Pittsburgh population estimated to decline 0.08% in 2016... (Economy, Beaver: low income, job market, incomes)

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The list does not only include declines - it did include Cranberry and Peters. That said, you are correct it is incomplete. The map I put together shows all of these except for Upper Saint Clair also declined, at least according to census estimates.



First, it's not fair to expect the city to be the entire engine for job growth for the region. The city appears to be doing more than its part. Downtown employment has been stable since the 1950s, with no major suburban exodus (unlike many other rust belt CBDs). Oakland has absolutely exploded as a jobs anchor over the same time period. The city has successfully transitioned into a mostly white collar and service economy, completely erasing the job losses which the closure of the mills caused.

Secondly, a lot of these areas - particularly in the outlying counties and even some areas within the county, like the lower Mon Valley or the Tarentum area - are only modestly tied into the Pittsburgh economy. They're declining for the exact same reason that small towns with historic manufacturing bases are declining across the nation. It's almost incidental they happen to be included in the Pittsburgh MSA.

As to my original claim, it's a real rarity to have the situation you see in Pittsburgh, where there are many municipalities poorer than the core city. If it wasn't for the distorting effect of a large number of students in the East End the division would be even starker. It's honestly not normal on a national scale to both see so much wealth within the city proper and so much poverty in the "suburbs." Much of it has a long history, and is due to an accident of development, but it also primed the city for further gentrification.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Moon township is declining in population. Ditto Plum.

Guess we will have to wait til 2020 to truly get the clear picture. My hope is the city can pull it out these last 4 years and post a gain.

[bluecarebear]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

You can explain away the numbers all you want but the issue is job creation.

This Seattle-like weather doesn't help either. I have my popcorn ready for the Peduto responses.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Guess we will have to wait til 2020 to truly get the clear picture. My hope is the city can pull it out these last 4 years and post a gain.

I've looked into the ACS at the census tract level, and the estimates are just awful. Like the census still estimates the Strip District has around 600 residents, even though hundreds of additional units of apartments and condos have been added since 2010.

Of course, it might be the census is also under-estimating losses elsewhere in the city, and the city-wide numbers are accurate. But I don't have a lot of confidence in these estimates in general locally right now.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The list does not only include declines - it did include Cranberry and Peters. That said, you are correct it is incomplete. The map I put together shows all of these except for Upper Saint Clair also declined, at least according to census estimates.



First, it's not fair to expect the city to be the entire engine for job growth for the region. The city appears to be doing more than its part. Downtown employment has been stable since the 1950s, with no major suburban exodus (unlike many other rust belt CBDs). Oakland has absolutely exploded as a jobs anchor over the same time period. The city has successfully transitioned into a mostly white collar and service economy, completely erasing the job losses which the closure of the mills caused.

Secondly, a lot of these areas - particularly in the outlying counties and even some areas within the county, like the lower Mon Valley or the Tarentum area - are only modestly tied into the Pittsburgh economy. They're declining for the exact same reason that small towns with historic manufacturing bases are declining across the nation. It's almost incidental they happen to be included in the Pittsburgh MSA.

As to my original claim, it's a real rarity to have the situation you see in Pittsburgh, where there are many municipalities poorer than the core city. If it wasn't for the distorting effect of a large number of students in the East End the division would be even starker. It's honestly not normal on a national scale to both see so much wealth within the city proper and so much poverty in the "suburbs." Much of it has a long history, and is due to an accident of development, but it also primed the city for further gentrification.

Cities are job centers though. There are good and bad areas of the city as well as the suburbs. This is certainly not unique and doesn't make up for the the lack of population and job growth in the city. There is plenty of poverty in the city as well. I really don't know where you are getting this idea that Pittsburgh is unique. Statistics are statistics.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

Cities are job centers though. There are good and bad areas of the city as well as the suburbs. This is certainly not unique and doesn't make up for the the lack of population and job growth in the city. There is plenty of poverty in the city as well. I really don't know where you are getting this idea that Pittsburgh is unique. Statistics are statistics.

Pittsburgh isn't totally unique, but because of historical accidents of how we developed - with industry distributed throughout the region in mill towns, instead of concentrated in the city, we have more of a patchwork of wealth and poverty than the norm.

To compare Pittsburgh and Cleveland, for example, Pittsburgh's median household income in 2015 was $40,715 - 77% of the county average. Cleveland's median household income was only $26,150 - 59% of the county-wide average.

On education it's even starker. 38.3% of adults in Pittsburgh over age 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher now, which is a bit higher than the county-wide average of 37.8%. In contrast, only 15.6% of adults over 25 in Cleveland have college degrees, compared to the county-wide average of 30.5%.

I could do the same comparison with multiple cities, but it takes time to pull up the information for each in American Factfinder. The bottom line is, compared to the average city, Pittsburgh just has a lot less of the "bad" part of the metro in the city than is the norm.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pittsburgh isn't totally unique, but because of historical accidents of how we developed - with industry distributed throughout the region in mill towns, instead of concentrated in the city, we have more of a patchwork of wealth and poverty than the norm.

To compare Pittsburgh and Cleveland, for example, Pittsburgh's median household income in 2015 was $40,715 - 77% of the county average. Cleveland's median household income was only $26,150 - 59% of the county-wide average.

On education it's even starker. 38.3% of adults in Pittsburgh over age 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher now, which is a bit higher than the county-wide average of 37.8%. In contrast, only 15.6% of adults over 25 in Cleveland have college degrees, compared to the county-wide average of 30.5%.

I could do the same comparison with multiple cities, but it takes time to pull up the information for each in American Factfinder. The bottom line is, compared to the average city, Pittsburgh just has a lot less of the "bad" part of the metro in the city than is the norm.

Clearly. But saying rural parts of the metro are akin to the suburban parts (e.g. saying everywhere outside of the city is below average) in terms of dragging the numbers down is disingenuous. The suburbs are vital as the city - but due to the large portions of rural towns and townships in our metro, the entire metro looks to be suffering worse than it is.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Clearly. But saying rural parts of the metro are akin to the suburban parts (e.g. saying everywhere outside of the city is below average) in terms of dragging the numbers down is disingenuous. The suburbs are vital as the city - but due to the large portions of rural towns and townships in our metro, the entire metro looks to be suffering worse than it is.

This is true. But the suburbs outside of those areas still getting built out are also shrinking, albeit mostly due to falling household size. Admittedly, this is also true in established suburbs up and down the East Coast.

Honestly the real demographic issue with Pittsburgh is we're not getting enough immigrants. Our domestic migration outflow isn't remarkable for a northeastern metro, and the natural population decline is because we don't have many immigrant families who live in the area.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is true. But the suburbs outside of those areas still getting built out are also shrinking, albeit mostly due to falling household size. Admittedly, this is also true in established suburbs up and down the East Coast.

Honestly the real demographic issue with Pittsburgh is we're not getting enough immigrants. Our domestic migration outflow isn't remarkable for a northeastern metro, and the natural population decline is because we don't have many immigrant families who live in the area.

I agree with this. Immigration isn't zero though either. I think the primary reason is still due to a high death rate (coupled with a lower birth rate ) but more so due to the death rate.

I don't want sunbelt growth for this area though either; slow growth is ideal and densification in the core county and adajcent subrubs next to Allegheny county would be ideal. We are going towards this, but aren't as far along as I once thought.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pittsburgh isn't totally unique, but because of historical accidents of how we developed - with industry distributed throughout the region in mill towns, instead of concentrated in the city, we have more of a patchwork of wealth and poverty than the norm.

To compare Pittsburgh and Cleveland, for example, Pittsburgh's median household income in 2015 was $40,715 - 77% of the county average. Cleveland's median household income was only $26,150 - 59% of the county-wide average.

On education it's even starker. 38.3% of adults in Pittsburgh over age 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher now, which is a bit higher than the county-wide average of 37.8%. In contrast, only 15.6% of adults over 25 in Cleveland have college degrees, compared to the county-wide average of 30.5%.

I could do the same comparison with multiple cities, but it takes time to pull up the information for each in American Factfinder. The bottom line is, compared to the average city, Pittsburgh just has a lot less of the "bad" part of the metro in the city than is the norm.

I don't disagree but your below statement still doesn't make sense. That could describe 99% of the cities in the U.S and has nothing to do with the lack of economic growth.

"Fundamentally, Pittsburgh is a core city of above-average wealth, education and vibrancy, within a metro with decidedly below-average economic prospects."

[RogersParkTransplant]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

I don't disagree but your below statement still doesn't make sense. That could describe 99% of the cities in the U.S and has nothing to do with the lack of economic growth.

"Fundamentally, Pittsburgh is a core city of above-average wealth, education and vibrancy, within a metro with decidedly below-average economic prospects."

No. This does not describe 99% of the cities in the US. Eschaton's comparison to Cleveland is especially useful, but there's plenty more where that came from.