PA growing? (Philadelphia, Scranton, Lancaster: houses, unemployment, schools)

[Duderino]

Very interesting statistics -- thanks for posting PacoMartin.

I also think it is also important to keep in mind the dramatic growth differences within Pennsylvania.

Essentially, a growth pattern has emerged where the vast majority of the state's growth is concentrated in its southeast quadrant--including the Lehigh Valley, Philadelphia, and the South-Central cities/areas (Reading, Lancaster, York, Chambersburg, Gettysburg and Harrisburg). This is basically everything south and east of the Allegheny Mountains.

These areas are growing at, or above, the Northeast average. Obviously being within or adjacent to the BosWash corridor has a strong influence on the growth of this swath of the state.

Outside of this quadrant, growth is very much the exception rather than the rule. The Pittsburgh and Erie metros are showing some promise, but they both still have a ways to go before growth is less marginal and on a broader scale. Of course, you have other pockets, as well (e.g., State College), but Western/rural Pennsylvania is by and large just stagnant or in slow decline.

Moving forward, it will be very important to bring more prosperity to other areas of the state outside of the southeastern quadrant. The "lopsidedness" of the state is certainly not new, but it is getting more and more pronounced -- and it will have long-term consequences.

[pman]

It seems like this has been going on a while. The private sector added jobs but was partially offset be declines in government jobs. Any data paco? Declines in government employment can be positive if it means a shift to a healthy ratio of spending.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...ercent-667319/
http://m.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/...er.html?r=full

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Essentially, a growth pattern has emerged where the vast majority of the state's growth is concentrated in its southeast quadrant--including the Lehigh Valley, Philadelphia, and the South-Central cities/areas (Reading, Lancaster, York, Chambersburg, Gettysburg and Harrisburg). This is basically everything south and east of the Allegheny Mountains.

Basically you are talking about the portion of Pennsylvania not covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) formed in the 1960's under LBJ to fight poverty in one of the poorest regions of the country (420 counties). Appalachia has 8.18% of the population of the USA and is a portion of 13 states including all of West Virginia.

Although 42 of the 67 counties in PA are included in the ARC, they are not the most severely economically distressed portion (which is mostly in Kentucky, West Virginia,Tennessee and Mississippi). Fifty years after the ARC was formed this region is also characterized by little or no impact by the major immigration patterns of the last half century (i.e. little or no Asian or Latin American migration). As a result population stagnation or diminishing population is mostly the norm in the ARC.



In Western PA (defined as West of PA state and Centre county) only Butler county (north of Pittsburgh) is at it's all time high. That is mostly due to suburban flight from the city.


The Appalachian Counties in the central portion of the state that are at their peak population as of 2010 include: Centre , Clinton, Columbia, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Montour ,Perry, Snyder, Union, and Wyoming

The Appalachian Counties in the eastern portion of the state that are at their peak population as of 2010 include: Susquehanna , Wayne, Monroe, Pike, and Carbon which are all within a very short drive of NJ or Eastern NY.


Of the 15 counties that not part of the ARC (i.e. Southeast Pennsylvania) all of them are at their peak population today except for Philadelphia and Delaware County (the two most urban counties in the state.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

population stagnation or diminishing population is mostly the norm in the ARC.

Let me modify that statement to read:population stagnation or diminishing population is mostly the norm in the Northern Appalachian Region.

By northern, I mean Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York

The southern Appalachian Region is actually growing faster than the country as a whole, led by the huge growth rate in Georgia.

[pman]

I think this map illustrates two of the problems
Unemployment by County in Pennsylvania
the city of Philadelphia had the highest unemployment rate in the state; however, unlike NEPA, it's not part of an economically unhealthy region. none of the surrounding counties were above 8%, chester was 5.6% and both montgomery and bucks were under 7%...in fact, not until you get to lehigh do you find a county above 8%. Fixing the city of Philadelphia's employment picture would go a long way toward changing PA's migration and immigration numbers. the second problem is NEPA, the entire region is hurting. Pike county is one of only three counties above 10% (the others being Philadelphia and cameron). It's adjacent to carbon (9.7%), luzerne (9%), monroe(9.2%), and schuylkill (9.1%) which is easily the weakest region in the state. If I were a betting man, I'd guess Philadelphia addresses it's decades old employment problem first but the state needs both places to address their issues. I think that with continued economic improvement in western PA you'll start to see changing migratory patterns.

[RightonWalnut]

Originally Posted by pman

I think this map illustrates two of the problems
Unemployment by County in Pennsylvania
the city of Philadelphia had the highest unemployment rate in the state; however, unlike NEPA, it's not part of an economically unhealthy region. none of the surrounding counties were above 8%, chester was 5.6% and both montgomery and bucks were under 7%...in fact, not until you get to lehigh do you find a county above 8%. Fixing the city of Philadelphia's employment picture would go a long way toward changing PA's migration and immigration numbers. the second problem is NEPA, the entire region is hurting. Pike county is one of only three counties above 10% (the others being Philadelphia and cameron). It's adjacent to carbon (9.7%), luzerne (9%), monroe(9.2%), and schuylkill (9.1%) which is easily the weakest region in the state. If I were a betting man, I'd guess Philadelphia addresses it's decades old employment problem first but the state needs both places to address their issues. I think that with continued economic improvement in western PA you'll start to see changing migratory patterns.

The biggest problem is the state business tax. This state is not a friendly business state. We need a push on Harrisburg from all cities in all corners of the state for this to change. I think a push from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh will be a good start. We need better job growth in this state, and that is not going to happen unless we have a friendlier business tax structure.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Summersm343

The biggest problem is the state business tax. This state is not a friendly business state. We need a push on Harrisburg from all cities in all corners of the state for this to change. I think a push from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh will be a good start. We need better job growth in this state, and that is not going to happen unless we have a friendlier business tax structure.

These guys would agree. Its something businesse in all.regions can.agree on i suspect. Eliminating the cap stock tax is a big step but still only a step. Cni and bureaucracy are still big hurdles.
http://triblive.com/mobile/m/mbusine...sted-companies

[pman]

fyi

http://www.unitedvanlines.com/mover/...tion-study.htm

this article hints at the role the two primary cities need to play (as well as confirms summers point about taxes)

The main reasons are jobs, housing, taxes, and weather, said economist Michael Stoll...
Stoll noted that Philadelphia has heavily recruited to create jobs, which slowed migration out of the Keystone State.
There was good and bad news for Pennsylvania. The state would rank among the top 10 on the loser list, but the company lists only the top five. It considers Pennsylvania's migration neutral, with 54.2 percent of people who hired United wanting to move away...
Pennsylvania, however, made it to No. 9 on the census winner list, with nearly 2 percent more people moving in than moving out. In 2011, United showed Pennsylvania losing slightly more than 3 percent of those moving.
The census attempts to track all people who move. A family of four would be calculated as four moves. United reflects paid relocations: One family equals one relocation.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lo...ig_margin.html

[pman]

Pennsylvania's civilian labor force grew at more than twice the rate of the rest of the nation, rising 1.8 percent in a year while the national labor force grew at an annual rate of 0.8 percent.

Read more: Pennsylvania economy trudging along - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
nationally

The labor force participation rate, a measure of how many adults are working or looking for work, fell in February to 63.5 percent, its lowest level since 1981. There were 130,000 fewer workers in the labor force, while the number of people who are outside of the labor force, meaning they are neither working nor looking, grew by 296,000.

Read more: National jobless rate lowest in four years - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Basically you are talking about the portion of Pennsylvania not covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) formed in the 1960's under LBJ to fight poverty in one of the poorest regions of the country (420 counties). Appalachia has 8.18% of the population of the USA and is a portion of 13 states including all of West Virginia.

Although 42 of the 67 counties in PA are included in the ARC, they are not the most severely economically distressed portion (which is mostly in Kentucky, West Virginia,Tennessee and Mississippi). Fifty years after the ARC was formed this region is also characterized by little or no impact by the major immigration patterns of the last half century (i.e. little or no Asian or Latin American migration). As a result population stagnation or diminishing population is mostly the norm in the ARC.

[BIG OL' MAP]

That map perfectly illustrates some of the differences I've described between the northern Appalachians vis-a-vis the central and southern Appalachians.