Pittsburgh again rated "Most Livable" (Washington, Denver: transfer, construction)

[Katiana]

Is this possibly explainable by outmigration from the city center to the suburbs of Pittsburgh

from subdivisions.

No, because the numbers I used included the entire MSA. There must be some other reason. Someone with a lot of time on their hands can investigate it. If you want to look at birth rates, here is a web site that has some information: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763849.html. Some sunbelt states have high birth rates and high fertility rates, but so do some other states.

[barneyg]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

According to the above website, the death greater than birth phenomenon accounted for a decrease of 20,100 from 2001-2006. There are no birth/death figures for 2000. Assuming an average year of about 3000 more deaths than births, that amounts to 23,1000 of the population decrease. These figures are from the census bureau, so are reliable. So who were the other 36,900 who left? And why are there more deaths than births? Are there not enough women of childbearing age? Or are they just not having children? Nothing I have read tells us.

The point of the article was that Pittsburgh had the second highest loss of population.

You're right; however I thought the debate was about finding out the reason why Pittsburgh fared so badly compared to other metro areas in terms of population growth. I claim that Pittsburgh's underperformance is mostly due to 1) more deaths than births, and 2) lower immigration, while you seemed to claim that it is due to negative net domestic migration. While it is true that the Pittsburgh MSA has had negative net domestic migration (as evidenced by the USA Today map referenced earlier in this thread), I assert that it is not primarily the reason why Pittsburgh fell behind compared to other metro areas.

Using the link you provided I quickly calculated the net domestic migration rates for some arbitrarily chosen MSAs, for the 2001-06 period:

Phoenix 12.2
Dallas 6.3
Kansas City 1.0
Denver -0.3
Baltimore -0.6
Minneapolis -0.7
St. Louis -0.9
Washington DC -1.0
Cincinnati -1.5
Philadelphia -1.5
Pittsburgh -1.9
New Haven/Bridgeport -3.6
Buffalo -3.7
Cleveland -4.2
Boston -4.4
Detroit -4.7
Newark -5.8
New York City -11.3

I did the same thing for the net "natural" rate and immigration rate but won't post the rankings because my post would then be too long for some forumers . Anyway, the results are that Pittsburgh is dead last in both categories (it is actually the only MSA on the list that had more deaths than births!).

I guess my point is that while you are right that Pittsburgh had a negative net migration rate, it is no worse than many other cities around the country, and that what saves these other cities from losing population (as much as Pittsburgh anyway) is either immigration or a more favorable birth/death ratio, which is also likely related to immigration.

[Katiana]

(it is actually the only MSA on the list that had more deaths than births!).

Which suggests a large elderly population, at least relative to the population of women of childbearing age.

a more favorable birth/death ratio, which is also likely related to immigration.

Another reason might be a larger population of women of childbearing age, not women having more children. There is a difference.

FWIW

[barneyg]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

Which suggests a large elderly population, at least relative to the population of women of childbearing age.


Another reason might be a larger population of women of childbearing age, not women having more children. There is a difference.

FWIW

(Sorry for another long post)

You raise a good point. If you split the "natural population change" rate in terms of two ratios (birth rate and death rate) you'd find a slightly/moderately lower birth rate in Pittsburgh than in most other cities (except immigration hubs such as Phoenix, which have astronomical birth rates), but you'd also find that the death rate is the main driver, and is much higher in Pittsburgh than everywhere else (including Buffalo and Cleveland). So the main thing is not lack of women of childbearing age (but it is a factor).

Now what caused that? I cannot think that you honestly believe that as many young people (women) came to Pittsburgh as anywhere else, but got bored because of bad job prospects and left? Could it rather be that young people left 25 years ago when the steel mills closed, so they had kids _elsewhere_, so the number of women of childbearing age is lower here and now. I believe this has been well documented.

So FWIW my point remains that a lower number of women of childbearing age has nothing to do with young people leaving Pittsburgh in 2006. It does have to do with Pittsburgh having lots of trouble attracting young people (image problem), and it has to do with young people who left 25 years ago.

[PPG]

I'm very lost with you all are trying to say. Are you saying that people aren't leaving in record numbers? Most of the people I grew up with have relocated for better wages and nothing else.
SIDE NOTE:
Btw, anyone know how NEPA got to be first on the Pa forum lists? No offense SWB but NEPA should be third after Philly and Pittsburgh. Anybody agree. Not important but just wondering.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by PPG

I'm very lost with you all are trying to say. Are you saying that people aren't leaving in record numbers? Most of the people I grew up with have relocated for better wages and nothing else.
SIDE NOTE:
Btw, anyone know how NEPA got to be first on the Pa forum lists? No offense SWB but NEPA should be third after Philly and Pittsburgh. Anybody agree. Not important but just wondering.

Apparently, that is what people are trying to say. I agree with you.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by PPG

SIDE NOTE:
Btw, anyone know how NEPA got to be first on the Pa forum lists? No offense SWB but NEPA should be third after Philly and Pittsburgh. Anybody agree. Not important but just wondering.

Alphabetical Order... that's all. Though I agree, it did seem sort of weird at first glance.

[subdivisions]

Originally Posted by PPG

I'm very lost with you all are trying to say. Are you saying that people aren't leaving in record numbers? Most of the people I grew up with have relocated for better wages and nothing else.

*bangs head on desk*

Ok, look, this post is exactly why we keep having this same discussion over and over again.

Personal, anecdotal experience is NOT an adequate measure of what's really going on in a city. It's only personal, anecdotal evidence, and it's not "THE TRUTH". It's only one person's perception of what's going on.

If you really want to know what is happening out there on a broader level, you have to look at statistics. If you don't understand what people are talking about, I'm sorry. But if you come along and post the same old stuff backed up by a statement like "but all the people I know have done X..." or "I see a lot of news reports about crime", you're not adding anything constructive to the discussion. In fact, you're muddying the waters, and you might be repeating falsehoods.

I finally got PittNurse to post something with some numbers attached rather than a personal belief (no offense meant, she's hardly the only person on here who does that on a regular basis), and people were having a good discussion about it. I was looking forward to reading the outcome of the argument, because I think whatever they eventually decide might actually have a basis in fact rather than bias. So let's not bring it back down to the level of "I've heard of a bunch of young people who are leaving", ok?

Because otherwise I'll have to list in detail all the young people I know who bought a house here in the last year, AGAIN. And then we'll have to have a war about who personally knows more people who are leaving vs. staying and how old they are and how much money they make at their Pittsburgh job, and I know nobody wants to read any of that, because these posts are long enough as is.

Let's just stick to census figures and other documents that report things that might approach reality, ok?

[PPG]

Originally Posted by subdivisions

*bangs head on desk*

Ok, look, this post is exactly why we keep having this same discussion over and over again.

Personal, anecdotal experience is NOT an adequate measure of what's really going on in a city. It's only personal, anecdotal evidence, and it's not "THE TRUTH". It's only one person's perception of what's going on.

If you really want to know what is happening out there on a broader level, you have to look at statistics. If you don't understand what people are talking about, I'm sorry. But if you come along and post the same old stuff backed up by a statement like "but all the people I know have done X..." or "I see a lot of news reports about crime", you're not adding anything constructive to the discussion. In fact, you're muddying the waters, and you might be repeating falsehoods.

I finally got PittNurse to post something with some numbers attached rather than a personal belief (no offense meant, she's hardly the only person on here who does that on a regular basis), and people were having a good discussion about it. I was looking forward to reading the outcome of the argument, because I think whatever they eventually decide might actually have a basis in fact rather than bias. So let's not bring it back down to the level of "I've heard of a bunch of young people who are leaving", ok?

Because otherwise I'll have to list in detail all the young people I know who bought a house here in the last year, AGAIN. And then we'll have to have a war about who personally knows more people who are leaving vs. staying and how old they are and how much money they make at their Pittsburgh job, and I know nobody wants to read any of that, because these posts are long enough as is.

Let's just stick to census figures and other documents that report things that might approach reality, ok?

I think you are banging your head because you're trying to convince people it's going well in Iraq.
Pittsburgh's population lost was national news.
The Mayor agrees that changes need to be made to accomadate a shrinking city.
The other night a republican running against the mayor addressed the same issue with the same opinion (of the fact) as the mayor.
The fact is PEOPLE ARE LEAVING PITTSBURGH in addition to people dying and not having kids.
I'm sure the people who made the report took into account the other factors you've mentioned. This is happening in the entire rust belt not just Pittsburgh so are you saying that this whole report is wrong?
Also with Pittsburgh being a senior citizen mecca, we should expect to lose even more population.
You can't fix problems you won't admit exist. But do keep painting roses.
Thanks.

P.S. They say Pittsburgh is the worst place for singles. I don't even need to see the study to know that it's true. I'm living proof.

[Katiana]

I think I have posted more factual information than many. I am the one who keeps saying, give me the data. The data on the weather says Pittsuburgh has X number of cloudy days, not "I think it's a lovely day so it is not cloudy", etc. I have also objected to "proof" by opinion piece be it the PG or Evergrey or whatever.

I do have opinions, though. LOL!