Scranton Demographics 2000-2006 (Pittston, Media, Luzerne: middle-class, townhomes, neighborhood)

[SteelCityRising]

I've recently noticed that there are more detailed statistics available for the 2006 American Community Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau for some cities, and Scranton is among them. As such, I have decided to point out some interesting highlights to provide you all with some more in-depth analysis of how the city has changed for the better (or worse) from 2000-2006. Of course the American Community Survey (ACS) is much less reliable than official decennial census date (which won't be available again until 2010), but they're usually not very far off.

1.) OVERALL POPULATION

4/1/2000: 76,081
7/1/2000: 75,852
7/1/2001: 75,222 (-630 or -0.83% From 2000)
7/1/2002: 74,505 (-717 or -0.95% From 2001)
7/1/2003: 73,950 (-555 or -0.74% From 2002)
7/1/2004: 73,555 (-395 or -0.53% From 2003)
7/1/2005: 73,154 (-401 or -0.55% From 2004)
7/1/2006: 72,861 (-293 or -0.40% From 2005)

Average Annual Decline: -499 or -0.67%

My Analysis: Given the average decline of the city during these years, I'd say that a reasonable prediction for 7/1/2007 might be 72,362, a decline of 0.67% from 7/1/2006. I've heard others quote the city's population at well under 70,000 at the city council podium; I'm unsure if that's based upon reliable estimates or based upon hearsay, but perhaps a city resident can explain to me where those numbers were derived from. As you can see the city's population decline slowed to only -0.40% from 2005-2006, the lowest decrease since 2000, indicating that a turnaround might occur at this rate shortly after 2010. In aging cities like Scranton, a declining population spells disaster. As more and more tax payers are fleeced from the city limits into the suburbs, there are less tax revenues generated to offset rising expenditures, hence higher taxes levied upon those who remain to make up the difference. Those higher taxes then lead more people to leave, hence higher taxes for those who remain again. It's a vicious cycle. The city's infrastructure was built to support (and be financially supported by) a city of 145,000. With ironically almost exactly half that number in the city today, it is fair to assume that those living in Scranton today are bearing (at least) twice the average tax burden as someone living in the city did during its heyday (even after adjusting for inflation).

2.) OVERALL EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

In 2000, out of those aged 25 and over, the following educational attainment percentages could be found in the Electric City:

Less Than 9th Grade---6.1%
9th-12th Grade, No Diploma---15.8%
High School Graduate---41.7%
Some College, No Degree---15.4%
Associate's Degree---5.5%
Bachelor's Degree---9.7%
Graduate or Professional Degree---5.9%

Percent High School Graduate or Higher---78.2%
State Average---81.9%
Departure From State Average----3.7%
National Average---80.4%
Departure From National Average----2.2%

Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher---15.6%
State Average---22.4%
Departure From State Average----6.8%
National Average---24.4%
Departure From National Average----8.8%

In 2006, these numbers improved significantly for Scranton:

Less Than 9th Grade---3.8%
9th-12th Grade, No Diploma---12.8%
High School Graduate---40.5%
Some College, No Degree---16.7%
Associate's Degree---7.4%
Bachelor's Degree---11.8%
Graduate or Professional Degree---6.9%

Percent High School Graduate or Higher---83.3%
State Average---86.2%
Departure From State Average----2.9%
National Average---84.1%
Departure From National Average----0.8%

Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher---18.7%
State Average---25.4%
Departure From State Average----6.7%
National Average---27.0%
Departure From National Average----8.3%



My Analysis: From 2000-2006, the percentage of those holding at least a high school diploma increased to 83.3% from 78.2%. The percentage of those holding a 4-year degree or higher increase to 18.7% from 15.6%. These numbers still lag significantly behind the rest of the state and nation. As the city's population continues to become more highly-educated, so does its potential to lure in higher-paying jobs. There is generally a direct relationship between level of education and lifetime earnings, and this will be shown in my next section.

3.) MEDIAN EARNINGS IN RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL LEVELS

In 2000, I was unable to locate relevant information. In 2006, out of those aged 25 and over, the following median earnings were recorded for the city based upon maximum educational attainment:

Less Than High School Graduate---$18,480
High School Graduate---$22,075
Some College or Associate's Degree---$27,500
Bachelor's Degree---$30,653
Graduate or Professional Degree---$50,577

My Analysis: I know I've been criticized in the past for placing so much emphasis upon city residents furthering their educations, but this is concrete evidence to support my notion that, in general, the more education you receive, the more money you'll earn. When I hear people lamenting the city's relatively-high poverty rate, I point to the fact that less than 1/5 of the city has at least a four-year degree, and, as such, less than 1/5 of the city can expect to earn in excess of $30,000 annually. Please note that these are individual incomes, not households, so one could even speculate that a dually-employed couple that each had a Bachelor's Degree or higher could earn at least $60,000 annually combined. When people complain about the city having supressed wages, this is because the city's percentage of educated people lies far below the state and national averages. Businesses are only willing to pay people what they are worth; if folks in Scranton want more money, they should go back to school. By doing so our percentage of educated residents may increase to the point where we become attractive to more high-paying firms.

4.) EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE

For this section, I determined the level of maximum educational attainment by age range:

For the Year 2000:

High School Graduate or Higher
25-34 Years---89.5%
35-44 Years---86.3%
45-64 Years---81.2%
65 Years And Over---62.7%

Bachelor's Degree or Higher
25-34 Years---20.4%
35-44 Years---19.6%
45-64 Years---16.2%
65 Years And Over---9.4%

For the Year 2006:

High School Graduate or Higher
25-34 Years---90.3%
35-44 Years---82.7%
45-64 Years---83.3%
65 Years and Over---79.2%

Bachelor's Degree or Higher
25-34 Years---24.6%
35-44 Years---19.5%
45-64 Years---20.0%
65 Years And Over---12.4%

My Analysis: In general, each successive generation is becoming more well-educated than its predecessor. The reasons why the 65+ age range registers so low can likely be attributed to both WWII and the simple fact that when it was time for these fine folks to decide as to whether or not they wanted to further their educations, many great jobs were available to folks without degrees. Now times have changed as our economy shifts from the manufacturing sector to the services industry. It is interesting to note that in 2006, 1/4 of the city's 25-34-year-olds held at least a Bachelor's Degree, a sharp increase in this demographic group from just six years prior in 2000. By sheer numbers, there were 8,962 people in that age range, which would mean that there are 2,205 young college graduates living in the city. These young urban professionals, or "yuppies" as they've been termed, can do a lot to help reinvigorate struggling cities, and they're also more inclined to live near downtown areas whenever possible.

Well, I'm all tuckered out for this evening. So I'm going to go try to catch a snowflake or two on my tongue before heading off to bed. I'll continue tomorrow (Sunday) with additional analyses. I'm hoping city residents especially will find this information to be useful and informative to see some of the analytical reasons behind such maladies as rising taxes, lagging wages, etc. as opposed to merely the emotional ones. A declining tax base will always necessitate higher taxes. Similarly, low educational attainment levels will always beget low wages.

[SteelCityRising]

5.) HOUSING VALUES

For the year 2000, the following data was available for median housing values in the city of Scranton:

Scranton: $78,200
State Average: $97,000
Departure From State Average: -$18,800 or -19.4%
National Average: $119,600
Departure From National Average: -$41,400 or -34.6%

For the year 2006, the following data was available for median housing values in the city of Scranton:

Scranton: $98,800
State Average: $145,200
Departure From State Average: -$46,400 or -32.0%
National Average: $185,200
Departure From National Average: -$86,400 or -46.6%


My analysis: For the year 2000, the median value for a detached single-family home in the city of Scranton was $78,200. Just six years later, the median value climbed to $98,800, an increase of $20,600 from 2000-2006 or an average of $3,433 per year. This figure lags significantly behind the state median value, which increased by an average of $8,033 per year over this timeframe, as well as the national median value, which increased annually by an average of $10,933 from 2000-2006. If we were to rely on this analysis, we could project the 2007 median housing value in Scranton to be $102,233, or an increase of $3,433 over the 2006 median housing value.


Well, I once again have to recess to do some Christmas decorating, but I shall return later with more analysis.

[CHS89]

Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre

My Analysis: In general, each successive generation is becoming more well-educated than its predecessor. The reasons why the 65+ age range registers so low can likely be attributed to both WWII and the simple fact that when it was time for these fine folks to decide as to whether or not they wanted to further their educations, many great jobs were available to folks without degrees.

I'll give you the WWII angle, but you're seriously going to contend that during the Great Depression and its aftermath on the homefront, there were "many great jobs...available to folks without degrees?" Honestly?

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by CHS89

I'll give you the WWII angle, but you're seriously going to contend that during the Great Depression and its aftermath on the homefront, there were "many great jobs...available to folks without degrees?" Honestly?

Perhaps my brain was fried from all of the analysis, but I was referencing the 1940s-1970s, an era in which our region had much more in the way of a blue-collar union manufacturing base to it in which uneducated people could easily earn wages high enough to live comfortably off of. After all, many of our brave men (and women) returning from WWII in the mid-1940s had no high school diploma, let alone college degree, yet many of them managed to rise into the American middle-class. Just look at Techneglas, for example. This now-defunct manufacturing firm near Pittston employed hundreds of folks who only had high school diplomas. Their parking lot was always filled with newer vehicles, and those who were employed there earned wages high enough to support their families. You don't see those same types of large-scale blue-collar (yet still DECENT-PAYING) employers around today. Unfortunately in the case of our area, there haven't been enough white-collar jobs to offset their loss either.

I still have mixed feelings on the GI Bill. It was great to provide economic assistance for these folks to further their educations if they so desired, but it was also thanks to this that the American suburb as we now know it was invented, leading to the eventual demise of once-vibrant cities ilke Scranton and paved the way for South Abington, Glenmaura, etc. to spring up like hemorrhoids. That bill was like a double-edged sword. It helped improve the quality-of-life for returning service members, but it also helped to decimate core cities, like Scranton, as the suburbs began to take off in growth starting in the 1950s.

Nationwide we're now starting to (thankfully) see this trend reverse as rising gas prices and increasingly-aggravating commute times are making the suburbs unattractive to a number of folks who are beginning to move nearer to urban centers. In a sense the bumper-to-bumper evening rush-hour congestion on I-81 is a blessing because all of those suburbanites hopping onto I-81 at 5 PM may eventually tire of the gridlock (especially between the Central Scranton Expressway and Montage Mountain Road exits) and might ponder moving closer to the city. There's only one way to find out if this trend truly has spread to Scranton---one of these clueless developers downtown has to stop screwing around and must bring a middle-class-priced (let's say mid-$100k range) mixed-use project to the city. If the resiential units sell like hot cakes, then one can infer that there is an unmet demand for downtown housing. If the residential units sit, and sit, and sit some more...then we know that the suburbs are still more attractive than the city as a place to live for many folks. The townhomes that are being built all over the city are a great idea, but they are a poor indicator of market demand because, in my opinion, they are ALL overpriced. Nobody will want to overpay for a home, even if it offers the added bonus of being in a walkable neighborhood.

[SteelCityRising]

6.) PROPERTY TAXES

I was unable to locate property tax data for the year 2000. For the year 2006, here are the median property tax values, meaning that half of all households pay more than this figure, and half of all households pay less than this value:

Scranton---$1,915
Lackawanna County---$2,066
Pennsylvania---$2,307
United States---$1,978

My analysis: Even though most Scrantonians seem to believe they have the highest property tax burden around, this appears to be largely unfounded, as residents in the surrounding county, state, and nation all have higher median property tax levels. It would be interesting to show these figures to those who blast city council members at the podium; I'm sure many of them would be eating quite a bit of crow. Even though Scranton's property tax burden is quite low, it's wage tax burden is oppressive, at 3.4%. If a new house bill is passed, Scranton will be seeing at least $2,000,000 in additional revenue per year from the state to help offset its tax-exempt property burden. Perhaps that $2,000,000 can be used to reduce the wage tax? At that point there truly won't be any excuses for newcomers to avoid moving to the city.

[greentown]

My analysis: SWB needs to get a life !

[to570717]

Yah seriously dude. I enjoy readin your posts and what not but good god man. All the hard data and quantitative research is fine to know but it doesn't accomplish anything. you can tell me the avg age and medium income of the region but that in no way represents what the area is like once you live there. I don't think i ever walked into the grocery store and thought to myself geeze i bet 20.9% of the women ages 40 and older have a college degree, what a shame. No, I walk in and see ten people I know and get the feeling of a tight nit community where people actually care about one another.

That kind of thing happens in about 1% of the communities now a days!

[weluvpa]

The residents in Scranton do not feel that they have the highest property taxes in the area nor do they care about other areas. Taxes are subjective to the area in which they are being placed upon the residents, period. Just because the taxes around the area are higher does not mean that they want to increase theirs so that they could be just like everyone else nor do they think that their taxes should be raised to pay for the Doherty debt of $400,000,000. When you have to pay your property taxes and take care of your family as well as your home and everything else that comes with it you will see that the taxes you pay become very important to you. You say that you would not mind paying this for that, but here in Scranton we are paying and getting nothing back in return. You have this fairy tale image of the city and tree lined streets and neighbors and such, its not a Norman Rockwell painting and it will never be. Its not a bad place but its just not what you think it is. You actaully have to live somewhere before you could really tell how certain issues affect those that live there. Stats are stats and they are not set in concrete. They change and are unrealiable at best.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

The residents in Scranton do not feel that they have the highest property taxes in the area nor do they care about other areas. Taxes are subjective to the area in which they are being placed upon the residents, period. Just because the taxes around the area are higher does not mean that they want to increase theirs so that they could be just like everyone else nor do they think that their taxes should be raised to pay for the Doherty debt of $400,000,000. When you have to pay your property taxes and take care of your family as well as your home and everything else that comes with it you will see that the taxes you pay become very important to you. You say that you would not mind paying this for that, but here in Scranton we are paying and getting nothing back in return. You have this fairy tale image of the city and tree lined streets and neighbors and such, its not a Norman Rockwell painting and it will never be. Its not a bad place but its just not what you think it is. You actaully have to live somewhere before you could really tell how certain issues affect those that live there. Stats are stats and they are not set in concrete. They change and are unrealiable at best.

I concur, Dan, that nobody wants their taxes to spike, and I agree with those who have approached the podium to challenge the budget proposal that will launch the city further into long-term debt (which will equate to higher taxes to offset that at some point in the future). However, I just sit and roll my eyes when folks whine about having "outrageous property taxes." Presently, no, Scranton's property taxes are lower than most other areas. Granted the wage tax eats up any sort of benefit realized from that, but for some of these folks to reference their current tax rates as being "Draconian" or "amongst the highest in the state" is sheerly false and inaccurate. Perhaps once the full taxable impact of the Doherty Debt is realized they can make that claim, but until taxes soar to repay it (which will unfortunately have to happen eventually), Scranton is still a bargain as far as property taxes are concerned. Anyone who says "stay out of Scranton because the property taxes are through the roof" needs to be called out on how they are intentionally misleading potential new residents in order to nitpick at Doherty's administration. Yes, I can personally say that I'd dread being the man's own personal accountant someday, but median property taxes in Scranton are currently less than they are in the surrounding county, PA, and the U.S. at-large. Luzerne County, overall, has a lower tax burden than the city of Scranton, but my own suburb has a higher one (thanks to the school taxes). It's all relative to what folks in Scranton truly think "high taxes" are.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by greentown

My analysis: SWB needs to get a life !

Originally Posted by to570717

Yah seriously dude. I enjoy readin your posts and what not but good god man. All the hard data and quantitative research is fine to know but it doesn't accomplish anything. you can tell me the avg age and medium income of the region but that in no way represents what the area is like once you live there. I don't think i ever walked into the grocery store and thought to myself geeze i bet 20.9% of the women ages 40 and older have a college degree, what a shame. No, I walk in and see ten people I know and get the feeling of a tight nit community where people actually care about one another.

That kind of thing happens in about 1% of the communities now a days!

Sorry! I keep forgetting I'm the only statistics nut (nerd?) on this forum. If you think this is exciting, then wait until I post my essay about the Laffer Curve and its economic relation to the city. You'll be wetting your pants with anticipation!