Pittsburgh again rated "Most Livable" (Philadelphia, York: house, rent)

[subdivisions]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

Native-born Americans flee cities - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

Two things about this article strike me as interesting.

First, although it repeats the fact that Pittsburgh has lost 60K in population this decade, this article doesn't claim that all the young people are moving away from Pittsburgh. In fact, it doesn't make any statement about WHY Pittsburgh lost population at all - it just says that we did. Which is a fact nobody is disputing. To effectively counter-argue Evergray's argument and support the claim that all the young people move away, you need to find and post some statistics clearly showing that the population decrease is in an age bracket below 35 (or whatever) rather than old people dying or the result of a generation gap.

Second, this article implies that the reason sun belt cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas are increasing in population is primarily due to immigration (illegal immigration?), rather than domestic migration out of Northeast cities such as Pittsburgh. And if you read the article carefully, the author does not seem to be favorably disposed to the concept of increasing a city population this way. He/she quotes a source as saying:

"A lot of cities rely on immigration to prop up their housing market and prop up their economies"

and goes on to say:

"Advocates for stricter immigration laws question whether a stable, or even a shrinking population, is bad."

Sounds like to me the author of this piece would be more optimistic about Pittsburgh's decreasing population than Phoenix's growing one. I'm not sure posting this particular article was the best argument you could have made in response to Evergray's thread.

[Gerbil]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

From Drover:
The above is simply not true. In the past two years, Pittsburgh lost more people than any other city except New Orleans, and New Orleans' situation is due to Hurrican Katrina. Pittsburgh and its suburbs have been losing population for decades, at a time when the overall population of the US has been growing. It's not just all the old folks dying off, either, as has been suggested. All evidence to the contrary (that people are leaving Pgh) that has been presented on this forum is opinion pieces that are in some cases 5 yrs old. No hard evidence has been submitted to support that premise. The mayor formed some sort of task force to keep young people in Pittsburgh. Even the city leadaers are aware of the problem. It would be helpful for the city if people would accept this and try to do something about it instead of denying it.

I meant to say that people are not *leaving* Pittsburgh any faster than average. And that is an absolute fact, supported by data that was already posted in this thread.

I don't care about opinion pieces. Individual cases don't have anything to do with the overall picture. Some people leave, as is true for any city. If a few of them think their own stories apply to everyone, they are mistaken.

City leaders *think* we're losing too many young people, because the myth has been so persistent. But that doesn't mean we are.

Here is a graph illustrating net domestic migration for major cities: DomMig0006msa.gif]DomMig0006msa.gif]DomMig0006msa.gif]DomMig0006msa.gif]DomMig0006msa.gif (image)

As you can see, we didn't do great, but we're pretty average. All but one of the cities that had positive net migration are sunbelt or west coast. Of those that had negative net migration we are far from being the worst.


Finally let me reiterate that I am *not* trying to say we shouldn't fix the city's problems. I am simply saying that we need to understand those problems properly. We should be fixing real problems not imaginary ones.

[guylocke]

I find it useless to start to argue about these type of things on this forum, anymore. Yet, I will still add my two cents anyway (are you shocked? Didn't think so).

Pittsburgh is losing population, that is a fact. The net-out population is exceeding the net-in population. However, the net-out population is not all that different than many other north-eastern or midwest cities (btw, Pittsburgh is officially a north eastern city by geographic terms, culture and such can be up for debate). The problem is that Pittsburgh does not attract much in terms of immigration (a ton of the country's positive population is due to Hispanic and Asian immigrant fueling - which isn't a bad thing, it's just not seen at a great percentage in Pittsburgh). This, on top of the elderly population dying, is what continues to exacerbate the decline in population - which, btw, isn’t inherently a bad thing.

The young people ARE NOT leaving, though, contrary to popular belief. In fact, more than once I have posted (so has Evergrey) research that shows Pittsburgh retains a higher percentage of its young people than even the national average! And I truly believe this being a young kid in college, myself. Pittsburgh also retains much of its own talent as our world leading industries are fueled by our own bright minds and the minds of people who come here and stay here to further grow these industries.

The young people WERE leaving, years and years ago. It is simply not true, anymore.

And there is plenty of research that still doesn't spell out doom and gloom for Pittsburgh. In fact, much shows that within this decade Pittsburgh may see population growth or at least stability. Pittsburgh is also one of the few cities that will go through this natural "elderly" cycle early and we will pull out of it early as well, while other cities have yet to enter it. Pittsburgh hit rock bottom years ago and is climbing upward. Whether the population declines a bit more, stabilizes, or grows in the near future is completely irreverent to me. Pittsburgh is more highly recognized as a superb place to live, raise a family, and visit more than EVER. Our industries are some of (if not THE) fastest growing and most vital industries of the future and our schooling and advanced learning facilities are incredible (while retaining these young minds). On a side note, Chatham just received University recognition and Point Park did the same about two years ago. Two more Universities with GROWING attendance to add to the ranks of Pitt, CMU, Duquesne, and many others.

[Katiana]

Like boylocke, I find trying to present an argument on this forum difficult. Much more difficult than on some other forums, mind you. However, every now and then, something sparks me.

First, although it repeats the fact that Pittsburgh has lost 60K in population this decade, this article doesn't claim that all the young people are moving away from Pittsburgh. In fact, it doesn't make any statement about WHY Pittsburgh lost population at all - it just says that we did

So just who is leaving Pittsburgh? Some leave through death. There have been more deaths than births since 1997, but that doesn't accouont for the entire population decrease. It doesn't even account for half of it.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change

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.

[subdivisions]

[quote=pittnurse70;801122]
Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change

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. [quote]

Now this is a much better argument. What about these other 36,900 you pointed out? Who are they and why did they leave? Are they old or young? Educated or not? I would be interested in the answer to this question. Maybe somebody here has the time today to research this. Evergray? Is this possibly explainable by outmigration from the city center to the suburbs of Pittsburgh (since Pittsburgh, unlike other cities, has not incorporated outlying Allegheny County suburbs in their population counts)? Or did they actually leave to go to another city or state entirely? Inquiring minds want to know...

As far as the more deaths than births thing - I think this might be explained by the "generation gap" argument. Basically the idea is that an entire generation of people who would have raised children in Pittsburgh left when the steel mills closed. Thus, they didn't have any more children here, and their children, who would be having kids now, didn't either. So Pittsburgh ended up with a birth deficit.

Also, I don't have any stats on this right now (no time this morning, sorry), but I believe I have read several places that high birth numbers in at least some sun belt cities is directly attributable to increased numbers of immigrants rather than native citizens. In fact, I think the birth rate almost everywhere in the U.S. and in other Western nations for non-immigrant citizens has been declining for decades, but immigrants, especially from South American countries and Mexico, have lots of babies. Since Pittsburgh isn't currently a hot destination for immigrants, our birth rate isn't as high as in other places. That would be my guess about the birth rate issue anyway.

[guylocke]

Also, I don't have any stats on this right now (no time this morning, sorry), but I believe I have read several places that high birth numbers in at least some sun belt cities is directly attributable to increased numbers of immigrants rather than native citizens. In fact, I think the birth rate almost everywhere in the U.S. and in other Western nations for non-immigrant citizens has been declining for decades, but immigrants, especially from South American countries and Mexico, have lots of babies. Since Pittsburgh isn't currently a hot destination for immigrants, our birth rate isn't as high as in other places.

That's exactly right.

Why are people so obsessed with this population thing anyway? Do people genuinely think that losing some population is inherently a bad thing? I bet NYC and LA beg to differ. I realize population growth may indicate success and desirability, but not always, and the opposite isn't always true, either.

Pittsburgh is cleaner, safer, and consistently recognized as an excellent place to live with a phenomenal cost-of-living and community values more than ever.
If you think the population is going to shrink until Pittsburgh is literally vacant, you're sadly mistaken. lol. At the very worst, Pittsburgh will see a bit more decline until the job market is completely stable to sustain the population (the very near future). Will that mean Pittsburgh will have a population of 250,000 and yet be a bustling, beautiful, and cultured place? Very possible, and fine by me.

Pittsburgh may be losing some population but it hasn't lost any of it's charm and definitely hasn't lost the things that people come here and love about Pittsburgh. I'd argue that if anything, those things have only gotten stronger.

[Gerbil]

Well the city is doing a lot better than the rest of the county, I can tell you that much. The city of Pittsburgh gained people in the 20 to 24 age group (up 18.2%) between 2003 and 2005, while the rest of the county lost 0.8%. For the 25 to 34 age group in that time the city gained 4.8% while the county lost 8.0%.

This information is from the Census American Community Survey. I am not sure if the county numbers are comprehensive or if they exclude the city. Either way, the city itself is gaining young people. As a matter of fact, the city gained population in 8 out of 13 age groups. The only losses were in age groups under age 20 or above age 64. So in all of the age groups where people are most likely to move around of their own free will, the city gained. It's also interesting to note that the city gained 31.7% in the under 5 group and 21.3% in the 5 to 9 group. This, to me, shows a healthy birth-rate within city limits, at least.

I'd like to look more closely at the county numbers, but since I don't know whether they include the city or not, it wouldn't mean a whole lot.


I think we can all agree that the region did lose population. No one is disputing that. But it's important to break down the numbers as much as we can. I'm not sure about the region as a whole, but the city itself seems to be doing well. Young people are *not* fleeing. No one is fleeing. We just need more in-migration to make up for normal losses and the unusually high death-rate.

Here are some other numbers of interest from the same source:

In population age 25 and over, 87% of Pittsburghers have a high school diploma or more (versus 84.2% for the US as a whole). 32.3% have a Bachelor's degree or more (versus 27.2% for the whole US).

[guylocke]

The city of Pittsburgh gained people in the 20 to 24 age group (up 18.2%) between 2003 and 2005, while the rest of the county lost 0.8%. For the 25 to 34 age group in that time the city gained 4.8% while the county lost 8.0%.

I told you Pittsburgh was above the national average on retaining young people!! That isn't the only census borough that i've read similar things.

[bboy36win]

Is it me, or has this population topic been beaten to death?

And man, you guys write long posts. Nothing convinces me like brevity.

[guylocke]

Is it me, or has this population topic been beaten to death?

Well just like yourself - apparently you are still reading it and still responding