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

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2012, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,217,109 times
Reputation: 7599

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
The OP says Houston's high tech employment grew by 149%, right? And then this post said Houston had 151,700 high tech employees in 2007. However this post says Houston added 87,900 jobs in total last year. Wouldn't the 149% job growth mean that they added 226,033 high tech jobs?

Is my math messed up? Or am I missing something?
Yes you are missing something. The year over growth increased by 147%. The number of jobs didn't increase by 147%.

The increase is in Job growth not actual growth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2012, 11:28 AM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Yes you are missing something. The year over growth increased by 147%. The number of jobs didn't increase by 147%.

The increase is in Job growth not actual growth

Clarification this link had nothing to do with JOBS. It was number of listings on their particular SEARCH SITE (specific to one site and people who paid to place job listing on THEIR site)


Lets just drop this, the data was USELESS for any assemblance of comparison and based on the data the growth or lack there of has no tangible meaning. It was more PR for the actual job list site than is was for even Houston. It was bandied on the PR Newswire by a PR agency contracted by the SITE. People please this piece of information is useless; doesnt mean Houston didnt do well but this piece of data is in fact meaningless for any comparsisons or proclomations. This is less scientific than most of the forbes and Travel polls, actually is vastly less scientific
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 11:31 AM
 
Location: LBC
4,155 posts, read 4,495,020 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
can't you read??
Pretty much. Now your turn: tell me where the word "crush" appears in the original article.

You: "Did the OP write it? (re: the authorship of the titles of both the article AND this thread).

Me: "Thread title, yes".

OP: "Listen, I was paraphrasing the article....."

At least he's owning it, as harmless as the decision to paraphrase a deceptive journal caption may be. But your defensiveness has escalated this as much as anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Where Else...?
740 posts, read 1,022,352 times
Reputation: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
I suppose the biggest problem is the wording. Using "crushes" and "stomps" instantly puts people on the defensive. This is especially true when it's a city which doesn't really have a significant influence on the industry.
which is why the news of it is very interesting. I'm not sure the wording would've made much difference. In general, some on this forum get automatically defensive in regards to Houston if the information is favorable. I've seen similar reactions on other favorable subjects regarding Houston where the wording that wasn't as hyperbolic.....and "in-your-face".

Quote:
If someone posted a the same article only it said "Omaha crushes Houston, San Francisco, and New York City in unemployment", people are going to probably react similarly to the way people did on this thread. People are going to raise the point that it's not as impressive because Omaha isn't on the same level of those other three cities economically...so the fact that it has lower unemployment isn't as impressive.
I really think that if it were Omaha, for example, and the article or information was pertaining to growth in the oil and gas industry there, and someone posted "crushing Houston", i think the reactions would be favorable, because it was something against Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,217,109 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Clarification this link had nothing to do with JOBS. It was number of listings on their particular SEARCH SITE (specific to one site and people who paid to place job listing on THEIR site)
whatever it is, it doesn't amount to an increase of 147% jobs. just a percentage increase over the previous years increase
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 11:46 AM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
whatever it is, it doesn't amount to an increase of 147% jobs. just a percentage increase over the previous years increase
Has nothing to do with any prior year increase.

It is = Paid listings this year on THEIR site for the metro/Paid listings last year on THEIR site -1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,531,632 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Has nothing to do with any prior year increase.

It is = Paid listings this year on THEIR site for the metro/Paid listings last year on THEIR site -1
Wow...that's kind of a ridiculous metric haha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,217,109 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Has nothing to do with any prior year increase.

It is = Paid listings this year on THEIR site for the metro/Paid listings last year on THEIR site -1
so what do you think the 147 number is? it is an increase over the prior years increase
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 12:51 PM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
so what do you think the 147 number is? it is an increase over the prior years increase
The bolded word is incorrect
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2012, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,140,805 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
so what do you think the 147 number is? it is an increase over the prior years increase
I can't believe you are defending this article... I could come up with a study that is more in depth and closer to reality than this study, I mean seriously it is total trash and even the OP admitted it was pretty bunk info. Houston gets picked on a lot on here, but I really don't think this has anything to do with Houston at all, they just happened to be at the top of this ludicrous study.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

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


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

Quick Reply
Message:

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

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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