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.
The naysayers never quit, do they? Do we really need to compare this data to data from other cities? Isn't it impressive enough that we've managed to replace all of the jobs lost without too much of an impact on the population and economy of the region?
Honestly, is it AT ALL possible to show a little bit of optimism, ever? I know this is hard for you guys and all, seeing that you consistently spew negativity, but there is this crazy thing out there called CHANGE. Yes, Rochester can change! Oh no, sorry for my unbridled optimism, I'm sure it offended many of you eternal cynics. And I'm sure you'll continue to provide data as to why Rochester is such an awful place, and why it will continue to be. But please, for just once, instead of looking at the data, try reaching into the depths of your being (which I'm sure is a frightening place), and have a little CIVIC PRIDE.
Kinda like how you spin data sometimes to make this area look bad?
I do not spin the data to look bad. Rochester does a fine job by itself. Most of all my data is a copy and paste from the census, dol, BEA, and BLS. My work is researched and not just solely based on my opinion. I have never seen you challenge me with other data to support the opposite. I give people analytical look at the area. It is up to them to decide what the truth is. But this article lacks real proof and it starts off by saying Rochester is better than other communities but it does not back it up with data.
I do not spin the data to look bad. Rochester does a fine job by itself. Most of all my data is a copy and paste from the census, dol, BEA, and BLS. My work is researched and not just solely based on my opinion. I have never seen you challenge me with other data to support the opposite. I give people analytical look at the area. It is up to them to decide what the truth is. But this article lacks real proof and it starts off by saying Rochester is better than other communities but it does not back it up with data.
You do spin data. You tried to make it look like the city has a population of a million people so that you can put down the activities we have to offer. You have provided incorrect employment figures in the past making it look like we have lost more jobs than we have. When you provide numbers you paint a partial picture giving comparison data from select areas that would support a negative outlook. You do things like claiming that we really don't have many affluent areas giving income as an example but then you don't take cost of living into account.
The naysayers never quit, do they? Do we really need to compare this data to data from other cities? Isn't it impressive enough that we've managed to replace all of the jobs lost without too much of an impact on the population and economy of the region?
Honestly, is it AT ALL possible to show a little bit of optimism, ever? I know this is hard for you guys and all, seeing that you consistently spew negativity, but there is this crazy thing out there called CHANGE. Yes, Rochester can change! Oh no, sorry for my unbridled optimism, I'm sure it offended many of you eternal cynics. And I'm sure you'll continue to provide data as to why Rochester is such an awful place, and why it will continue to be. But please, for just once, instead of looking at the data, try reaching into the depths of your being (which I'm sure is a frightening place), and have a little CIVIC PRIDE.
These negative posters are not even residents.....look at their post history...I think they are called trolls or IMO, sour grapes
You do spin data. You tried to make it look like the city has a population of a million people so that you can put down the activities we have to offer. You have provided incorrect employment figures in the past making it look like we have lost more jobs than we have. When you provide numbers you paint a partial picture giving comparison data from select areas that would support a negative outlook. You do things like claiming that we really don't have many affluent areas giving income as an example but then you don't take cost of living into account.
I cannot agree enough. For example, you are constantly quoting how the area has lost or barely gained jobs since 2001 (I believe it was called 9/11), while if you compared since 2004, the numbers show significant growth.
I cannot agree enough. For example, you are constantly quoting how the area has lost or barely gained jobs since 2001 (I believe it was called 9/11), while if you compared since 2004, the numbers show significant growth.
I think it's Japanese for " I'm unhappy with living in Rochester so I'm going to spend a lot of time finding stats to make it look bad on an internet forum".
You are very perceptive. Many times things will be spun to make things look better than they are. You have to look at who is funding the article also. There is usually a motive behind it. It is good to try to trump up enthusiasm in an effort to improve things when they are just terrible, but sometimes you just have to look at the reality if things and the reality of the Rochester area seems to be, well........................better left unsaid I guess.
Ah...she decided to follow my posting history and take a jab at the place I live. I don't think you have ever even been to Rochester SP. Please don't stalk me. You are happy living in the triangle, I am happy living in Rochester. Is this a bad thing?
You do spin data. You tried to make it look like the city has a population of a million people so that you can put down the activities we have to offer. You have provided incorrect employment figures in the past making it look like we have lost more jobs than we have. When you provide numbers you paint a partial picture giving comparison data from select areas that would support a negative outlook. You do things like claiming that we really don't have many affluent areas giving income as an example but then you don't take cost of living into account.
Again you never back your counter point with data. It is always your opinion. Well your opinion I am sorry is not the truth. Your opinions has more spin in it than any argument I have used with data.
HEY GARMIN WHY DON'T SHOW ME I AM WRONG WITH FACTS?
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.
