Pittsburgh again rated "Most Livable" (Greensboro, Mexico: home, college)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

The major misconception is that there is a mass exodus of Pittsburghers "voting with their feet" by leaving... while that was the case 20-25 years ago in the wake of the steel collapse... it is no longer true.

That may indeed be a major misconception. But it's neither here nor there where a discussion of Pittsburgh's "liveability" is concerned. All it speaks to is the propensity, or lack thereof, of native Pittsburghers to leave the area. I presume your post is meant to address comments made by clairemarie and myself who used and affirmed, respectively, the "voting with feet" metaphor. But as you implicitly acknowledge in your own post, it's not just about Pittsburghers "voting with their feet" to leave Pittsburgh or declining to do so. It's also about the rest of the country's domestic and immigrant population aggregately "voting with their feet" to settle elsewhere besides Pittsburgh.. And why would they do that if Pittsburgh is, in fact, the nation's most liveable city? THAT is the question that has to be answered and addressed before Pittsburgh experiences a true resurgence in economic and population growth, and consequently, may be seen as a truly, objectively, top-tier liveable city.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Drover

That may indeed be a major misconception. But it's neither here nor there where a discussion of Pittsburgh's "liveability" is concerned. All it speaks to is the propensity, or lack thereof, of native Pittsburghers to leave the area. I presume your post is meant to address comments made by clairemarie and myself who used and affirmed, respectively, the "voting with feet" metaphor. But as you implicitly acknowledge in your own post, it's not just about Pittsburghers "voting with their feet" to leave Pittsburgh or declining to do so. It's also about the rest of the country's domestic and immigrant population aggregately "voting with their feet" to settle elsewhere besides Pittsburgh.. And why would they do that if Pittsburgh is, in fact, the nation's most liveable city?

I never made a statement concerning the "livability" of Pittsburgh in my post, but was responding to the popular myth of the never-ending mass evacuation of Pittsburgh implied in the "voting with their feet" comment. So yes, my post was directed towards you and claremarie, as I have a particular loathing of the perpetuation of this myth. Regional population decline is certainly a problem, but the current population decline is primarily due to factors other than out-migration. It is important to make the correct diagnosis in order to treat the problem. Trying to "retain our young people" is not the right approach, for example... as we already retain as many as we possibly can... we just fail to replenish those that leave.

There is little in-migration because the region is not seeing significant net job growth. There has been considerable job creation in new sectors to offset the catastrophic decline of the manufacturing (steel) sector, which started in the 70s. However, the new job creation has predominately been absorbed by the local population.. much of it due to the increase in female participation... which coincidentally plays well with our most successful industry... health care... which has a very high female participation. There has been little opportunity available for migrants to relocate here. As I stated previously, the major components of regional economic malaise are in population-dependent sectors. When steel collapsed, we lost a few hundred thousand people... we lose those people... we lose the need for retail, government, schoolteachers, warehouse and transportation people (US AIR), etc... we lose those jobs... we lose people... and so on. The region has to reach that critical mass of growth in our successful sectors so that we are able to attract people from outside and increase our population. Now that the growth of the female sector of the workforce is probably being tapped out... there should be more room for outsiders.

Having the country's highest corporate net income tax certainly retards more robust job growth as well.

People follow jobs. When there is enough net job growth here, the population will increase. Pittsburgh is a delightful city that has an unfortunate reputation... but people don't care about magazine rankings.

In the mean time... we will continue to experience the senior die-off... as we essentially have the number of deaths for a metro of 3 million and the number of births for a metro of 2 million... to grossly generalize... (we are at 2.5 million population)

the net out-migration... however small... is not unusual amongst major US metros... Chicago's net out-migration is much greater than Pittsburgh's, for example... but Pittsburgh is unique in its birth deficit... and relatively unique in its failure to attract international migrants (along with Cincy, Cleveland and a couple others...)... Metro Chicago, by contrast... makes up for its domestic out-migration with international migrants and natural increase... though as an aside... Cook County is seeing massive population loss as the region continues to decentralize

[JoeP]

For those clinging onto the "they vote with their feet" fallacy, look at this:

Domestic migration 2006:

DC: -40,161

Pittsburgh -9,389

Columbus +474

Cleveland -19,765

LA -183,063

Buffalo -8,744

New York -168,653

Philadelphia -15,724

San Francisco -17,484

San Diego -42,034

Boston -44,424

Milwaukee -11,210

Detroit -42,633

San Jose -15,614

Of course some cities like Atlanta and several in FL, NC and Texas had significant in migration.

[Katiana]

I don't understand this birth deficit. Is the birth rate down in Pgh? Or are there just not that many women of child-bearing age? And what's with this business about new jobs being taken by women instead of by newcomers? Women have been participating big time in the work force for at least the last 30 yrs. everywhere in the US.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I never made a statement concerning the "livability" of Pittsburgh in my post, but was responding to the popular myth of the never-ending mass evacuation of Pittsburgh implied in the "voting with their feet" comment. So yes, my post was directed towards you and claremarie, as I have a particular loathing of the perpetuation of this myth.

I'm confused. You never made a statement about the livability of Pittsburgh, even though that is putatively what this thread is about; and yet neither clairemarie or I ever made a statement about the "popular myth" of the "never-ending mass evacuation of Pittsburgh." So what exactly is your point?

Originally Posted by JoeP

For those clinging onto the "they vote with their feet" fallacy, look at this:

Domestic migration 2006:

[BLAH BLAH BLAH]

I'm sorry, how does this refute the notion that people vote with their feet? All that says to me is that people voted with their feet to leave the places you cite (INCLUDING Pittsburgh!), whether they were cities proper or metropolitan areas (which your quoted, uncited data never says). If you want to know where those feet are voting for, why not post those places that have net in-migration?

[South Range Family]

When it comes to voting with your feet, I think there is a big difference between wanting to leave and being forced to leave for a job.
I'm an aircraft mechanic for USAir. In 2001 I had over 4000 mechanics under me in seniority. Today, I have 15 mechanics under me in Pit. Some guys went to other aviation jobs in other cities. Some started their own businesses. A large portion stayed with the company in other cities. The ones that are still on the seniority list are chomping at the bit, waiting for their turn to come home.

There are thousands of reservation agents, baggage handlers, stock clerks, and utility workers that are all doing the same thing. We have a 757 that we fill with employees that are commuting to Philly every day. They would rather fly to work every day, and add several hours to their day, instead of moving across the State. I think that says something for "voting with their feet".
Our industry has the unique abilty to commute long distances. Think of all of the other Pittsburghers that were forced to move because they don't have that ability.

I'm also not a cheerleader for Pittsburgh. I'm not from here. I don't live here. I just work here.

[Katiana]

South Range Family:

When it comes to voting with your feet, I think there is a big difference between wanting to leave and being forced to leave for a job.

The end result is the same, however. And re: best places to live, quality of life does include a paying job in most cases.

[OutaFL]

"MY reality is the most real!" "NO!! MY reality is the most real!!!"

This gets SO old people. Really. Especially the negative types.

People can love it or hate it, all that matters to me is I like Pittsburgh.

[JoeP]

BLAH BLAH BLAH,

My point is that people are leaving a great number of regions by the thousands every year, this is not a Pittsburgh exclusive problem, but a problem for the cities I mentioned (with the exception of Columbus) and many others. Of course I included the statistic for Pittsburgh, I am showing this trend is for not just Pittsburgh, but many cities, as opposed to harping on this a uniquely Pittsburgh problem.

When cities are discussed, they are discussed in metro terms. I didn't realize that had to be clarified. Comparing cities based on city proper populations is useless and irrelevant.

[guylocke]

Comparing cities based on city proper populations is useless and irrelevant

Here is a GREAT little article on this subject that is a true pleasure to read. It's just a commentary piece about how Pittsburgh doesn't play by the same rules as the sun-belt cities or other vastly growing cities like the cities of Texas.

I promise you'll enjoy it and here is one little quote:

They annex their suburbs, turning commuters into city residents, whether they like it or not

The article can be clicked here

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05198/538678.stm