quarter decrease bucks
food and beverage stores, and service providing.
trendtrend
in Kern
County,
public
sector
employment
been In
the general
in Kern
County,where
where public
sector
employment
has beenhas
increasing.
In Bakersfield,
however, few nonfarm industries gained jobs: general merchandise stores,
In fact,
year-on-year,
there
beensince
an the
increase
of of
fact, increasing.
year-on-year, there
has been
an increase of
1,500has
workers
first quarter
information,
department
stores, financial- activities,
and employment
hospitals. This hints
that2015.
the
Informal
Employment
Informal
is the
1,500
workers
since
the
first
quarter
of
2015.
economy of Bakersfield continues to diversify in a number of ways that will make the city
differenceto between
totalinemployment
and industry
less responsive
oil price shocks
the future. However,
due to the employment.
continued declines in
It accounts
workers
and workers
employed
oil prices,
jobs werefor
lost self-employed
in farming, oil and
gas extraction,
manufacturing,
retail trade,
Public-Sector Employment
food outside
and beverage
and of
service
providing.
theirstores,
county
residence.
In the first quarter of 2016, the
65,000
number of informal workers increased by 6,533 from 32,700 to
Informal Employment - Informal employment is the difference between total
60,000
39,233.andConversely,
the informal
labor
hiredworkers
1,367 and
fewer
employment
industry employment.
It accounts
for sector
self-employed
workers
55,000
employed
outside
their
county of
residence.
the first
first quarter
of 2016,
the year.
number of
workers
this
quarter
relative
to Inthe
quarter
of last
informal
increased
by 6,533struggles
from 32,700
Conversely,
thehas
informal
Thisworkers
hints that
continued
in to
the39,233.
oil and
gas sector
50,000
labor sector hired 1,367 fewer workers this quarter relative to the first quarter of last year.
to working
formal to
This pushed
hints thatindividuals
continued struggles
in theinoiljobs
andthat
gas may
sectornot
has require
pushed individuals
45,000
reporting
of salaries.
working
in jobs that
may not require formal reporting of salaries.
42000
38000
34000
40,000
Informal Employment
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Housing Market
Housing Price - In the first quarter of 2016, Kern County’s
Housing Market
housing prices decreased dramatically by over $8,000, hinting
Housing Price
In the first away
quarter
ofthe
2016,
Kern
County’s
housing
decre
that- movements
from
county
or slowed
migration
to prices
the
county
depressing
housing
The median
sales
price
all or slo
dramatically by
overis$8,000,
hinting
thatsales.
movements
away
from
thefor
county
fell from $206,083
the fourth
2015 price fo
migration to residential
the countyunits
is depressing
housingin sales.
The quarter
medianofsales
30000
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
to $197,917
the firstinquarter
of 2016.
Overall,
however,
the in the
residential units
fell from in
$206,083
the fourth
quarter
of 2015
to $197,917
county’s
median
sales prices
are still median
$5,583 higher
(or 2.9 are
percent)
quarter of 2016.
Overall,
however,
the county’s
sales prices
still $5,583 hi
than
they
were
fourfour
quarters
ago.ago.
(or 2.9 percent)
than
they
were
quarters
Private-Sector Employment - Nonfarm employment is
comprised of private-sector employment and public-sector
employment. In the first quarter of 2016, private companies
Median Housing Price - Kern County
hired 2,767 fewer workers as their employment decreased from
Private-Sector
Employment
- Nonfarm employment
is comprised
of private-sector
200,733 to
197,967. Conversely,
the private sector
employed
1,034
200000
employment and public-sector employment. In the first quarter of 2016, private companies
more
workers
this
quarter
than
four
quarters
ago.
This
hints
at
hired 2,767 fewer workers as their employment decreased from 200,733 to 197,967.
180000
continued
diversification
(especially
retail)
in Kern
County
Conversely,
the private
sector employed
1,034 more
workers
this quarter
than four quarters
ago. This hints at continued diversification (especially retail) in Kern County.
204000
Private-Sector Employment
200000
160000
140000
120000
100000
196000
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
192000
188000
In Bakersfield, the median housing price depreciated $5,667 (or -2.57 percent) from t
In Bakersfield, the median housing price depreciated $5,667 (or
fourth quarter of 2015, as many oil field workers call Bakersfield home. Conversely,
-2.57 percent) from the fourth quarter of 2015, as many oil field
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
city’s median sales price has appreciated $5,667 (or 2.7 percent) since the first quarte
workers call Bakersfield home. Conversely, the city’s median
2015.
sales price has appreciated $5,667 (or 2.7 percent) since the first
quarter of 2015.
Public-Sector Employment – The public sector consists of federal, state, and local
Median Housing Price - Bakersfield
184000
180000
government agencies. The local government labor market includes county and city
agencies and public education. In the first quarter of 2016, government agencies hired 867
fewer workers
as Economic
their employment
decreased
from
spurred
1,600
fewer
Journal
| Volume
18,63,867
Issue to
1 63,000,
| Tracking
Kern's
Economy
8 Kern
local government workers, mainly in the education sector. This one quarter decrease bucks
the general trend in Kern County, where public sector employment has been increasing. In
220000
200000
akersfield, the median housing price depreciated $5,667 (or -2.57 percent) from the
h quarter of 2015, as many oil field workers call Bakersfield home. Conversely, the
s median sales price has appreciated $5,667 (or 2.7 percent) since the first quarter of
.
Median Housing Price - Bakersfield
Housing Sales - Bakersfield
2,500
220000
200000
2,000
2,500
1,500
2,000
1,000
1,500
180000
160000
140000
120000
2016 First Quarter
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Housing Sales - Bakersfield
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
New Building1,000
Permits – In the first quarter of 2016, Kern County issued 537 permit
of new
privately-owned
dwelling
county
issued
501 new buil
2015.1Permits
2015.2
2015.4
2016.1
New
Building
–In 2015.3
theunits.
first The
quarter
of 2016,
Kern
price varied
across theWithin
county.the
Within
the previous
four (2015
ing priceHousing
varied across
the county.
previous
fourconstruction
quarters
first
permits
last quarter
and
460 537
fourpermits
quartersfor
ago,construction
showing a modest
in new buil
County
issued
of newincrease
privatelyquarters
(2015 first
quarter sales
to 2016
first
quarter), the
median
er to 2016
first quarter),
the median
price
appreciated
in all
the major
cities of
permits
thatthe
likely
reflects
an economy
thatcounty
is no longer
singularly
dependent
on oil pr
owned
dwelling
units.
The
issued
501
new
building
sales price
appreciated
in all
the In
major
cities
of Kern
County
County except
California
City and
Taft.
dollar
value,
Ridgecrest
had
largest
New
Building
Permits –growth
In the first
quarter
ofspaces
2016, Kern
County
issued
537 permit
This
hints
that
continued
in
retail
store
may
be
on
the
horizon.
permits
quarter and 460
four quarters
ago,county
showing
a modest
except California City and Taft. In dollar value, Ridgecrest had
of new last
privately-owned
dwelling
units. The
issued
501 new buil
preciation of $34,500. The largest decrease, in dollar value, wasconstruction
found in California
increase
in
new
building
permits
that
likely
reflects
an
economy
the
largest
appreciation
of
$34,500.
The
largest
decrease,
in
dollar
permits last quarter and 460 four quarters ago, showing a modest increase in new buil
y, where median housing prices fell by $15,183.
that is reflects
no longer
dependent
on oil prices.
Thisdependent
hints that on oil pr
value, was found in California City, where median housing pricesthat likely
ansingularly
economy
that
is no longer
singularly
appreciation of $34,500. The largest decrease, in dollar value, was foundpermits
in California
New
Building
Permits
continued
growth
in
retail
store
spaces
may
be
on
the
horizon.
fell
by
$15,183.
City,
where medianMedian
housingPrice
prices fell
by $15,183.
Location
Median
Price
Price Change
% Price
Change
700
This
hints
that continued
growth in retail store spaces may be on the horizon.
Location
Kern County
Bakersfield
Kern County
California
City
Bakersfield
DelanoCalifornia City
Delano
Ridgecrest
Ridgecrest
Rosamond
Rosamond
Taft Taft
Tehachapi
Tehachapi
2016.1
Median Price
197,917
2016.1
214,667
197,917
92,833
214,667
175,000
92,833
175,000
160,500
160,500
175,000
175,000
115,750
115,750
221,167
221,167
2015.1
Median
Price
192,333
2015.1
209,000
192,333
108,017
209,000
169,917
108,017
169,917
126,000
126,000
172,333
172,333
116,667
116,667
198,583
198,583
2015.1 to 2016.1
Price Change
5,583
2015.1 to 2016.1
5,667
5,583
-15,183
5,667
5,083
-15,183
5,083
34,500
34,500
2,667
2,667
-917 -917
22,583
22,583
2015.1 to 2016.1
% Price Change 2.9
2015.1 to 2016.1
2.7
2.9
-14.1
2.7
3.0
-14.1
3.0
27.4
27.4
1.5
1.5
-0.8
-0.8
11.4
11.4
500
700
New Building Permits
300
500
Housing
Sales
In the
firstquarter
quarter of
of 2016,
depreciation
was accompanied
by a
100
using
Sales
– In –the
first
2016,price
price
was accompanied
by a
300
Housing
InKern
the fourth
ofdepreciation
2015,
modest
decrease inSales
sales. –In
County,quarter
161 fewer
homesprice
were depreciation
sold as total sales
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
dest decreased
decrease
in
sales.
In
Kern
County,
161
fewer
homes
were
sold
as
total
sales
2,757 to 2,596,
Kern County
still struggles
withIntheKern
drought
and the oil
wasfrom
accompanied
by as
a sizable
decrease
in sales.
County,
creased
to
2,596,
as Kern
County
still
struggles
with
the3,464
pricefrom
shock;
however,
the slowing
in housing
salesales
decrease
points that
most
ofdrought
the biggest
707 2,757
fewer
homes
were
sold
as
total
decreased
from
to and the oil
impactshowever,
may have the
already
been felt.
Comparedsale
to four
quarterspoints
ago, however,
174 more
ce shock;
slowing
in
housing
decrease
that
most
of the
biggest
100 Rate – In the first quarter of 2016, the interest rate on thirty2,757,
as This
Kern County’s
area, Bakersfield,
continues
Mortgage
Interest
sold.
thatfelt.
the largest
area
maymetro
be more
to oil shocks
than
commonly174
pactsunits
maywere
have
alreadyhints
been
Compared
to robust
four quarters
ago,
however,
more
2015.2 from
2015.3
2015.4to 3.74
2016.1
to struggle from oil price shocks. Compared to four quarters
ago,
conventional
mortgage2015.1
loans decreased
3.9 percent
percent, highligh
thought.
ts were sold. This hints that the area may be more robust to oil shocks than commonly
continued uncertainty as to how quickly the Federal Reserve will raise rates. Four qua
however, 22 more units were sold.
ught.
ago, the mortgage loan interest rate was 3.72 percent, highlighting that there is volat
Housing Sales - Kern County
Mortgage
Interest
Rate – In inthe
both upwards
and downwards,
thefirst
rate.quarter of 2016, the interest rate on thirtyconventional mortgage loans decreased from 3.9 percent to 3.74 percent, highligh
Housing Sales - Kern County continued uncertainty
Mortgage
Rate –the
In the
first quarter
of 2016,
the interest
3,500
asInterest
to how quickly
Federal
Reserve
will raise
rates. Four qua
rate
on
thirty-year
conventional
mortgage
loans
decreased
from
ago,
the
mortgage
loan
interest
rate
was
3.72
percent,
highlighting
that
there is volat
2,500
3.9
percent
to
3.74
percent,
highlighting
continued
uncertainty
as
both
upwards
and
downwards,
in
the
rate.
3,500
to
how
quickly
the
Federal
Reserve
will
raise
rates.
Four
quarters
1,500
ago, the mortgage loan interest rate was 3.72 percent, highlighting
2,500
500
that there is volatility, both upwards and downwards, in the rate.
1,500
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
In Bakersfield, sales of residential units decreased by only 18 units, from 1,838 in the fourth
quarter of 500
2015 to 1,820 in the first quarter of 2016. This means that nearly all of the
decrease in housing 2015.1
sales in Kern2015.2
County were2015.3
located outside
of Bakersfield.
2015.4
2016.1This hints
that the regional oil price shocks are now moving to more rural locations, as Bakersfield
residents may be less likely to purchase homes outside of the area.
Bakersfield, sales of residential units decreased by only 18 units, from 1,838 in the fourth
arter of 2015
to 1,820 insales
the first
quarter of units
2016.decreased
This means
In Bakersfield,
of residential
by that
onlynearly
18 all of the
crease in housing
sales
in
Kern
County
were
located
outside
of
Bakersfield.
units, from 1,838 in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 1,820 in the This hints
t the regional
oil priceofshocks
are now
moving
to more
rural
as Bakersfield
first quarter
2016. This
means
that nearly
all of
thelocations,
decrease in
idents may
be
less
likely
to
purchase
homes
outside
of
the
area.
housing sales in Kern County were located outside of Bakersfield.
This hints that the regional oil price shocks are now moving to
more rural locations, as Bakersfield residents may be less likely to
purchase homes outside of the area.
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
9
Mortgage Loan Interest Rate
5.00
4.00
Mortgage Loan Interest Rate
5.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
(2014.1
= 100)
Index
(2014.1
= 100)
IndexIndex
(2014.1
= 100)
Kern Economic Journal
120
120
100
120
100
Price Index of Leading Local Stocks
Price Index of Leading Local Stocks
Price Index of Leading Local Stocks
80
100
80
60
80
60
60
2015.1
2015.1
2015.2
2015.2
2015.3
2015.3
2015.4
2015.4
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
2016.1
2016.1
700
Notices of Mortgage Loan Default
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
0.00
Chevron
Corporation
U.S.: CVX gained $11.87 (or 13.2
Chevron
Corporation
U.S.: CVX gained $11.87 (or 13.2 percent) per share as its price
using Foreclosure 2015.1
Activity –Kern
foreclosure
ticked
up slightly
in
2015.2County’s
2015.3
2015.4activity
2016.1
percent)
per
share
as
its
price
from
$89.96
$101.83.
Chevron
U.S.:
CVX Relative
gainedincreased
$11.87
13.2
percent)
per
share
its down
price
County’s
foreclosure
Housing
Activity
– Kerndue
increased Corporation
from
$89.96 to
$101.83.
to the (or
first
quarter
ofto2015,
CVXas
was
first quarter
of 2016.Foreclosure
This slight increase
is likely
to increased
uncertainty
about
Relative
to
the
first
quarter
of
2015,
CVX
was
down
$3.15
(or
3.0
increased
from
$89.96
to
$101.83.
Relative
to
the
first
quarter
of
2015,
CVX
was
down
$3.15
(or
3.0
percent).
activity
ticked
up
slightly
in
the
first
quarter
of
2016.
This
slight
future of oil prices in the near-term, with mortgage institutions perhapsChevron
more willing
to
Corporation
U.S.: CVX gained $11.87 (or 13.2 percent) per share as its price
$3.15
(or
3.0
percent).
percent).
using
Foreclosure
–Kern
County’s
foreclosure
activity
ticked
slightly
in
increase
isActivity
likely
to
increased
uncertainty
about
future
t a foreclosure
process
withdue
oil
prices
not likely
to increase.
Thethe
number
ofofup
homeowners
increased
from $89.96
to $101.83. Relative to the first quarter of 2015, CVX was down
first quarter
ofof2016.
This
slight
ismortgage
likelybankers
dueinstitutions
to increased
uncertainty
oil prices
in default
the near-term,
with
perhaps
eiving
notices
loan
fromincrease
their
mortgage
increased
from
toabout
400,
$3.15378
(or 3.0
percent).
Chevron Corporation U.S.
future
of more
oil
prices
in the
near-term,
withnotices
mortgage
institutions
perhaps
more
willing
to
Chevron Corporation U.S.
140
willing
to start
process
oil
prices
notparts
likely
ch is still
well
below
highaofforeclosure
2,000
per with
year
in the
later
of last
decade
140
t a foreclosure
processThe
with
oil prices
not
likely
to increase.
number
of homeowners
08-2010).
thenumber
number
default
notices
is stillThe
26 units
than what
it
toConversely,
increase.
ofofhomeowners
receiving
notices
oflower
loan
Chevron Corporation U.S.
120
notices
of
loan default
from their
mortgage
bankers
increased
seiving
four quarters
ago.
default
from
their mortgage
bankers
increased
from
378 to from
400, 378 to 400,
140
120
ch is stillwhich
well below
the high
ofthe
2,000
year per
in the
later
parts
of last decade
100
is still well
below
highnotices
of 2,000per
notices
year
in the
later
120
100
08-2010).parts
Conversely,
the number
of default
notices is
26 units
lower than what
it
of last decade
(2008-2010).
Conversely,
thestill
number
of default
80
s four quarters
ago.
of Mortgage
Default
notices is still 26Notices
units lower
than what it Loan
was four
quarters ago.
100
80
60
80
60
2015.1
2015.1
2015.2
2015.2
2015.3
2015.3
2015.4
2015.4
2016.1
2016.1
60
Tejon Ranch Company:
TRC gained
$3.36 2015.3
(or 17.5 percent)
2015.1
2015.2
2015.4 per share
2016.1as its stock price
Tejon
Ranch
TRC
gained
$3.36
17.5was
percent)
per
share
as
its percent)
stock price
Tejon
Ranch
Company:
TRC(orTRC
gained
$3.36
17.5
percent)
increased
fromCompany:
$19.15
to $22.51.
Conversely,
down(or
$3.94
(or
14.9
increased
from
$19.15
to
$22.51.
Conversely,
TRC
was$19.15
down to
$3.94
(or 14.9 percent)
relative toper
the share
first
quarter
of 2015.
as
its
stock
price
increased
from
$22.51.
Tejon Ranch
Company:
gained $3.36 (or 17.5 percent) per share as its stock price
relative
to the first
quarter TRC
ofwas
2015.
down
$3.94 (or
relative
to the
500
300
increasedConversely,
from $19.15 TRC
to $22.51.
Conversely,
TRC14.9
waspercent)
down $3.94
(or 14.9
percent)
of 2015.
relative tofirst
the quarter
first quarter
of 2015.Tejon Ranch Company
35
Tejon Ranch Company
35
300
100
Tejon Ranch Company
30
35
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
30
25
30
25
100
20
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
ock Market
25
20
he first quarter of 2016, the composite price index (2014.1=100) of the five publically
15
20
ded companies doing business in Kern County increased 3.3 percentage points from15
the 2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
ock
Market
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
vious quarter, from 95.6 to 98.9. The index was 2.1 percentage points higher than that 2015.1
15
he
quarter
of Average
2016, the“close”
composite
price
index
(2014.1=100)
of themarket-movers:
five publically
ourfirst
quarters
ago,
prices
were
measured
for five local
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
700
500
Stock Market
ded
companies
business
in Ranch
Kern
increased
3.3Construction,
percentage
points
from
the
In thedoing
firstU.S.,
quarter
of 2016,
theCounty
composite
price
index
(2014.1=100)
evron
Corporation
Tejon
Company,
Granite
Wells
Fargo
vious quarter,
95.6
to 98.9.traded
The index
was 2.1
percentage
higher than that
of Sierra
thefrom
five
publically
companies
doing
businesspoints
in Kern
mpany,
and
Bancorp.
our quarters
ago, increased
Average “close”
prices were
five local
market-movers:
County
3.3 percentage
pointsmeasured
from the for
previous
quarter,
Granite Construction: GVA gained $1.86 (or 4.3 percent)
evron Corporation
Ranchwas
Company,
Granite
Construction,
Wells
from 95.6 U.S.,
to 98.9.Tejon
The index
2.1 percentage
points
higher
than
perFargo
share as its
stock
price$1.86
increased
from
$42.91per
to share
$44.77.
Granite Construction:
GVA
gained
(or 4.3
percent)
as its stock price
mpany, and
Sierra
Bancorp.
that
of four
quarters ago, Average “close” prices were measured
Likewise,
GVA
has
increased
$9.63
(or
27.4
percent)
since the
increased from $42.91 to $44.77. Likewise, GVA has increased $9.63
(or 27.4 percent
for five local market-movers: Chevron Corporation U.S.,since
Tejon
first
quarter
2015.
the first
quarter
of of
2015.
Ranch Company, Granite Construction, Wells Fargo Company,
and Sierra Bancorp.
Granite Construction
60
Dollars
40
20
0
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Wells Economy
Fargo Company: WFC lost $4.08 (or 7.5 percent) per share as its stock price
10 Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | Tracking Kern's
decreased from $54.36 to $50.28. Relative to one year ago, WFC was down $4.12 (or 7
percent).
Cost
of Living – In the first quarter of 2016, the Consumer Price Index for all urb
Inflation
(1982-84
= 100)–increased
237.24
237.39. AsPrice
a result,
inflation
for
Cost of Living
In the firstslightly
quarterfrom
of 2016,
thetoConsumer
Index
for all urb
2016
Firstliving
Quarter
of
living increased
at an annual
rate
of 0.24
percent.
The As
cost
inflation
(1982-84
= 100) increased
slightly
from
237.24
to 237.39.
a of
result,
inflation
for
20
-1.8living
percent
last quarter
-1.35
percent
a year
ago. The cost of living inflation
40
of
increased
at anand
annual
rate
of 0.24
percent.
-1.8 percent last quarter and -1.35 percent a year ago.
0
20
2015.1
2015.2WFC
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Wells
Fargo
Company:
lost $4.08
(or 7.5
Cost of Living Inflation Rate
percent)
per
share
as
its
stock
price
decreased
from
4.00
Cost of Living Inflation Rate
0
ells Fargo$54.36
Company:
WFC lost
$4.08 (or
7.5
percent)
per share
as was
its stock price
to2015.1
$50.28.
Relative
to2015.3
one
year
ago,
WFC
4.00
2015.2
2015.4
2016.1
Granite Construction
Dollars Dollars
40
60
Percentage
Percentage
creased from $54.36 to $50.28. Relative to one year ago, WFC was down $4.12 (or 7.6
rcent). down $4.12 (or 7.6 percent).
2.00
ells Fargo Company: WFC lost $4.08 (or 7.5 percent) per share as its stock price
creased from $54.36 to $50.28. Relative to one year ago, WFC was down $4.12 (or 7.62.00
Wells Fargo Company
rcent).
58
0.00
Percentage
Percentage
Sierra Bancorp
15
20
10
15
5
10
5
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Inflation
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
-4.00
-4.00
-8.00
-8.00
-12.00
-12.00
-16.00
-16.00
-20.00
-20.00
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
Cost of Employment - The Employment Cost Index (December 2005 = 100
Cost
of -Employment
Employment
Cost
Index
civilian
increased
fromEmployment
125.2 -toThe
126.0.
a result,
the cost of
employme
Cost of workers
Employment
The
CostAsIndex
(December
2005
= 100
(December
2005
=
100)
for
all
civilian
workers
increased
from
at an annual
rate increased
of 2.56 percent.
The cost
of employment
was 2.25
civilian
workers
from 125.2
to 126.0.
As a result,inflation
the costrate
of employme
125.2percent
to 126.0.four
As aquarters
result, the cost of employment grew at an
lastanquarter
at
annualand
rate2.28
of 2.56 percent.
The costago.
of employment inflation rate was 2.25
annual rate of 2.56 percent. The cost of employment inflation
last quarter and 2.28
percent
four quarters
ago.and 2.28 percent four
rate was
2.25 percent
last quarter
Cost of Living – In the first quarter of 2016, the
Consumer Price Index for all urban areas (1982-84
= 100) increased slightly from 237.24 to 237.39. As a
result, inflation for the cost of living increased at an
annual rate of 0.24 percent. The cost of living inflation
rate was -1.8 percent last quarter and -1.35 percent a
year ago.
quarters ago.
4.00
Percentage
Dollars Dollars
Dollars Dollars
56
0.00
Wells Fargo Company
54
58
52
-2.00
56
50
-2.00 2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
54
48
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
52
46
50
of Production
The Producer
Index
allforcommodities
(198
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4 Cost
2016.1
Cost of– Production
– ThePrice
Producer
Pricefor
Index
all
48
decreased
from 185.8
to
As
a result,
the Index
cost
production
fell at an annua
commodities
(1982
=100)
decreased
fromof
185.8
to
Cost
of Production
– 182.13.
The
Producer
Price
for
all182.13.
commodities
(198
46
As
a
result,
the
cost
of
production
fell
at
an
annual
rate
of
7.89
percent.
The
cost
of
production
inflation
rate
was
-12.45
percent
last
quarter
a
from 185.8 to 182.13. As a result, the cost of production fell at an annua
erra Bancorp: BSRR
gained $0.07
(or 0.42015.3
percent) per
sharedecreased
as its
price increased
2015.1
2015.2
2015.4
2016.1
7.89
percent.
The
cost
of
production
inflation
rate
was
-12.45
percent
four
quarters
ago.
7.89
percent.
m $17.65Sierra
to $17.72.
Similarly,BSRR
BSRRgained
has gained
$1.02
6.1
percent)
sinceThe
the cost
first of production inflation rate was -12.45 percent last quarter a
Bancorp:
$0.07
(or(or0.4
percent)
percent
last quarter and -18.3 percent four quarters ago.
arter of 2015.
percent
four
quarters
ago.
per share
its price
fromper
$17.65
toits$17.72.
erra Bancorp:
BSRRas
gained
$0.07increased
(or 0.4 percent)
share as
price increased
Cost of Producing Inflation Rate
BSRR has
gained
$1.02 (or
6.1
since
m $17.65Similarly,
to $17.72. Similarly,
BSRR
has gained
$1.02
(orpercent)
6.1 percent)
since the first
Sierra
Bancorp
arter of 2015.
Cost of Producing Inflation Rate
the20first quarter of 2015.
Cost of Employment Inflation Rate
2.00
0.00
-2.00
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
Commodity Prices
11
Kern Economic Journal
120
Commodity Prices
115
Price of Gasoline - In the Bakersfield metropolitan area, the
2011=100 2011=100
average retail price of regular gasoline increased $0.25 per gallon
from $2.55 to $2.80. Compared with the first quarter of last year,
the average gasoline price was down $0.13.
Price of Milk in California
$25
$25
$20
$20
Dollars
Dollars
Price of Milk in California
$15.73
$15.73
$16.14
$16.14
$15
$15.03
120
Index of Farm Prices Paid
Index of Farm Prices Paid
110
115
105
110
100
105
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
$15.03
We measure the Index of Farm Price Parity as the ratio Index of Prices Received
$16.24
$15
$15.25
Index of Prices Paid. 100
In the first quarter of 2016, the gap between prices paid and
$16.24
$10
2015.2
2015.4
2016.1
$15.25 received remained stagnant, 2015.1
after falling
since2015.3
the second
quarter
of 2015, as the In
$10
Farm Price Parity remained unchanged at 85.7 percent. This hints that any increa
$5
prices
receivedMeanwhile,
by
farmers
has
been
wholly
by
increased
farmers.
We
Index
ofthe
Farm
PriceIndex
Parity
as
the Paid
ratio
ofcosts
Prices
national
of offset
Prices
byIndex
Farmers
for forReceived
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1measure the
quarters
ago,
the
price
ratio
was
91
percent,
meaning
that
conditions
for
farmers
co
Index
of
Prices
Paid.
In
the
first
quarter
of
2016,
the
gap
between
prices
paid
and
commodities, services, interest, taxes, wages, and rents increased
$5
to
worsen,
as
the
amount
of
money
they
receive
for
their
products
falls
faster
th
received
remained
stagnant,
after
falling
since
the
second
quarter
of
2015,
as
the
In
slightly by 1.2 point to reach 106.9. The index was 109.3 four
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
Farm Prices – In the first quarter of 2016, the national Index of decline
Prices
Received
by
in
what
they
pay
for
services.
remained
quarters
ago. unchanged at 85.7 percent. This hints that any increa
Price of Milk – The unit price of California’s Class IIIFarm
milk Price Parity
Farmers for all farm products (2011 = 100) increased 1.3 points from 90.3 to 91.6. The
prices
received
by
farmers
has been wholly offset by increased costs for farmers.
continued
to
decrease,
falling
$0.22
(or
1.5
percent)
from
index was 99.3 four quarters ago.
quarters
ago,
the
price
ratio
percent,
meaning
conditions for farmers co
$15.25
to
$15.03.
Noticeably,
the
price
was
to
a
low
of
$14.28
Index
of Farm
Pricethat
Parity
Prices – In the first quarter of 2016, the national Index of Prices Received by was 91
to
worsen,
as
the
amount
of
money
they
receive
for
their
products falls faster th
in
February
and
March,
but
was
buoyed
by
a
price
of
$16.52
in
100%
rs for all farm products (2011
=of 100)
increased
1.3 points from 90.3 to 91.6. The
Index
Farm
Prices
Received
decline
in
what
they
pay
for
services.
January.
Even
more
noticeably,
the
price
is
down
since
the
first
was 99.3 four quarters ago.
quarter of last
110 year, falling by $0.70 (or 4.5 percent).
2011=100
110
100
80%
100%
Index of Farm Prices Received
95
105
90
100
85
2011=100
2011=100
2011=100
105
90%
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
Index of Farm Price Parity
70%
90%
60%
80%
50%
70%
2015.1
2015.2
2015.3
2015.4
2016.1
60%
95
We measure the Index of Farm Price Parity as the ratio Index of
Meanwhile, the national Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for commodities, services,
1 Source - OnlinePrices
Received
to the Index of Prices
Paid. In the first quarter
of economa
50%
labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov,
bakersfieldgasprices.com,
dqnews.com,
interest, taxes, 90
wages, and rents increased slightly by 1.2 point to reach 106.9. The index databases:
bea.gov, bls.com, gpoaccess.gov,
dairy.nu,
census.gov,
and bry.com
2015.1msn.com,
2015.2
2016.1
2016, the gap
between
prices
paid 2015.3
andkerndata.com,
prices2015.4
received
remained
was 109.3 four quarters ago.
stagnant, after falling since the second quarter of 2015, as the
85
Index of Farm Price Parity remained unchanged at 85.7 percent.
2015.1 2015.2 2015.3 2015.4 2016.1
hints that any increases in prices received by farmers has
1 Source - OnlineThis
databases: labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov, bakersfieldgasprices.com, dqnews.com, economa
been whollydairy.nu,
offset by
increased
costs for
farmers. and
Four
quarters
bea.gov, bls.com, gpoaccess.gov,
msn.com,
census.gov,
kerndata.com,
bry.com
ago,
the
price
ratio
was
91
percent,
meaning
that
conditions
for
Prices
first quarter
2016, thefor
national
Index services,
while, theFarm
national
Index–In
ofthe
Prices
Paid byofFarmers
commodities,
farmers
continue
to
worsen,
as
the
amount
of
money
they
receive
of Pricesand
Received
by Farmersslightly
for all farm
products
= 100)
t, taxes, wages,
rents increased
by 1.2
point(2011
to reach
106.9. The
index
for their
products falls faster than the decline in what they pay
increased
1.3
points
from
90.3
to
91.6.
The
index
was
99.3
four
9.3 four quarters ago.
for
services.
quarters ago.
(Endnotes)
1
Source - Online databases: labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov,
bakersfieldgasprices.com, dqnews.com, economagic.com, bea.gov, bls.com,
gpoaccess.gov, dairy.nu, msn.com, census.gov, kerndata.com, and bry.com
12 Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | Tracking Kern's Economy
2016 First Quarter
A Note on Kern County Healthcare
Dr. Richard Gearhart
Lamentably, Kern County often ranks as one of the poorest providers of healthcare in the country. The University of Wisconsin Population
Health Institute (UWIPHI) has ranked Kern County, in terms of health outputs (what our health conditions look like) and health inputs
(the healthcare providers and resources available to consumers) as some of the worst in California. In fact, Kern County ranks 52nd in
outcomes and 57th (or dead last) in health inputs. This highlights some rather disturbing trends. Not only is our population in ill health,
but the county does not have the healthcare resources to alleviate these issues.
However, the UWIPHI rankings suffer from a number of issues; key among them that the weights attached to different health
outcomes and different health inputs are selected, rather than data-driven, and suffer from arbitrary, subjective norms. A second, larger,
issue, is that the outcomes in health for a county’s population depend directly on the inputs for care. Or, in other words, if there are not
enough healthcare providers, or if the population undertakes actions that are behaviorally detrimental (smoking, obesity, poor eating
habits), or if there are socioeconomic factors (poverty) that play a role in health outcomes, it is only natural that health outcomes are
worse than in other counties. Let’s take a quick look at the data. In Table 1 below, we look at some common health inputs across counties
in California.
Table 1: Differences in Healthcare Inputs Across California and Selected Counties, 2015
Kern
County
Average
Fresno
County
Average
California
Average
%
Difference
Between
Kern
County
and CA
% Adult
Smokers
# of
Citizens
per PCP
% Some
College
44.84
% that
are
Physically
Inactive
21.90
%
Children
in
Poverty
30.50
# of
Citizens
per
Nurse
202.39
16.00
2,014.5
13.90
% Food
Insecure
% with
Unclean
Water
17.10
13.18
1,561.5
51.12
18.30
42.00
164.56
14.97
1,461.6
58.84
17.12
23.57
153.17
16.02
7.45
6.9%
HIGHER
37.8%
HIGHER
23.79%
LOWER
27.9%
HIGHER
29.4%
HIGHER
32.2%
HIGHER
6.74%
HIGHER
76.91%
HIGHER
3.44
So, perhaps, many of the health outcomes that are poorer in Kern County than elsewhere in California are directly linked to the fact
that healthcare inputs in Kern County are significantly worse than anywhere else. In fact, it appears that socio-economic and behavioral
factors are driving many of the differences in health outcomes between Kern County and other, more affluent, counties in California.
This hints at another way of looking at these data and the outcomes that we see in Kern County. Even though there are significantly
fewer healthcare providers in Kern County than elsewhere, they are doing yeoman’s work in limiting the harm that we, ourselves, are
placing on the healthcare system. In fact, the healthcare providers in Kern County start their treatment fighting an uphill battle.
Even though we have significantly fewer healthcare providers (both PCP’s and nurses) in Kern County, our health outcomes rival
those of Fresno County (and in many cases, such as infant and child mortality rates, are lower). Again, this highlights the tremendous jobs
that our healthcare providers are doing in fighting a battle that they are losing when they first see the patient. From sedentary lifestyles
to shift-work that often encourages poor consumption behavior (energy drinks, fast food), Kern County has a number of hurdles. But
simple glances at health outcomes is not one of them.
The University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute's County Health
Rankings are found at http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/california/2016/
overview.
1
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
13
Kern Economic Journal
The Impacts of the Minimum Wage Increase
in Kern County
Dr. Richard Gearhart
Assistant Professor of Economics
By 2018, the new minimum wage in California will be $11, a 10-percent increase in the current rate. By
2022, it will be $15 the highest in the country at the state level. Though there have been city-specific minimum
wage increases beyond the federal and state level, a large state-wide increase in the minimum wage bears inquiry,
as the benefits and costs are likely to be felt differently by counties.
There is much debate about the extent to which a minimum wage reduces employment, if it does at all.
Several studies have found that that the minimum wage increasing has no discernible impact on employment,
even for teens. Though this may seem counter-intuitive, the small costs of increasing wage payments to these
workers may be outweighed by the potentially large costs (to both the employer and to employee morale) of
firing and recruiting new workers. There is also the notion of an “efficiency wage”; that workers tend to work
harder the more that they are paid, which offsets the wage increase. There is evidence of this at franchise-owned
fast-food restaurants.
Where sizable negative impacts of a minimum wage may be felt are on non-wage benefits provided to
workers. Health insurance benefits, reduced-price meals, and training are some ways that employers may offset a
higher minimum wage. There is evidence that this has happened at San Francisco. There is also evidence of price
increases for consumers. In San Francisco, the minimum wage increases have led to an almost 3-percent increase
in food prices. This means that about a third of the minimum wage increases were passed onto consumers.
These are the potentially hidden impacts of a minimum wage; many people wrongly assume that income
is the wages that you are paid. In fact, as the state of California points out repeatedly, the household of an income
should include the value of non-wage benefits. Decreased real purchasing power and reductions in what many
households consider essentials (health insurance) have an impact on the economic viability of a household unit.
While a shift towards a higher wage income may seem desirable, oftentimes these income increases are met by
increased expenditures on what may have been workplace benefits.
One of the biggest pitfalls of a minimum wage, however, is that it cannot be targeted solely to those in
poverty. Only 58-percent of minimum wage earners have a family income that is about $36,000 for a California
family. Many times, a minimum wage earner in a family is a secondary source of income for the family or
14 Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | The Impacts of the Minimum Wage Increase in Kern County
2016 First Quarter
income earned by a teenager. Only half of minimum wage earners work full time, and 80-percent of minimum
wage earners work more than 20 hours per week. Unlike an earned income tax credit (EITC) or negative income
tax (NIT), which can be targeted to individuals based on family income, this limits the effectiveness of the
minimum wage. Although it cannot be perfectly targeted to individuals in poverty, studies have found that the
minimum wage does have a positive impact on food security for low income households. Certain studies have
found that a 10-percent increase in the minimum wage has reduced Food Stamp expenditures by 1.9-percent,
while also decreasing enrollment by about 3-percent. This is important; food insecurity can lead to higher
lifetime healthcare costs, so individuals moving off of Food Stamp programs is an encouraging sign.
What may be the impact of a rise of the minimum wage in Kern County? Prices in San Francisco are
about 23-percent higher than prices in Bakersfield. This means that the soon to be $13.00 minimum wage in
San Francisco feels like a wage of $16.01 in Bakersfield. A $15 minimum wage in San Francisco feels like a wage
of $18.47 in Bakersfield. The importance of this is that the impact of the minimum wage will be much higher in
Bakersfield than elsewhere in California, where median wages are at (or higher than) $15.00 an hour.
The state of California has estimated that that about 32-percent of Californians will be directly affected
by the minimum wage increases; the number is likely much higher in Kern County. In Bakersfield, the median
hourly wage is $16.15, while the 25th percentile wage is $9.84. This implies that more than 40-percent of the
workforce in Kern County currently earns less than the anticipated minimum wage; it is 25-percent in San
Francisco. This means that the employment impacts of a minimum wage increase in Kern County are going to
be much more substantial. In fact, it is probable that the increase in the minimum wage to $15 will reduce the
number of jobs, in Kern County, by about 5-percent, meaning that about 14,000 jobs will be lost by 2022. The
occupations that will be the hardest hit are detailed on the next page.
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
15
Kern Economic Journal
percent, meaning that about 14,000 jobs will be lost by 2022. The occupations that will
be the hardest hit are detailed below:
Occupation
Bakersfield (All
Occupations)
Healthcare Support
Occupations
Security Guards
Cooks
Food Preparation
Workers and Servers
Janitors and Cleaners
Maids and Housekeepers
Landscaping and
Groundskeeping
Workers
Childcare Workers
Sales
Office and
Administrative Support
Farming, Forestry, and
Fishing
Transportation and
Material Moving
Occupations
Employment
(2015)
25th
Percentile
Wage
50th Percentile
(Median)
Wage
75th
Percentile
Wage
259,860
9.84
16.15
28.07
6,350
10.49
12.60
16.02
1,590
4,480
9.16
10.02
10.93
11.44
14.97
13.76
6,570
8.72
9.13
9.58
3,070
1,440
9.57
8.85
11.68
9.38
16.05
10.87
1,390
11.56
13.61
15.94
1,260
23,760
9.34
9.60
10.65
12.23
12.26
20.67
35,850
12.11
16.12
20.74
43,030
8.69
9.13
9.64
22,360
9.73
14.94
21.30
In fact, it is likely that 133,000 workers will be directly affected by the minimum wage
In fact, it is likely that 133,000 workers will be directly affected by the minimum wage increase by 2022. This
increase
by 2022.
This does
notworkers
include
the indirect
effects;
workers
earning
more
thanpay
does not include
the indirect
effects;
earning
more than
$15.00 who
will see
an increase
in their
to offset higher
costssee
theyan
face
as consumers.
Thispay
means
that people
receiving
to face
$20 anashour
now may
$15.00
who will
increase
in their
to offset
higher
costs $15
they
consumers.
see an increase in their wages, though certainly less than the percentage increase in the minimum wage.
This means that people receiving $15 to $20 an hour now may see an increase in their
wages, though certainly less than the percentage increase in the minimum wage.
16 Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | The Impacts of the Minimum Wage Increase in Kern
2016 First Quarter
Featured Article: Economic
Fiscal Impacts: CSUB
andEconomic
FiscalandImpacts:
Abbas P. Grammy
Professor of Economics
California State University, Bakersfield
Abbas
P. Grammy
This study is an update and upgrade of the
economic
impact analysis conducted eleven years ago. The
Professor
of the
Economics
study is an update and upgrade as (1) we have
analyzed
most recent financial and enrollment data, (2) we
have included community engagement and visitor spending to the list of university contributions, and (3) we have
measured theThis
fiscal
impact
university
and
construction
outlays.
Inconducted
addition, we
have applied the
study
is anofupdate
and expenditures
upgrade of the
economic
impact
analysis
eleven
Input-Output
Multipliers
of study
Kern County
to a state-of-the-art
program,
IMPLAN
Pro,
to trace out the
years
ago. The
is an update
and upgrade ascomputer
(1) we have
analyzed
the most
recent
university’s impacts
throughout
the
economy.
financial and enrollment data, (2) we have included community engagement and visitor
spending to the list of university contributions, and (3) we have measured the fiscal
impact of university expenditures and construction outlays. In addition, we have
applied the Input-Output Multipliers of Kern County to a state-of-the-art computer
Highlights program, IMPLAN Pro, to trace out the university’s impacts throughout the economy.
•
CSUB has a $1.6 billion impact on Kern County’s economy, more than twice that of the previous impact study.Highlights
•
CSUB’s
consists
$505 million
and $1,125
million
in economic
ü impact
CSUB has
a $1.6ofbillion
impact in
onlocal
Kernexpenditures
County’s economy,
more
than twice
that of enhancement.
the previous impact study.
•
CSUB
$68 million
in tax
for federal,
and localand
governments.
ügenerates
CSUB’s impact
consists
of revenues
$505 million
in local state
expenditures
$1,125 million in
•
CSUB’s economic
impact
helps
create
5,560
jobs
in
Kern
County.
economic enhancement.
•
CSUB
increase
the earning
power
of its
graduates
$242 million.
ühelps
CSUB
generates
$68 million
in tax
revenues
forbyfederal,
state and local governments.
•
CSUB
helps
improve
labor
productivity
by
$861
million.
ü CSUB’s economic impact helps create 5,560 jobs in Kern County.
•
Eachü
$1.00
of CSUB’s
local expenditures
total output.
CSUB
helps increase
the earningcreates
power$4.96
of itsin
graduates
by $242 million.
•
Eachü
$1.00
of CSUB’s
local expenditures
generates
in million.
tax revenues.
CSUB
helps improve
labor productivity
by21¢
$861
ü Each $1.00 of CSUB’s local expenditures creates $4.96 in total output.
ü Each $1.00 of CSUB’s local expenditures generates 21¢ in tax revenues.
Economic Impact of CSUB
1%
31%
53%
15%
Total Spending
Enhanced Earnings
Increased Productivity
Outreach Activity
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
17
Kern Economic Journal
Components of CSUB Economic Impact
In Millions of Dollars
$1,700
$1,300
$1,630
$900
$500
$100
$505
$1,125
Local Expenditures
Economic
Enhancements
Economic Impact
Change in CSUB Economic Impact
In Millions of Dollars
$1,700
$1,300
$900
$500
$100
$441
1994-1995
$884
2004-2005
$1,630
2014-2015
Economic and
Fiscal Impacts
Economic
and Fiscal Impacts
California State University, Bakersfield, a comprehensive regional institution of higher
California State University, Bakersfield, a comprehensive regional institution of higher education, exerts a
exerts
a $1.6 of
billion
on CSUB
the economy
of KerninCounty.
$1.6 billion education,
impact on the
economy
Kernimpact
County.
expenditures
the localCSUB
economy occur in various
expenditures
in
the
local
economy
occur
in
various
forms:
operating
expenses,
forms: operating expenses, construction outlays, student spending, visitor spending, and retirement spending.
construction
outlays,
student
spending,
visitor
spending,
retirement spending.
Local expenditures
of $328.4
million
expands
to $505.3
in total
outputand
impact.
Local expenditures of $328.4 million expands to $505.3 in total output impact.
In addition
to local
expenditures,
CSUB
contributes
$1.1
billion
to to
thethe
local
economy
in in
a less
In addition
to local
expenditures,
CSUB
contributes
$1.1
billion
local
economy
a obvious,
yet equally less
important,
As aimportant,
comprehensive
regional
university, CSUB
helps improve
quality of life in
obvious,manner.
yet equally
manner.
As a comprehensive
regional
university,
the community.
The university
also supplies
educated
workforce
to fill high-paying
jobs,
CSUB helps
improve quality
of life inanthe
community.
The university
also supplies
anthus increasing
2
18 Kern Economic Journal | Volume 18, Issue 1 | Economic and Fiscal Impacts:
2016 First Quarter
the earnings power of its graduates. Furthermore, presence of the university increases the levels of educational
educated
workforce tooffillthe
high-paying
jobs, The
thusreason
increasing
theintangible
earnings power
its knowledge and
attainment and
labor productivity
city and region.
for this
effect isofthat
Furthermore,
presence ofwhen
the university
increases
the levels
educational
expertise aregraduates.
more easily
and readily transferred
educated workers
interact
withof
each
other, hence increasing
attainment
and
labor
productivity
of
the
city
and
region.
The
reason
for
this
intangible
productivity in the workplace.
educated
workforce
to filland
high-paying
thus easily
increasing
the earnings
powerwhen
of its
effect is that
knowledge
expertise jobs,
are more
and readily
transferred
graduates.
Furthermore,
presence
of other,
the university
increases productivity
the levels of in
educational
educated workers
interact
with each
hence increasing
the
attainment
and
labor
productivity
of
the
city
and
region.
The
reason
for
this
intangible
workplace.
effect is that knowledge and expertise are more easily and readily transferred when
Impacts
CSUB productivity in the
educated workers interact withEconomic
each other,
henceof
increasing
Direct Effect
Total Effect
workplace.
Operating Expenses
$142,652,000
Student Spending
Operating
Expenses
Visitor Spending
Construction
Outlays
Retirement Spending
Direct Effect
$108,546,933
$142,652,000
$1,136,565
$221,928,831
Economic Impacts$49,085,002
of CSUB
Construction Outlays
$72,005,035
Total Effect
$168,870,355
$221,928,831
$1,677,301
$72,005,035
$40,872,508
$49,085,002
$27,067,886
$108,546,933
$328,488,386
$1,136,565
Student
Subtotal:Spending
Local Expenditures
Visitor
Spending
Community Engagement
Retirement
Spending
Earnings Enhancement
Subtotal:
Local
Expenditures
Productivity
Improvement
$168,870,355
$505,354,030
$1,677,301
$21,471,297
$27,067,886
$328,488,386
Community
Engagement
Subtotal: Economic
Enhancements
Earnings
Enhancement
Total
$40,872,508
$242,358,307
$505,354,030
$861,404,292
$21,471,297
$1,125,233,896
$242,358,307
$1,630,587,926
Productivity Improvement
$861,404,292
The university’s
localEconomic
expenditures
generate $68.2 million in tax$1,125,233,896
revenues. State and
Subtotal:
Enhancements
local governments
government
Total collect $25.8 million (38 percent) and the federal
$1,630,587,926
gathers $42.4 million (62 percent).
TheThe
university’s
locallocal
expenditures
generate
$68.2$68.2
million
in tax
revenues.
StateState
and and
local governments
university’s
expenditures
generate
million
in tax
revenues.
collect $25.8local
million
(38 percent)
and $25.8
the federal
government
$42.4
million
(62 percent).
governments
collect
million
(38 percent)
and the
federal
government
Fiscal
Impacts
ofgathers
CSUB
gathers $42.4 million (62 percent).State & Local Tax
Federal Tax
Total Tax
Operating Expenses
$11,851,128
$17,441,038
$29,292,166
Student Spending
Operating Expenses
Visitor Spending
Construction Outlays
Retirement Spending
Student Spending
Total
Visitor Spending
$2,511,703
State & Local Tax
$9,017,773
$11,851,128
$124,904
$2,511,703
$2,265,433
$9,017,773
$25,770,941
$124,904
$4,704,347
Federal Tax
$13,271,256
$17,441,038
$134,574
$4,704,347
$6,879,325
$13,271,256
$42,430,540
$134,574
$7,216,050
Total Tax
$22,289,029
$29,292,166
$259,478
$7,216,050
$9,144,758
$22,289,029
$68,201,481
$259,478
Retirement Spending
$2,265,433
$6,879,325
$9,144,758
Construction Outlays
Fiscal Impacts of CSUB
For the complete study see:
Total
$25,770,941
$42,430,540
$68,201,481
http://www.csub.edu/bpa/_files/CSUB%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20ImpactFinal%203-2016.pdf
For the complete study see:
For http://www.csub.edu/bpa/_files/CSUB%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impactthe complete study see: http://www.csub.edu/bpa/_files/CSUB%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20
Final%203-2016.pdf
Impact-Final%203-2016.pdf
3
CSU, Bakersfield | www.csub.edu/kej
19
Kern Economic Journal
KERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL is a quarterly publication of California State University, Bakersfield. It’s purpose is to track local trends and analyze
regional, national, and global issues that affect the well-being of Kern County. The journal provides useful information and data that can help the
community
make informed economic decisions. Please visit http://www.csub.edu/kej for more information.
20