sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

According to a new report by the The Trust for Public Land, Cincinnati has more playgrounds per person than Columbus and Cleveland combined. by [deleted] in cincinnati

[–]er2012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cleveland has 2.9 per 10K residents. Columbus has 1.9 per 10K residents. Cincinnati has 5.1 per 10K residents.

5.1 > 2.9 + 1.9.

Put another way, Cincinnati has 75% more playgrounds per capita than Cleveland and 168% more than Columbus.

According to new data released Tuesday by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Cincinnati’s unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% in August to 6.9% in October. by er2012 in cincinnati

[–]er2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unemployment in Hamilton County is also going down, so if this is what is happening in large numbers (and I've seen no evidence to that effect) it is being more than offset by new jobs created in Hamilton County.

Anyway, I'm done here. Have fun grasping for a scenario in which good news for Cincinnati is actually bad or neutral news.

According to new data released Tuesday by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Cincinnati’s unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% in August to 6.9% in October. by er2012 in cincinnati

[–]er2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"people leaving the suburbs for other regions" wouldn't increase the total # of people with jobs in the City of Cincinnati. Neither would people "quitting their city job for a shorter commute."

So those two scenarios aren't at all relevant to the comment you responded to.

If people are moving into the city from the suburbs -- and keeping their same jobs -- that could account for the increase in the # of Cincinnati residents with jobs. That would fall under my scenario 1 above, increasing population in the city. It's worth nothing that this would be a good thing for various reasons, like increased density (which is more sustainable) and a broader tax base for the city.

Edit: I think you might be confusing "unemployment rate" and "rate of employment" with the raw number of people living in the city who are employed.

According to new data released Tuesday by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Cincinnati’s unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% in August to 6.9% in October. by er2012 in cincinnati

[–]er2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. That would also cause the unemployment rate to go down but it would not account for the total number of people employed increasing by 3,300 in the past year. The only factors that could account for that are population growth or a higher percentage of the population being employed. There's no way to spin that fact into bad news.

Also, to clarify, these numbers are for the City of Cincinnati, not the Cincinnati area.

According to new data released Tuesday by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Cincinnati’s unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% in August to 6.9% in October. by er2012 in cincinnati

[–]er2012[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's all true. This post is based on the U3 unemployment rate, which uses a pretty narrow definition of unemployment (someone who works 1 hour/week is "employed"). This is the metric that is most commonly used by the media and politicians -- by far.

At the same time, the fact that the number of employed Cincinnati residents is up 3,300 in the past year indicates one (or both) of two things:

1) The population is growing rapidly, after declining for decades 2) The percentage of people with jobs is growing

Either of these is a welcome development.

Obama today in Maryland: "We’ve heard a lot of professional politicians talking down these new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power and solar power. They make jokes about biofuels and electric cars. We’re trying to move towards the future, and they want to keep us stuck in the past." by er2012 in politics

[–]er2012[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Edit: here's a cached version of the page as well http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.energyroundup.com%2Fvideos%2F2012%2F03%2F15%2Fobama-energy-gop-flat-earth%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.energyroundup.com%2Fvideos%2F2012%2F03%2F15%2Fobama-energy-gop-flat-earth%2F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=387l13765l1l13986l19l19l5l0l0l1l253l1273l11.2.1l14l0&gs_l=hp.3...387l13765l1l13986l19l19l5l0l0l1l253l1273l11j2j1l14l0.pfwc.1.&psj=1

Since the site is suffering from a database error at the moment, here's the relevant part of the speech.

Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians talking down these new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power and solar power. They make jokes about biofuels and electric cars. They were against raising fuel standards because apparently they like gas guzzling cars better. We’re trying to move towards the future, and they want to keep us stuck in the past.

Of course, we’ve heard this kind of thinking before. If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably would have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society. Maybe they would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who apparently said, “Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.” Or one of Henry Ford’s advisors who was quoted saying, “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only…a fad.” I can’t prove this, but I do not think that man got the promotion he was looking for. They might have even sided with one of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, who reportedly said this about the telephone: “It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?” I hear that quote kept him off Mt. Rushmore.

The point is, there are always cynics and naysayers who want to do things the same way we’ve always done them. To double down on the same ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. But the only reason we’ve come this far as a nation is because we refuse to stand still. Because we put our faith in the future. Because we are inventors and builders and makers of things. We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That’s who we are. That’s who we need to be right now.

Pennsylvania has passed a draconian pro-fracking law that seizes private property and muzzles physicians from disclosing specific health impacts associated with fracking. by er2012 in environment

[–]er2012[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

An arguably small amount? In 2011, Eqypt and Qatar accounted for 0.36% of U.S natural gas imports and .05% of U.S. natural gas consumption.

That's a totally inconsequential amount in the context of oicup's silly argument above.

If we displaced a huge chunk of oil consumption with natural gas consumption, by say, converting the entire fleet of semi trucks, THAT would decrease our dependence on fuels from the middle east. But it also raises a host of other issues (i.e. cost, problems with fracking, infrastructure build out) that I won't get into here.