Pittsburgh, best place to relocate to (Youngstown: houses, employment, neighborhoods)

[BrianTH]

Adding to your commute costs more than just gas. You have the additional depreciation and maintenance costs associated with more mileage. Most importantly, there is the value of your time.

Say, for example, you have to be at work 9 hours a day, or 540 minutes. Location A would allow a 20 minute commute each way, for a total of 40 minutes. Location B would allow a 30 minute commute each way, for a total of 60 minutes. That extra 20 minutes a day commuting is an increase of 3.45% in your total work day.

Now imagine Location A is in the City, and Location B is in a suburb. Is it worth having a 3.45% longer total work day for 2% more pay? That isn't obvious.

And that is just for a relatively minor 10 minutes extra each way. Add 15 minutes each way, and you are looking at over a 5% increase. 20 minutes is almost 7%. Going from 20 minutes to 1 hour? That is almost 15% more!

Of course none of this addresses where a given person would prefer to live, holding aside commuting issues. But long commutes are a lot more costly than some people seem to be accounting for, particularly when you actually place some value on your time.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by RestonRunner86

Well, I'm inclined to disagree, as I tend to think academic performance has a stronger correlation to demographics and the socioeconomic structure of the student body than to the amount of dollars spent per pupil. Newark, NJ spends the highest amount per student of any other public school district in the Garden State, yet their school quality is amongst the worst in the state, proving that throwing more money at a problem won't necessarily correct it if the inherent socioeconomic structure of the community is in dire straits.

In NEPA the strongest-performing school districts were Abington Heights, Crestwood, and Dallas, all three of which were home to upper-middle-class or affluent households. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that, overall, a rocket scientist in Mt. Lebanon would tend to take a more active role in their child's education (and be able to afford more opportunities to help to further that process) than a struggling single mom in Homewood. The best public school districts in Greater Pittsburgh if I'm not mistaken are Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair, and Fox Chapel, all three of which are in higher-end areas. The "best" schools in Pittsburgh are PROBABLY in Shadyside/Squirrel Hill.

This is why I hate when people say the schools in the suburbs are "better". No. More often than not they're not. They just have a higher concentration of students from well-to-do backgrounds who tend to perform better on standardized tests.

First of all, I said considered better. I have some of the same feelings about schools as you do, but PA has an antiquated school funding system. There are many states that have some sort of school finance equalization, which attempts to mitigate differences between "rich" and "poor" districts. Wealthier districts can afford more technology, offer more courses, extracurricular activities and so forth.

[varmintblaster]

Originally Posted by RestonRunner86

Excuse me? I told you in the NEPA sub-forum that I DID take the earned income tax into consideration already. Are you implying that the Congressional Budget Office is sub-par and should be home to a sub-par accountant such as myself? I think I take offense to that remark.

Stop spinning - you said PAY CUT - a.k.a. SALARY REDUCTION.

Yes I am implying that the CBO or any other governmental office is sub-par, and unfortunately, never suffer the consequences of their WAG estimates.

If they were employed in the private sector, they would be out of work because the entity would be bankrupt.

The truth hurts - take offense if you will.

[BrianTH]

I suspect both test scores and the niceness of facilities, ECs, and so on contribute to the overall perception of certain school districts being better or the best. And, unfortunately, there may just be some direct judgment of the student body as well.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by pman

it's also not a good time to be building anything, even in a good market. If the projects mentioned on this board go through (state office, etc) progress will be made. It's like anything, if one succeeds, two more may be built, if those succeed, larger projects may appear..in time.
as for prop taxes, Pittsburgh's are pretty high and it's probably the biggest issue IMO. prices have to remain low, if property prices went up, you'd be talking NJ level of property taxation. I'd also mention this study is dictated by a low cost of living and lower than average unemployment rate...which doesn't necessarily yield a list of "best places to relocate to." buffalo, for example, is #2. it may mean that it's so depressed that it's actually undervalued, but it's not necessarily a good place to be long term

Report: Pennsylvania middling-friendly to business - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
it doesn't mean no cities on the list are worth relocating to, just that the list has some dubious assumptions (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Omaha really is a good place to relocate to). I do think pittsburgh weather is a problem but probably less so than a perceived/real lack of connections to chicago and the east coast. too far out of people's comfort zones. one thing that could help is addressing the state's high corp net income tax as well as property taxes...at least if one wants to go from underrated to robust

What's with this little dig about Omaha? Why are easterners often so surprised to hear that Omaha is a bustling city on the Great Plains?.

That said, Omaha's weather is worse by many measures than Pittsburgh's, and it's way more isolated. Both, however, are about the same distance from Chicago. I'm not trying to hijack, just curious.

[rhondee]

Originally Posted by varmintblaster

Garbage pickup is not expensive.



It depends on the person's gross income and commuting distance, whether or not the difference in tax rates is worth it.



If a household earns $100,000, that's a $2,000 difference between a 3% and 1% earned income tax rate. (That is a lot of gas and garbage!!!).



besides, not everyone wants to live in the city.

Yeah,that's ifa household earns $100,000 , and wait, what if earns $100,000,000/year....??



I'm talking average which is $47,000/yr. for Pittsburgh household. And no, not just garbage pickup but car, mileage, gas and yes, time is very valuable and does add up.So for many people it would mean a savings.



No, not everyone wants to live in the city, but not suburbs, either. I work with someone who just moved back to the city, with her mom, from Cranberry area last year. She loves the convenience of urban living. I told her she had many shopping options available nearby for her there and she told me yes,but it always took forever between Rt 19 and Rt 228 b/c she found herself sitting in traffic most of the time.

[varmintblaster]

Different strokes for different folks.

Close to $1,000 difference on $47,000. Those who make less are basically stuck where they are.

I'm happy for your GF,but not everyone looks forward to moving back in with Mom.

As far as mileage/wear & tear on a car goes - stop & go city driving is much worse on a vehicle.

[Denton56]

Smart kids in=Smart kids out. It's the genes, and two parent families.

[rhondee]

Originally Posted by varmintblaster

Different strokes for different folks.

Close to $1,000 difference on $47,000. Those who make less are basically stuck where they are.

I'm happy for your GF,but not everyone looks forward to moving back in with Mom.

As far as mileage/wear & tear on a car goes - stop & go city driving is much worse on a vehicle.

She lived with mom in Cranberry-and they both had it with sitting in traffic there,thus decided to move to the city.They both like to go out alot and are active so I think that was another factor in their decision. She saves about an hour in total commute time each day, and said it was nothing but stop & go with 19, 228 and sometimes I- 79.

I reiterate, I asked her about the convenience of living there with all the stores she said yeah, you could see them but too bad you couldn't actually get to them b/c you spend your time sitting there in traffic.

[BrianTH]

The thing about property tax rates is that they naturally tend to be higher where property prices are lower, because you still need roughly the same amount of money for the relevant services and such. But conversely, if you can buy more property for less money, that compensates for a higher property tax rate, since your actual taxes paid for an equivalent property will be lower.

So what you really want to do is look at actual property taxes paid as a percentage of income, not as a percentage of property prices, in order to get a comparable sense of how much of a total burden local property taxes are placing on local residents. There will still be some variation for various reasons (e.g., different levels of per capita public spending, different distribution of the tax burden to different kinds of taxes (sales, wages, property, business, fees, etc.), and so on), but overall there is less variation in the property tax burden between different cities than a look at unadjusted property tax rates alone would suggest.