« Cork Factory: Apartments, Minus the State/Local Subsidies? | Main | Downtown Tax Abatement and Population Goals: Some Actually Used a Number! »


C. Briem

Seriously.. how can I be clearer? That quote you pull out says CITY OF Pittsburgh. CITY. As in the the city proper, otherwise known as the incorporated municipality of Pittsburgh, a city of the 2nd Class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a minor civil division within Allegheny County, PA. Harold is equally clear on this point and is not talking about the city at all. he is only talking about the region. The Pittsburgh REGION.. not just the city, not even limited to the county but 7 whole counties in SW PA. An area with 9-10 times the population of the city proper.

apples and oranges in the context you use the two terms.

Sam M


I realize this. That is, I recignize the distiction you make here. Not sure what the confusion is about. That is, I tried to make it clear that I understood the two of you were talking about different things.


You start by talking about Harold's comments about some regional data and then jump directly into a quote I made about city numbers. Just completely irrelevant in the context you use that. You might as well have been pulling someone's comments about jobs located in Mumbai. You have completely confused your readers if nothing else about what I was talking about and possibly whatever your point is which I can't discern because I don't know if you are commenting on jobs in the city or jobs in the region or something else.

Take your sentence: "It is entirely possible to have just an many jobs today as 50 years ago, but fewer than five years ago." .. City jobs 5 years ago? or regional jobs 5 years ago. Compared to what: city jobs 50 years ago or regional jobs 50 years ago. The answers are very different depending on what you mean. Because you have pulled two quotes out of context and juxtaposed them when they ought not to you have actually reinforced this confusion many have between the numbers.

Sam M


Yes. All that. It's EXACTLY MY POINT. It is, in fact, confusing. Because we can talk about jobs. And we can talk about how there aren;t enough. And we can talk about how there are more than ever. Depending on which numbers you choose to use.

What I found interesting is that Harold's piece--about how a lack of jobs "here," or at least about the slow growth of jobs here--appeared at the same time as your blog post. Which talked about how there job base "here" is not, in fact, shrinking.

I was not trying to "reinforce" any confusion. I was trying to show how two people, both of whom are entirely correct, both of whom are using perfectly accurate numbers, can write very different sorts of things. The sentence you quote was not meant to mislead, but to point out that I do not have any reason to believe that one of you is right, or that one of you is wrong, or that you are disagreeing in any way.

Sorry if it came across as tring to compare city jobs with county jobs or regional jobs. I mean, speaking of not being able to be clearer, I pointed out that there is a "difference between city stats and county stats and regional stats."

The comments to this entry are closed.