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.
Great graph but it's an under told story as there's no distinction as to whether the net increases are full or part time jobs. For example if someone making 60K/ year loses a job in 2009 and ends up with 2 part time jobs totaling 40K/year the graphic would look impressive, no?
I'd love to see this applied to:
U4 (discouraged/ dropped out of the workforce) or U6 (adding in part timers who want to work full time) vs. U3 employment numbers
Illegal immigration residency
Number of household signing onto means (and non means) tested benefits
Household annual salary
Household net worth
If low information citizens (voters) saw these numbers in the same format, those so called baseless claims might not be so baseless after all.
I am glad that the author stated that there are jobs on the map that 'paid low wages'
Last edited by AKA Bubbleup; 10-30-2014 at 12:57 PM..
Reason: add
If only politicians would focus on national defense, public structure and hoisting a flag. Why so much interest in job creation? Here are graphs arguing over whether money shuffled from some to others helps all; it doesn't. Private sector is none of these lawyers business. How about trim programs, lower takes from everyone and let the free market work?
Man, that also shows the effects of Clinton signing the China Free Trade Agreement in late 2000.
The rust belt began almost immediately.
It was from 2000-2010 that at least -33% manufacturing was offshored. The markets were shifting to account for it.(includes employment also) Otherwise the offshoring and leveraging would not have been so successful. This map doesn't show job detail. It was way more than China permanent favored nation status that did this. There was a long list of changes that accommodated the offshoring.
I'm not impressed. The map showed NO job growth in Northwestern North Dakota/Northeastern Montana at all.
I guess the Bakken oil field jobs don't count, even though the effects cover a WIDE area, including clear over here in South Central Montana!
Given that error, how accurate is the rest of it?
Stabliziation isn't tantamount to recovery. There is a clear and observable change in our economic trajectory when the stimulus was enacted. Numbers don't lie.
Numbers are just numbers. They don't lie. People can use them to lie, skew, present data or anything else. Causation and correlation are not the same thing. You seem to be throwing all your eggs in one basket. After a large bubble pops there is an enormous drop, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the drop. Once you hit a bottom one really has nowhere to go, but up.
I'm not impressed. The map showed NO job growth in Northwestern North Dakota/Northeastern Montana at all.
I guess the Bakken oil field jobs don't count, even though the effects cover a WIDE area, including clear over here in South Central Montana!
Given that error, how accurate is the rest of it?
My reading is that this is a map of Metropolitian areas. Is this wiki page correct?
Williams County is a county located in the U.S. state of North Dakota. As of the 2010 census, the population was 22,398.[1] Its county seat is Williston.[2]
The Williston Micropolitan Statistical Area includes all of Williams County. The Micropolitan Statistical Area is the fastest growing Primary Statistical Area, growing 32% in population from 2010 to 2013.
And if so, is a 7K growth in population signicant enough to show on the map?
Williams County is a county located in the U.S. state of North Dakota. As of the 2010 census, the population was 22,398.[1] Its county seat is Williston.[2]
The Williston Micropolitan Statistical Area includes all of Williams County. The Micropolitan Statistical Area is the fastest growing Primary Statistical Area, growing 32% in population from 2010 to 2013.
And if so, is a 7K growth in population signicant enough to show on the map?
"The industrialization and population boom has put a strain on roads, water supplies, sewage systems, and government services in the area. Some counties have increased in population by almost double from 20,000 to 40,000.[9]"
Is a doubling of population enough to make the cut?
Keep in mind it is nearly impossible to find a place to live in the area. It is also nearly impossible to find a place to park an RV.
I still say if the map ignored a job scenario like that, their veracity is questionable!
"The industrialization and population boom has put a strain on roads, water supplies, sewage systems, and government services in the area. Some counties have increased in population by almost double from 20,000 to 40,000.[9]"
Is a doubling of population enough to make the cut?
I would have to say "no" It has nothing to do with veracity. And no, doubling is not enough. The survey says it's data only reflects recognized Metropolitan areas - not the entire USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
