Pittsburgh again rated "Most Livable" (Rochester, Madison: salary, tax rates)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
II'm sure the people who made the report took into account the other factors you've mentioned.
Ok, let's talk about the "report". Which report would this be again? Links, please...
And as long as we're on the subject of "living proof", well, if you get to use yourself as PROOF that Pittsburgh is bad for singles (a claim I haven't disputed on this forum, because I personally just don't know about that one), then I get to use myself as PROOF that young, educated people aren't leaving Pittsburgh. I moved here 4 years ago in my late twenties, with my young, educated husband, and we liked it so much we bought a house. I probably know as many young people who did the same as you do who left to find higher-paying jobs elsewhere.
So where does that get us? Do we know which one of us has the correct opinion yet?
I think it's fair to say that "(some) people are leaving Pittsburgh", as it has a negative net domestic migration rate. However the same story holds for almost any other metropolitan area in the Northeast and Midwest (the exception among those I did research for is Kansas City, look at the numbers I provided earlier in this thread). Pittnurse70's data was helpful there.
However you can't take Pittsburgh in isolation starting from another piece of data (the population loss thing) that compares Pittsburgh to other metro areas. To know why Pittsburgh fared so badly, you HAVE TO compare it to other metro areas. On those respects, the data I've provided clearly shows that Pittsburgh's problem is births vs. deaths (why likely has been caused by young people fleeing Pittsburgh in the past, ie. 2 decades ago), as well as very low immigration. To me this correlates to both 1) an image problem in the past and today, and 2) a weak economy in the past (and today in some sectors that are heavily related to population growth, such as construction).
To summarize anecdotal evidence that your childhood friends have left for better jobs elsewhere is likely to be representative of the actual statistics. However, had you grown up in Boston or Philly or New Jersey, you'd also find that most of your childhood friends have left for better paying jobs elsewhere. It's either a problem of the Northeast/Midwest (Rust Belt) or a testament to the mobility of American workforce, depending on how you see it. But it is not a Pittsburgh problem, and does not explain why Pittsburgh lost population while the others did not. Furthermore there still isn't data showing that _young people are leaving (present tense!)_, as negative net domestic migration could be due to people retiring in Florida and Arizona, as PA is one of the oldest states in the nation.
I am not sure why this population debate is still going on. It is clear that the out migration of 20+ years ago would have an impact of births in the last decade or so. Yes overall, the region has been losing population for a longtime, but not in mass number like in the mid 80's.
Once deaths topped births in the metro (mid 90's) it has been out numbering births since then.
Other metros that didn't lose 20, 30, 40 thousand people a year for 3-5 years in a row two decades ago are still on top with births. That would be just about every other city.
as already stated, the domestic migration levels for Pittsburgh could and should be better, but there are not the worst. Most other cities except the super booming ones have low domestic growth or in most cases negative domestic migration, but have healthy births and foreign migration.
It's funny, my family and I (husband and 23 yr old daughter) were discussing this issue at dinner last night. DH (not from Pittsburgh) says he finds it hard to believe that P-burgh is losing so much population b/c it doesn't look any smaller. We discussed the excess of elderly pop. DD said it is obvious when she goes there that there are more elderly than here. DD does not know anyone from her friend/acquaintance group that has any plans to go to Pittsburgh, though she does know people who have left Colorado for NY and Boston. She also knows people from Pittsburgh who have come here.
The PG did an article a while back that said that the smallest population group in Pittsburgh is the 55 - 59 group. These are the people that left in droves. The population data shows some years of severe population loss in both the 70s and 80s. I guess one needs more detailed population statistics to find out just who is leaving. Even with a surplus of elderly, it may be possible that some are still leaving for retirement locations. That is an issue with any city in a temperate climate; some people want to retire where it doesn't get cold and they don't have to shovel snow. People leave here for Arizona, sometimes Washington. 20somethings usually have a high rate of mobility, so it is a good guess that they are contributing to the exodus. The much smaller number of births last year in Pittsburgh (23000) compared to Denver (37000) a city of similar metro size, at least hints that there are fewer women of childbearing age in Pittsburgh. One doesn't know if that means they are leaving, or just not coming, or both. All of Denver's birth excess cannot be caused by the immigrants; I have read research that most immigrants do not have excessively large families, especially after they have been here a while. I can vouch for that anecdotally. This is an interesting topic, but I doubt we can ever get to the root causes of Pittsburgh's population change.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-02-2007 at 08:15 AM..
Reason: typo
The PG did an article a while back that said that the smallest population group in Pittsburgh is the 55 - 59 group. These are the people that left in droves. The population data shows some years of severe population loss in both the 70s and 80s. I guess one needs more detailed population statistics to find out just who is leaving. Even with a surplus of elderly, it may be possible that some are still leaving for retirement locations. That is an issue with any city in a temperate climate; some people want to retire where it doesn't get cold and they don't have to shovel snow. People leave here for Arizona, sometimes Washington. 20somethings usually have a high rate of mobility, so it is a good guess that they are contributing to the exodus. The much smaller number of births last year in Pittsburgh (23000) compared to Denver (37000) a city of similar metro size, at least hints that there are fewer women of childbearing age in Pittsburgh. One doesn't know if that means they are leaving, or just not coming, or both. All of Denver's birth excess cannot be caused by the immigrants; I have read research that most immigrants do not have excessively large families, especially after they have been here a while. I can vouch for that anecdotally. This is an interesting topic, but I doubt we can ever get to the root causes of Pittsburgh's population change.
I agree with most of what you said, except that this smaller number of women of childbearing age (if true) may have been caused by the _fact_ that young people (say 25-35) left 25-30 years ago. Those had their kids elsewhere, which is what I've been arguing all along. Since these were the people who (statistically) mostly left back then, it's only logical that these are the people who are in low numbers now (someone who was 25 years old 30 years ago would obviously be 55 now).
Yours is one explanation. However, the PG article said the 55-59 group is the smallest in number. I do not have a link for that article, you could probably search if you wanted. I do not know what it means when they say the smallest age group, e.g. compared to what? The national average? Something else? Apparently, at least according to that article, people in their 20s and 30s are not that low in number. Again, compared to what, I don't know.
Women of childbearing age are generally considered women ages 15-44 in population statistics. All you can infer from the numbers we have is that more people are dying in Pittsburgh than being born, and that this alone does not account for the population drop. We really don't know why it is. BTW, there was an article in today's PG online edition that said most seniors stay near home. Again, didn't say what "most" means, or if the statistic applies to Pittsburgh. We do know that 20somethings like to move around. I think back to my own 20s and it was true then. Both my kids wanted to go to college out of state (this after we were smart enough to have them here in Colorado, LOL!). (Both came back, one after college grad, the other as a transfer student.) Perhaps someone with a lot of time on their hands (that is not me!) can do an in-depth look at Pittsburgh's demographics. Did you look at the birth rate link I provided? It does show both a lower birth rate (births per 1000 people) and a lower fertility rate (births per 1000 women of childbearing age) for Pennsylvania. Lower than a number of other states and lower than the national average. It's not broken down any more than that.
Yours is one explanation. However, the PG article said the 55-59 group is the smallest in number. I do not have a link for that article, you could probably search if you wanted. I do not know what it means when they say the smallest age group, e.g. compared to what? The national average? Something else? Apparently, at least according to that article, people in their 20s and 30s are not that low in number. Again, compared to what, I don't know.
Women of childbearing age are generally considered women ages 15-44 in population statistics. All you can infer from the numbers we have is that more people are dying in Pittsburgh than being born, and that this alone does not account for the population drop. We really don't know why it is. BTW, there was an article in today's PG online edition that said most seniors stay near home. Again, didn't say what "most" means, or if the statistic applies to Pittsburgh. We do know that 20somethings like to move around. I think back to my own 20s and it was true then. Both my kids wanted to go to college out of state (this after we were smart enough to have them here in Colorado, LOL!). (Both came back, one after college grad, the other as a transfer student.) Perhaps someone with a lot of time on their hands (that is not me!) can do an in-depth look at Pittsburgh's demographics. Did you look at the birth rate link I provided? It does show both a lower birth rate (births per 1000 people) and a lower fertility rate (births per 1000 women of childbearing age) for Pennsylvania. Lower than a number of other states and lower than the national average. It's not broken down any more than that.
I wonder of the lower fertility rate has to do with a lot of women putting off having kids and then having a hard getting pregnant... so many poeple out here have that problem -- it' harder to get knocked up after 30, and women are waiting sometimes till 35.... when it's harder still. So instead of the three you intended to have you end up with one....
I wonder of the lower fertility rate has to do with a lot of women putting off having kids and then having a hard getting pregnant... so many poeple out here have that problem -- it' harder to get knocked up after 30, and women are waiting sometimes till 35.... when it's harder still. So instead of the three you intended to have you end up with one....
Just to play devil's advocate....
I can't think of a theoretical reason why this would be more true of women in Pittsburgh than in any other city, can you? So I doubt this would be the correct explanation for the question asked.
BTW, on a totally different topic, I actually have gone over once or twice to the Colorado Springs forum to bash the city a little bit. :-) It made me feel a bit better about the miserable time I spent there. However, I didn't stick around to read any of the responses, so I don't know how it was received. This was quite a while ago, and I don't even remember what I said. Probably something about the weather and my perception that the place was full of fundies (but I think it was actually PittNurse who pointed out that the citizens of Pittsburgh are actually more religiously homogenous than those of CS, and I have adjusted my biases accordingly since then...although I still think I'd rather live with Catholics than with Focus on the Family). Anyway, I'm not really interested in spending lots of time worrying about whether other people think the Springs is a great place to live - it's a part of my life that's over and done with now. I'd rather tell people how much I like Pittsburgh instead, since I actually live here and like it. Oh, and plus Mayor Ravenstahl pays me to say nice things about the city. Ha ha...just kidding!
Last edited by subdivisions; 06-02-2007 at 05:41 PM..
I have visited Pittsburgh a number of times and have enjoyed it alot, in fact it is one of the top 10 larger cities I would want to locate in after I graduate. You know, though when you read about most livable cities, don't you notice that there are no florrida or south california cities on the list? You know, the places that many people have been brainwashed into thinking they are paradise? Anyways keep up the good work Pittsburgh!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
