Is PA depressing? (Reading, Houston: crime rate, install, Walmart)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Well, in many ways, yes, it is depressing. I was born and raised in Lancaster County, now live in Cumberland County but maintain a second home near Myrtle Beach, SC. If it weren't for my wife I'd be living in SC full-time. The worst thing here, as everyone says, is the weather. I just returned from two weeks in SC, right before the 4th of July, and it has been nothing but clouds and rain most days, with a bit of sunshine yesterday. As I write, it just started pouring again. In the winter, this is it, man. Clouds, clouds, and more clouds. Forget about the sun from the end of October until at least April, maybe May or June. Winters are much warmer than they were when I was young ('50's and '60's), but back then after a big snow we always had several days of sunshine. No more. Tomorrow, they say, the sun will come out again. That's what they said yesterday, too. If it weren't for the fact that I'm heading back to the beach in about three weeks, I'd be a very unhappy camper right now. And yes, I do suffer from SAD, terribly in the winter, often in the summer because we just don't get enough light here. Flatten the Appalachian mountains (I've seen enough of them anyway) and maybe the weather would be better here.
Well, in many ways, yes, it is depressing. I was born and raised in Lancaster County, now live in Cumberland County but maintain a second home near Myrtle Beach, SC. If it weren't for my wife I'd be living in SC full-time. The worst thing here, as everyone says, is the weather. I just returned from two weeks in SC, right before the 4th of July, and it has been nothing but clouds and rain most days, with a bit of sunshine yesterday. As I write, it just started pouring again. In the winter, this is it, man. Clouds, clouds, and more clouds. Forget about the sun from the end of October until at least April, maybe May or June. Winters are much warmer than they were when I was young ('50's and '60's), but back then after a big snow we always had several days of sunshine. No more. Tomorrow, they say, the sun will come out again. That's what they said yesterday, too. If it weren't for the fact that I'm heading back to the beach in about three weeks, I'd be a very unhappy camper right now. And yes, I do suffer from SAD, terribly in the winter, often in the summer because we just don't get enough light here. Flatten the Appalachian mountains (I've seen enough of them anyway) and maybe the weather would be better here.
As for things to do around here... yawnnnnn.....
You are so right about the dreariness of winter. It seems this past winter was more grey than usual. Very depressing and blah.
You're completely misrepresenting the picture. Going through this thread and reading posts like this, you'd think that the whole state is something resembling Baghdad. Here are some hard FACTS contrary to your dismal portrayal of our Commonwealth:
1.) Pennsylvania has NEVER had any net loss in population. In fact, the period for which the latest census data is available (1990-2000) showed the highest growth rate since the previous 20 years (3.6%):
Duderino, you look for facts to back your assertions and for that you have earned my respect. However, I didn't state that PA had a net loss in population. I was talking about in-migration... but if we use your data set, PA still ranks 48th out of the 50 states for population growth from 1990 to 2000. Its paltry 3.36% growth put it ahead of only West Virginia (which, from all stats I've seen, appears to be the most backward/slow-to-get-with-the-present state in the country) and North Dakota (a beautiful and friendly state, but with some of the worst weather in the USA).
The USA's inflation during that period, 2003-2006, was 12.09%. (http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp (broken link)) This means that the USA's wage per job growth generally exceeded inflation... but, in PA, in 2006 your salary actually bought less than it did in 2003 even though it may have been 11.48% higher.
PA's job growth from 2003 - December 2007 was 3.24%, which falls beneath PA's population growth rate of 3.36% (Media: January 17, Pennsylvania's Employment Situation: December 2007 (http://www.paworkforce.state.pa.us/media/cwp/view.asp?a=470&Q=158728 - broken link)).
PA ranks 2nd out of all 50 states for "people living in the state of their birth", at 77.72%. (CensusScope -- Percent of Population Living in State of Birth, 2000) Looking at the bottom of that chart, the states which rank the lowest are Arizona (which ranks 2nd out of all 50 states in overall population growth), Florida (7th for population growth), and Nevada (1st for population growth). These statistics seem to show that people, en masse, are generally choosing to move FROM other states TO states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada... and that very few are choosing to move FROM other states TO Pennsylvania.
That last statistic can be backed up by City-Data's own information... check out this list: http://www.city-data.com/top2/co45.html. This is "top 101 counties with the lowest percentage of people moving in from other counties". PA claims five out of the top ten spots and 21 out of the 101 spots. Apparently, few people are moving into various counties in PA... even from other counties in PA. (In all fairness, this isn't just about PA. Other Rust Belt states have huge representation on this list as well... such as New York and Ohio.)
According to CensusScope, PA ranks at the very top for people who are living in the same house today that they lived in 5 years ago. That just goes to prove what a lot of PA residents (including myself) already know about PA. PA residents are generally stodgy and resistant to change. It is said that PA has the country's second-highest elderly population... the state lottery commission makes no bones about that... and elderly people generally don't like moving. As much as I love elderly people, they tend to resist change and that is one thing which makes PA so depressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
2.) Although below the national average in growth rates, Pennsylvania's 7 largest metropolitan areas had added -- not lost -- jobs from 2003-2007.
This may be true... you didn't cite your source... but I have to wonder... especially since Pittsburgh's population has been on a decline for decades... does the recent "job growth" bring the area anywhere near the number of jobs it used to have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
3.) We have some of the strongest institutions of higher education in the country, allowing large populations in the metropolitan areas surrounding Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to have educational attainment above the national average:
"Both greater Philadelphia and the Pittsburgh metro areas enjoy strong assets in innovation, fueled by the presence of world class research universities, like the University of Pennsylvania and Carnegie Mellon. They both outperform the nation in their ability to attract federal research dollars and venture capital funding per capita and generate the most productive jobs in the state. They both, along with the Harrisburg metro area, match or exceed the national average in their share of adults with bachelors and graduate degrees."
Maybe it does exceed the national average by a bit... but it also ranks 45th out of the 50 states in terms of student SAT scores. I have no choice but to question the "education" these students are getting, if they have comparatively low scholastic aptitude but yet they're graduating with degrees left and right. Even if you factor that out, the problem becomes a glut of college graduates but a dearth of jobs. PA is one of the top five states in the country which produces more college-graduate certified teachers every year than it employs. So, in the end, who benefits from these colleges? People will go to school, get their degree and teaching credentials, and then be forced to work in some crappy inner-city school setting if they want any prayer of getting a regular teaching job... or they'll have to settle for a support-staff job, substitute job, or special education job. This is what happened to my wife... who graduated magna *** laude from a Pennsylvania institution of higher education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
I'm not saying there aren't downfalls to the PA economy, but diversifying from an economy historically based in textiles, manufacturing and mining is not an easy feat overnight. The areas in which you claim some Pennsylvanians are migrating to (i.e., the Sun Belt -- which is hardly a phenomenon unique to PA) are those that had an advantage built in -- they developed primarily during the rise of today's service-based economy. Whereas Pennsylvania has to work twice as hard to modernize a much older economy, infrastructure and workforce; we are making progress. Focusing on the negative won't allow you to see that, however.
There are non-Sun Belt states that are growing at rates which exceed the national average. Colorado (#3), Idaho (#5), North Carolina (#9), Delaware (#13), Montana (#20), Minnesota (#21), and others. States which formed the original 13 colonies are represented. There's Georgia (#6), North Carolina (#9), Delaware (#13), Virginia (#17), and New Hampshire and Maryland lag just behind the national average, ranking at #22 and #23 respectively. Those states had to have had old economies too. I did a study on this not long ago (when trying to decide where my wife and I would move)... and I determined that lower-tax "red states" have, generally speaking, experienced more growth than higher-tax "blue states". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people and businesses would prefer locating themselves in states where the government is not likely to steal as much of their money. (The exception might be Minnesota, which is historically the "bluest" state, and yet still sees decent growth in spite of its terrible weather. A Minnesotan recently informed me that the reason for that is because Minnesota has what is known as the "best welfare system in the country"... so, people who want to get on the dole tend to flock to Minnesota. I don't know... that's just what I heard.)
Duderino, you look for facts to back your assertions and for that you have earned my respect. However, I didn't state that PA had a net loss in population. I was talking about in-migration... but if we use your data set, PA still ranks 48th out of the 50 states for population growth from 1990 to 2000.
Thanks. There's no sense in making an argument without facts to back you up -- but it's also important to consider how to interpret statistics.
The other issue here, however, is how growth rates don't tell the entire story. Point in case: Idaho vs. Pennsylvania (a state with a much higher growth rate than the national average versus that of a state that is lower)
As you can see, although the growth rate in Idaho is drastically higher, the hard number of people in PA is actually significantly higher. Something to consider for those fast-growing, but sparsely-populated Western states. Growth rates look higher because there wasn't too much population there to begin with, and this isn't unique to Idaho.
[color=black]While the USA's wage per job growth in 2003-2006 was 12.97%, PA's wage per job growth was only 11.48%. Again, PA lags behind. ([url=http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-wage.htm]BBER-UNM:
Yes, but not drastically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy
The USA's inflation during that period, 2003-2006, was 12.09%. (http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp (broken link)) This means that the USA's wage per job growth generally exceeded inflation... but, in PA, in 2006 your salary actually bought less than it did in 2003 even though it may have been 11.48% higher.
That's the case for every state, though, regardless of the wage growth rate. For example, if the wage growth in PA was slightly above the national avg., it would have been offset by inflation, as the figure you provided was a national inflation rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy
PA's job growth from 2003 - December 2007 was 3.24%, which falls beneath PA's population growth rate of 3.36% (Media: January 17, Pennsylvania's Employment Situation: December 2007 (http://www.paworkforce.state.pa.us/media/cwp/view.asp?a=470&Q=158728 - broken link)).
That's still relative parity. Also, the growth may have been disproportionate in a child age bracket, which makes job growth irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy
PA ranks 2nd out of all 50 states for "people living in the state of their birth", at 77.72%. (CensusScope -- Percent of Population Living in State of Birth, 2000) Looking at the bottom of that chart, the states which rank the lowest are Arizona (which ranks 2nd out of all 50 states in overall population growth), Florida (7th for population growth), and Nevada (1st for population growth). These statistics seem to show that people, en masse, are generally choosing to move FROM other states TO states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada... and that very few are choosing to move FROM other states TO Pennsylvania.
This again relates to the point I made about comparing growth rates to hard numbers. Also, I fail to see why relative transience of a state makes it a better place to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy
This may be true... you didn't cite your source... but I have to wonder... especially since Pittsburgh's population has been on a decline for decades... does the recent "job growth" bring the area anywhere near the number of jobs it used to have?
It was the same as the third; I apologize for not clarifying:
it does exceed the national average by a bit... but it also ranks 45th out of the 50 states in terms of student SAT scores. I have no choice but to question the "education" these students are getting, if they have comparatively low scholastic aptitude but yet they're graduating with degrees left and right. Even if you factor that out, the problem becomes a glut of college graduates but a dearth of jobs. PA is one of the top five states in the country which produces more college-graduate certified teachers every year than it employs. So, in the end, who benefits from these colleges?People will go to school, get their degree and teaching credentials, and then be forced to work in some crappy inner-city school setting if they want any prayer of getting a regular teaching job
1.) I'd like to see the source for that figure.
2.) Teaching is just one field. Cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are rapidly diversifying with biochemistry, engineering, and tech. firms, which lures plenty of graduate degree seekers. Your anecdotal data does not speak for the state at large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy
There are non-Sun Belt states that are growing at rates which exceed the national average. Colorado (#3), Idaho (#5), North Carolina (#9), Delaware (#13), Montana (#20), Minnesota (#21), and others. States which formed the original 13 colonies are represented. There's Georgia (#6), North Carolina (#9), Delaware (#13), Virginia (#17), and New Hampshire and Maryland lag just behind the national average, ranking at #22 and #23 respectively. Those states had to have had old economies too. I did a study on this not long ago (when trying to decide where my wife and I would move)...
1.) Without splitting hairs, most of these states are either considered part the Sun Belt (GA, NC and VA) or -- again -- had a small population to begin with (MT and DE).
2.) While some of those states are indeed older, Pennsylvania really developed quicker and more uniformly in the industrial sector more than any of those. This was very beneficial to our state initially, but obviously hindered us in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPAguy
and I determined that lower-tax "red states" have, generally speaking, experienced more growth than higher-tax "blue states". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people and businesses would prefer locating themselves in states where the government is not likely to steal as much of their money. (The exception might be Minnesota, which is historically the "bluest" state, and yet still sees decent growth in spite of its terrible weather.
I've heard this before, but I just don't agree. Businesses trended toward "red, low-tax" states over the past few decades for two main reasons -- cheap labor and air conditioning. However, you're also forgetting stongly Democratic powerhouses like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California -- to name a few, which have also attracted people and lucrative business at a rapid pace. Not coincidently, these are some of the highest-taxed states in the country. The difference? Educational attainment. Education is where businesses flock to, as well, and so long as Pennsylvania can capitalize more on its abundant resources of higher education, it will -- and is starting to -- go the way of prosperous, although high-taxed, blue states on the East and West Coasts.
The other issue here, however, is how growth rates don't tell the entire story. Point in case: Idaho vs. Pennsylvania (a state with a much higher growth rate than the national average versus that of a state that is lower)
As you can see, although the growth rate in Idaho is drastically higher, the hard number of people in PA is actually significantly higher. Something to consider for those fast-growing, but sparsely-populated Western states. Growth rates look higher because there wasn't too much population there to begin with, and this isn't unique to Idaho.
I think growth rates tell a huge story. California could gain a million people and it's "just another million", but if Wyoming gained a million people, its population would more than double.
Let's talk rates here. In 1998, the US birth rate was 14.6 per 1,000 people (1.46%) and its death rate was 4.7 per 1,000 people (0.47%). (ET 1/2000: US vital statistics show death rates down, birth rates up) Subtracting the death rate from the birth rate yields almost exactly 1%. This 1% growth is the population growth of the USA in 1998 which can be attributed to the natural process of birth and death. Assuming that it's roughly 1% every year and multiplying that out over ten years yields 10.46%, which is an estimate of the portion of the USA's population growth rate which is attributable to birth vs. death (rather than from immigration vs. emigration).
PA's growth rate was only 3.36%. Its birth rate in 2004 was 1.17% (Births, Birth Rates, and Fertility Rates by State, 2004 — Infoplease.com). PA had the 2nd-highest death rate in the country in 2004 at 1.03% (Deaths, by State — Infoplease.com). Therefore, PA's aggregate growth due to birth vs. death should be 0.14%. Multiplying by ten years gives a growth rate due to birth and death of 1.71%. Therefore, PA's net population growth due to factors other than birth and death (which includes in-migration minus out-migration, and immigration minus emigration) is approximately 1.65%.
As stated before, the USA's population growth from 1990-2000 was 13.2%. Subtracting the birth/death rate or 10.46% gives an approximation of the population increase due to immigration (minus emigration) to be 2.74%. Even if my estimations aren't exact, the difference between 2.74% and PA's estimation of 1.65% is significant. Either immigrants don't want to come to PA, or an unusual percentage of people emigrate to other countries from PA, or both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
That's the case for every state, though, regardless of the wage growth rate. For example, if the wage growth in PA was slightly above the national avg., it would have been offset by inflation, as the figure you provided was a national inflation rate.
You're right, but if the national wage growth average was 12.97%, and PA's wage growth was 11.48%, there had to be another state (or another area with the same population as PA) which had wage growth equally above the average... at 14.46%. And then... why not be where the wages are growing, eh? Yes, inflation cuts into that no matter what the wage growth is. However, if wage growth exceeds inflation, at least your money buys more (on average). House prices may go up and down wildly but consumables prices (such as food, cars, clothing, etc) don't fluctuate that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
That's still relative parity. Also, the growth may have been disproportionate in a child age bracket, which makes job growth irrelevant.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
This again relates to the point I made about comparing growth rates to hard numbers. Also, I fail to see why relative transience of a state makes it a better place to live.
If population growth is largely attributable to an influx of out-of-staters, that doesn't necessary mean that the old-timers are leaving. A hypothetical state which started with 1,000,000 people and, over a ten-year period, had 100,000 of those original people leave but had another million move in, would still have the same percentage of old-timers as another hypothetical state which started with 1,000,000 people and lost 100,000 but didn't gain any others from out of state. To me, "transience" means that people generally come and go and nobody stays. I don't consider states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada to be "transient", although every state has its transients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
1.) I'd like to see the source for that figure.
I'd hoped you wouldn't call me out on that, but you are indeed a competent debater. I didn't have that source in front of me, as I'd merely extracted the information into an Excel spreadsheet during the winter... but I dug it up and here it is:
2.) Teaching is just one field. Cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are rapidly diversifying with biochemistry, engineering, and tech. firms, which lures plenty of graduate degree seekers. Your anecdotal data does not speak for the state at large.
And maybe this stuff will be the lifeblood of the cities... until, at least, everybody realizes in a few years how prohibitively expensive it has become to heat buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
1.) Without splitting hairs, most of these states are either considered part the Sun Belt (GA, NC and VA) or -- again -- had a small population to begin with (MT and DE).
Even if I don't argue these points, the fact remains that the South and West are the fastest-growing areas of the country while the Northeast region is the slowest-growing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
2.) While some of those states are indeed older, Pennsylvania really developed quicker and more uniformly in the industrial sector more than any of those. This was very beneficial to our state initially, but obviously hindered us in the long run.
What has also hindered PA is PA's reluctance to get with modern times. This is largely due to the elderly population... as older people tend to like things to stay stable and never change. If they elect council members who will work against the notion of huge change, huge changes will never happen. I think that anything can change a lot if need be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
I've heard this before, but I just don't agree. Businesses trended toward "red, low-tax" states over the past few decades for two main reasons -- cheap labor and air conditioning.
That's because low-tax red states know that a minimum wage is actually communistic and anti-free-market, and they generally keep theirs as low as possible. (If you want to get into it with me about this, sometime, I'm game. A free capitalist market will always set its own minimum wage without government intervention. These aren't the days of "The Jungle".)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
However, you're also forgetting stongly Democratic powerhouses like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California -- to name a few, which have also attracted people and lucrative business at a rapid pace.
My best guess as to why this is is because these states manage to attract people as well... liberals who flee red states just as conservatives flee blue states. I lived in NJ and I know that they have a lot of big businesses... but NJ wasn't always "blue". It used to be very red. The whole "blue" phenomenon is a last-two-decades thing. The same can be said for California and Massachusetts. MA had Mitt Romney as Governor, for goodness sakes... and he's very Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Not coincidently, these are some of the highest-taxed states in the country. The difference? Educational attainment. Education is where businesses flock to, as well, and so long as Pennsylvania can capitalize more on its abundant resources of higher education, it will -- and is starting to -- go the way of prosperous, although high-taxed, blue states on the East and West Coasts.
We shall see how this plays out. You are correct to say that businesses like to locate near educated people... but, these days, people are more mobile than they've ever been. People will move across the country for a job... so businesses have more freedom to locate where they want to locate, and then bring the people to their location.
I wish I would not have opened this thread. I have been begging my husband to move up north (his company has an office in PA,) but after reading this, I wonder if we should. The economy is good here in Houston and housing is much more affordable, also, no state tax. The only problem is, I hate it here! I would much prefer to have changing seasons and cold, snowy winters than constant heat and humidity that lasts for 5-6 months (todays high, 98.)
If we do move, it would be in the Sinking Spring, West Lawn area. Please everyone, reasure me that living in PA would not be terrible. I have had my heart set on this for some time now.
Thanks to you all and have a great weekend!
I wish I would not have opened this thread. I have been begging my husband to move up north (his company has an office in PA,) but after reading this, I wonder if we should. The economy is good here in Houston and housing is much more affordable, also, no state tax. The only problem is, I hate it here! I would much prefer to have changing seasons and cold, snowy winters than constant heat and humidity that lasts for 5-6 months (todays high, 98.)
If we do move, it would be in the Sinking Spring, West Lawn area. Please everyone, reasure me that living in PA would not be terrible. I have had my heart set on this for some time now.
Thanks to you all and have a great weekend!
Remember the phrase, that (some) knowledge is dangerous? Seriously, I've only visited PA, but not the Reading area - however, as you state, there are pros and there are cons to everywhere. I'm no worldly explorer, but I've lived in various parts of MO, IN, and AL - and have traveled to different regions of this country and Mexico, and will say that, again, there can be good and there can be bad found anywhere/everywhere you go.
Take for example this other thread: Does anyone else not like living in Indiana? - reading through this, you'd maybe think similar kind of reservations about moving to IN also? But, take a gander at this post w/in that thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/4414415-post252.html My point? Take your knowledge that you've gained by reading this PA thread, take a visit to the Reading area, learn some more by talking to people that you meet there, etc. and then, after further consideration you and your husband do move - remember that w/ every blackberry that you pick and enjoy the taste of that fruit, there are thorns, and potential of chiggers. [sorry, lol, different take than the proverbial "with every rose there is a thorn" saying... ]. And remember that everyone has different tastes and desires and dreams and perceptions - so, one may look at that area quite differently from another person that may fall in love with it. Good luck to yas!
__________________
I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center.
- Kurt Vonnegut
I do not think the measure of a civilization is how tall its buildings of concrete are,
But rather how well its people have learned to relate to their environment and fellow man.
- Sun Bear of the Chippewa Tribe
I wish I would not have opened this thread. I have been begging my husband to move up north (his company has an office in PA,) but after reading this, I wonder if we should. The economy is good here in Houston and housing is much more affordable, also, no state tax. The only problem is, I hate it here! I would much prefer to have changing seasons and cold, snowy winters than constant heat and humidity that lasts for 5-6 months (todays high, 98.)
If we do move, it would be in the Sinking Spring, West Lawn area. Please everyone, reasure me that living in PA would not be terrible. I have had my heart set on this for some time now.
Thanks to you all and have a great weekend!
Please do not let people on a internet forum change your mind about something. You have to remember, most people on internet forums that complain are there for a reason. The ones that enjoy life and where they live don't come on the forum to complain.......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
Seriously, I've only visited PA, but not the Reading area - however, as you state, there are pros and there are cons to everywhere. I'm no worldly explorer, but I've lived in various parts of MO, IN, and AL - and have traveled to different regions of this country and Mexico, and will say that, again, there can be good and there can be bad found anywhere/everywhere you go.
