Pittsburgh ranks 6th in the U.S. in per capita income growth since 1984 (Indiana: loans, unemployment)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

If 1.0 on the graph Brian posted is the US average, which is what I think that means, Pgh's PCI was not at the nat. average from 1969 until 2007.

1.0 would be parity with the U.S. metropolitan average. The U.S. overall average is always lower (thanks to higher incomes in metropolitan versus rural areas).

Here is an updated chart showing PGH versus the overall US as well (I didn't duplicate the trend lines because they would look pretty much the same):



So to sum up:

(A) Pittsburgh's relative per capita income is in an upward trend, basically any way you look at it (regardless of starting point, and whether compared to the US metro average or US total average);

(B) Pittsburgh's per capita income has been above the US total average for a while, and just recently it has passed the US metro average as well.

(C) In short, for a U.S. metro, Pittsburgh has been experiencing above-average per capita income growth, and now is at an above-average level as well.

[dnvrsoul]

Great I'll have to forward this to others on the forum that believe Pitt. is a old steeltown dump-

[BrianTH]

By the way, it would be REALLY interesting to see all this compared against a metro-area COL index over time.

[Greekladydi]

So what has the income increase done to the cost of living? We are retired and may be in PA next year.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Greekladydi

So what has the income increase done to the cost of living? We are retired and may be in PA next year.

Overall, not much. This graph shows the above income chart next to the ratio between the Consumer Price Index for Pittsburgh and the Consumer Price Index for the U.S. (Urban), both indexed so 1982 to 1984 is 100. That's a complex formula, but basically it is a relative affordability index, mean if it is going up, Pittsburgh is getting closer to the U.S.-urban average cost of living, and if it is going down, Pittsburgh is getting relatively more affordable:



As you can see, overall the trend (in yellow) is pretty flat, and in fact somewhat down, meaning that even as Pittsburgh has been gaining in relative per capita income (the light blue line), it has been staying roughly the same in terms of relative affordability, and in fact getting a little more affordable.

The spike during the steel bust is interesting--you wouldn't necessarily expect that given the employment and income losses, but it was a strange time in Pittsburgh.

As you can see there is also a little bump up near the end, during the recession. I haven't looked into that, but at a guess that is mostly as a result of rents/housing prices. That is a significant component of the CPI, and during the recession rents and housing prices in Pittsburgh have actually been up a bit, whereas in most cities they have been anything from flat to pretty sharply down.

Edit: By the way, if you look closely, you can see a dip in the dark blue line between about 2002 and 2006, meaning Pittsburgh was getting relatively more affordable in that period. I'm guessing that was basically being driven by the housing bubble, which largely dodged Pittsburgh and would again likely be sufficient to explain such a dip.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As you can see there is also a little bump up near the end, during the recession. I haven't looked into that, but at a guess that is mostly as a result of rents/housing prices. That is a significant component of the CPI, and during the recession rents and housing prices in Pittsburgh have actually been up a bit, whereas in most cities they have been anything from flat to pretty sharply down.

Edit: By the way, if you look closely, you can see a dip in the dark blue line between about 2002 and 2006, meaning Pittsburgh was getting relatively more affordable in that period. I'm guessing that was basically being driven by the housing bubble, which largely dodged Pittsburgh and would again likely be sufficient to explain such a dip.

The recent rise in the local consumer price index probably has to do with the housing bubble popping elsewhere.

[Honest Bob]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Here's the methodology, with an interesting comment:

Methodology Of 25 Year Income Growth Analysis - Special Reports - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/10/13/methodology-of-25-year-income-growth-analysis - broken link)

In 1984, Pittsburgh was in a major recession. It's no wonder per capita income has grown a lot since then.

The region's unemployment rate peaked at 18.2 percent in January 1983, with 212,400 people out of work. In Beaver County alone, which lost at least five major steelmaking plants, the jobless rate hit a staggering 28 percent -- higher than for many states during the Great Depression, Mr. Briem noted.

Read more: For Pittsburgh, this recession is nothing in comparison to '80s

Also note:

El Paso was mired in 99th place with its PCI of $28,638. The only market to finish lower was another Texas metro along the Mexican border, McAllen-Edinburg, at $19,720.

But Portfolio.com took a different tack—looking for the strongest growth rates, not the highest income levels.
Read more: El Paso Texas Sets National Pace For Income Growth - Special Reports - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/10/13/el-paso-texas-sets-national-pace-for-income-growth#ixzz12GUor16f - broken link)

Further support for my opinion that you can prove just about anything with statistics.

Finally - one educated person on here and can understand what I have been talking about all along.

If you are the Pittsburgh Pirates and you loose practically every game you play for 10 years and then you win a pennant your record would then be the most improved team in the league in the last 10 years.

All I can remember is the mass exodus back around 1982 when I graduated from high school, when things were so bad, I wasn't just looking for work, I was looking under rocks for work.
That son is a quote from "The Grapes of Wrath" movie.
The unemployment rate of 25% wasn't a exaggeration - because there was more then one generation out of work and another generation that was graduating from high school and college and no where to go and they had to leave just like the share croppers in the movie from Oklahoma.

Two things happened, the cheap labor that had to start at the bottom someplace else benefited places like Phoenix Az, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Florida where hard working people were in demand and their economy's grew exponentially.

The only reason why any good jobs opened up here was because the old people died or retired and they had to hire new people to take their place.
Or that new companies relocated here when the state refused to tax any new business that moved to Pennsylvania. It's what Darrell Waltrip would call a short term gain, but a long term loss.

Now the piggy bank is broke and there is nothing saved for today and now the state is looking for new ways to tax Joe the Plumber but not big business like the Marcellus Shale people - who are not going to leave anytime soon- no matter how much of a tax you put on those people.
It would be like owning a producing gold mine, you don't mind paying a small tariff if you are pulling millions of dollars out of the ground every day, its just the cost of doing business.

Our problem is - our politicians are out for big business and for sticking it to the little man - who is the people who elects him / her. The best thing we can do come November is to throw all these bums out of office and put in some people who are going to be willing to work for us and not the big gas and oil companies. That is the reason why this propaganda was recently published, so that when you go to the polls in November - you won't feel so bad about your friends and neighbors who do not have jobs, or the ones that can no longer collect public assistance or unemployment compensation because their benefits are exhausted.

Were #6! - Whoo Hooo!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Honest Bob

All I can remember is the mass exodus back around 1982 . . . .

Which is quite a problem. Some of us have been paying attention to what has happened in Pittsburgh over the last 20 years (or in my case the last 17, since I got here in 1993).

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Honest Bob

Were #6! - Whoo Hooo!

Were you aware that Pittsburgh is also an income growth leader since 1969? I can link to an article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that details how Pittsburgh's rate of per capita income growth since 1969 has outpaced all cities in the Midwestern U.S., including Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Columbus.

[BrianTH]

I think some people may not be fully grasping what it means for Pittsburgh to be in an upward trend by these measures. That means it is not just gaining in per capita income, it means Pittsburgh is gaining faster than the average of other U.S. cities. Whether that makes us #6 or not in a given timespan isn't really particularly important--the mere fact of gaining relative to other U.S. cities is profoundly important. I think it has already changed Pittsburgh in ways people stuck in 1982 can't grasp, and if it continues for any extended period (on average), the transformation will be even more dramatic.