[ChrisA70]

It was on the news about 3 weeks ago, an all time high rate. On 3 channels too, not only fox4 news. 8.2% is the highest ever. Florida is #38 on the list, which is at the bad end. MA is #23. SD is the lowest. Of course there is about no one there!

I'm using the natonal unemployment percentages on the goverment website reported by the states. Much more recent data. From September 2008.

I'm not going to argue. It's bad everywhere. I just saw a lot of bad things happening in FL for the last 2 years, and it was time to get out. Good luck to you in your move there.

Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder

A claim that a higher percentage of documented people in an area are receiving unemployment would be easy enough to make (although exactly what it means, especially in terms of job markets, isn't so straightforward), but what are you using for a source?

Right here on City-Data, it says that Lee County's unemployment rate in September 2007 (I didn't see data more recent than that on this site) was 5.2%.

I don't know where in Western Massachusetts you're comparing it to (I just remember seeing you say that you were heading to Western Massachusetts), but I'll just use Hampden County, since Springfield is there. Again according to City-Data, the unemployment rate for Hampden County for September 2007 was 5.4% -- 0.2% higher than Lee County.

But maybe you were using some other source, and with more recent data? I'm not sure how City-Data gets their information anyway.

[ChrisA70]

Originally Posted by TANaples

was only 40 years younger than Florida's statehood. Sorry, but Florida did not play a pivotal role in the founding of this country. That is what I am talking about. But then, I guess, there are many who would have happy if it DIDN'T. It could be it's own country now.

Is that what this is all about? Sorry, I won't play that game.

I wish all of you Florida lovers would just go on the other threads and leave the rest of us alone to "our own" thread.

As you can see TANaples, it will never happen, they are relentless at arguing, a few more than others.

Florida has the oldest city, but MA has a ton more history, and where is lady Liberty??? Yes in NY. Immigrants came to see her in NY, not at the keys....LOL.

[Rachael84]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Chicago's got better pizza. There's nothing to NY-style pizza. At least after eating Chicago's, you're full.

I found it disgusting. We've got garlic knots and zeppolis to help fill us up Chicago pizzerias are nothing compared to NY's.

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by BacktoMA4good

As you can see TANaples, it will never happen, they are relentless at arguing, a few more than others.

Florida has the oldest city, but MA has a ton more history, and where is lady Liberty??? Yes in NY. Immigrants came to see her in NY, not at the keys....LOL.

We spent New Year's Eve at Sturbridge Village. My older daughter was 5 years old and I was pg with Rachael. We rented a motel in the area. We spent the day touring around the village. It was very cold and snow was on the ground. I used to work as a dressmaker and had made period dresses for both my daughter and myself. Oh, it was so beautiful that day and evening.

That evening everything was lite by candlelight. The snow just glistened. We had a full 7 course dinner (roasts, turkey, etc.) at long wooden tables by candlelight. After the toast at midnight, they came out and served all sorts of pies, pastries, sorbets, etc. I think that must have been the most memorable New Year's I have ever spent.

I don't know what made me think of that. Probably your going home to Ma. Sorry, there is nothing here to compare with that.

[TANaples]

I just thought of something else. When we first started looking at homes on LI back in 1987, we looked at one in Northport which was built in the late 1700's. It was a clapboard cape. It was built on a hill overlooking the harbor. Oh, I so loved that house. I believe it was listed at $225,000. It was a bit small, but I suppose average for its time. It was only a 2 bedroom, but did have a full attic which could have been converted to a 3rd bedroom. What really nixed the deal for us was that it was on the National Registry of Historic Homes and we would have to get all sorts of permits to make any changes to the house.

Again, this is what I mean about an area having "history".

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by BacktoMA4good

As you can see TANaples, it will never happen, they are relentless at arguing, a few more than others.

Florida has the oldest city, but MA has a ton more history, and where is lady Liberty??? Yes in NY. Immigrants came to see her in NY, not at the keys....LOL.

Yes, it came from the French, of all people.

[Tungsten_Udder]

Originally Posted by BacktoMA4good

It was on the news about 3 weeks ago, an all time high rate. On 3 channels too, not only fox4 news. 8.2% is the highest ever. Florida is #38 on the list, which is at the bad end. MA is #23. SD is the lowest. Of course there is about no one there! . . .

I'm not trying to argue about anything, either, by the way. I'm trying to establish some facts and get us to think about what those facts "mean"--what they represent, how they're interpreted, what they entail, etc.

I wish you'd give some references that I could look up though. I found a Charlotte Sun article (Port Charlotte Latest Local News) from 9/19/2008 that says Lee County is at 9% "up from 8.5 percent in July and up from 5.3 percent in August 2007", although it doesn't say where they're getting that data, and the figure that City-Data has for September 2007 was 5.2 percent (although again, they don't say where they're getting their data) and the Economic Research Service of the USDA reports the Lee County unemployment rate for all of 2007 (as an average) as only 4.7%, which was up from the previous three years, but about the same as 2003, and actually lower than 2002. (See ERS/USDA Data - FL Unemployment and Median Household Income), and which suggests that if the unemployment rate was really 5.2 or 5.3 in August, it didn't stay that high.

You didn't say what county you're looking at in Massachusetts . . .

As I alluded to in an earlier post, though, just like crime statistics do not really tell you how likely you are to be safe in an area, unemployment statistics do not really tell you what it's going to be like trying to find a job someplace. Unemployment statistics are necessarily correlated to people filing unemployment claims, against census data of how many working age adults are living in an area and business' payroll data for taxation purposes. Just like crime statistics, there is not a national uniformity (or even statewide) for the way such things are tallied, and there can be both intentionally and unintentionally derived discrepancies, as for example, high unemployment figures gives you a political bargaining chip--for example, the Charlotte Sun article talks about Governor Crist's "Accelerate Florida building initiative", and his desire to tap into unspent construction money approved over the last 10 years and Chief legislative economist Amy Baker's comment that the state needs to spend "new money rather than cutting other spending to pay for construction projects".

What unemployment figures tell you instead is that relative to that census and payroll data, x percentage of people filed for unemployment during a given period. While that may be somewhat useful data, what it doesn't tell you is how many of those people were looking for jobs, how many of them were looking for jobs that they were suited for, how many of them appeared professional and affable at interviews, etc., and even if it could tell you that, one can't generalize from an "average everyman" (which is a mythical creation of statistics, really) to a particular individual to give someone their chances of finding work.

And none of which would support a claim that "there are no jobs" in a particular location. Unemployment figures aren't about how many jobs might be in a location. They're about how many people are filing unemployment claims in that location.

[Tungsten_Udder]

Originally Posted by TANaples

I just thought of something else. When we first started looking at homes on LI back in 1987, we looked at one in Northport which was built in the late 1700's. It was a clapboard cape. It was built on a hill overlooking the harbor. Oh, I so loved that house. I believe it was listed at $225,000. It was a bit small, but I suppose average for its time. It was only a 2 bedroom, but did have a full attic which could have been converted to a 3rd bedroom. What really nixed the deal for us was that it was on the National Registry of Historic Homes and we would have to get all sorts of permits to make any changes to the house.

Again, this is what I mean about an area having "history".

In other words, you're using "history" synonymously with "the aspects of history that I'm interested in", but there's still a problem in that you're not qualifying it well enough to exclude Florida. While Florida certainly didn't have as big a role in the American Revolution as any of the original 13 colonies, it's not the case that it had no role. There was even a book written about this, by J. Leitch Wright, published by the University Press of Florida in 1989, titled Florida in the American Revolution, simply enough. Here's a reference to it on Amazon, although it doesn't really tell you anything about it, unfortunately: Amazon.com: Florida in the American Revolution: J.Leitch Wright: Books

So you'd have to qualify just what kind of role someplace had to have in the American Revolution to have "history", or maybe try to quantify it, which would be difficult.

Additionally, Florida has plenty of properties on the National Register of Historic Places--just as every state does. Here's the link to the main Florida page: National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL)

From that page, pick the county you're interested in from the verbal list near the top of the page. When I tried clicking on the map it didn't seem to work.

So if a criterion for having "history" is "having properties, including homes, on the National Register of Historic Places", then Florida certainly qualifies as having "history".

We need facts as well as we need opinions on City-Data, but we need to be as accurate as we can be in our factual claims.

[Tungsten_Udder]

Originally Posted by TANaples

I wish all of you Florida lovers would just go on the other threads and leave the rest of us alone to "our own" thread.

By the way, I wouldn't classify myself as a "Florida lover"--at least not any more than I love any other state or country, and I love a lot of places. I also think that every place has problems, too, and Florida certainly has its share, including (just to give you one example) lots of ill thought-out development, especially in the southern portion of the state, where much of the Everglades was destroyed for development (agriculture, housing, other businesses), and what remains of the Everglades is now seriously threatened.

I also do not think that ANY place would be a good choice for everyone to live. People all have their own likes and dislikes, things they can tolerate and things they can not, and no place is going to suit everyone.

What I love is that we try to give factual information when we're talking about facts. That doesn't just go for Florida. This just happens to be the Florida forum, which I've been frequenting, and there are people making questionable factual comments. If someone on the New York City forum says, "Don't even go near Harlem; every building there is fit to be condemned, thugs walk up and down the streets holding AK47s at their sides . . .", and I see it (I do check out that forum and others sometimes), I would correct that just as readily.

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder

In other words, you're using "history" synonymously with "the aspects of history that I'm interested in", but there's still a problem in that you're not qualifying it well enough to exclude Florida. While Florida certainly didn't have as big a role in the American Revolution as any of the original 13 colonies, it's not the case that it had no role. There was even a book written about this, by J. Leitch Wright, published by the University Press of Florida in 1989, titled Florida in the American Revolution, simply enough. Here's a reference to it on Amazon, although it doesn't really tell you anything about it, unfortunately: Amazon.com: Florida in the American Revolution: J.Leitch Wright: Books

So you'd have to qualify just what kind of role someplace had to have in the American Revolution to have "history", or maybe try to quantify it, which would be difficult.

Additionally, Florida has plenty of properties on the National Register of Historic Places--just as every state does. Here's the link to the main Florida page: National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL)

From that page, pick the county you're interested in from the verbal list near the top of the page. When I tried clicking on the map it didn't seem to work.

So if a criterion for having "history" is "having properties, including homes, on the National Register of Historic Places", then Florida certainly qualifies as having "history".

We need facts as well as we need opinions on City-Data, but we need to be as accurate as we can be in our factual claims.

of it being on the National Registry. It was that I could actually buy and live in a clapboard cape built in the 1700s. I only brought up the Registry fact because it would have been a pain to go through all the red tape in order to make changes. Yes, it did have history. It had to being built in the 18th century. Where would I ever find a place like that in Florida?????? Sorry, I wouldn't want to live at a dig site or a bank built in 1925 just because it made the Registry for Florida. I notice you didn't mention Florida's equivalent to Sturbridge Village. Where is that?

You are making it sound like anything you could possibly want you can have in Florida. You can't. I loved being in a cabin in the mountains, hiking in the day, swimming in a lake, and sitting outside at night when the temps dropped. It was lovely in all 4 seasons. You could ski in the winter. I had the Catskills, Adirondacks, and the Poconos. Yet, if I wanted beaches, I could have that too. I lived on LI. I was surrounded by beaches, although that wasn't and isn't my "thing". In fact, we had PRIVATE beaches where you had to be a resident to use. I hardly went. Again, I am not a beach person and never will be. Because the landscape was so diverse, there was something for everyone. Here it is just one thing, summer and beaches. If that is not your cup of tea, where will you find any of those other things I talked about? Hell, even California is more "diverse" so to speak.

At any rate, all this is once, again off topic for this thread. We should not have to be defending ourselves here. This is the place for some of us to chat with others who feel the same way we do.