Pittsburgh ranks 6th in the U.S. in per capita income growth since 1984

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

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.

Surely you jest about all years since 1969. The steel bust caused the Pgh CPI to drop hugely from about 1982-1987, then it took another 3-4 years (kind of hard to pick out exact years on that chart) to come back to close to 1981 levels.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Surely you jest about all years since 1969.

That's not what Gnutella claimed (that the increase happened every single year since 1969). Pittsburgh has in fact had a faster average rate of per capita income growth since 1969, and I assume that is what Gnutella meant (the average).

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Surely you jest about all years since 1969. The steel bust caused the Pgh CPI to drop hugely from about 1982-1987, then it took another 3-4 years (kind of hard to pick out exact years on that chart) to come back to close to 1981 levels.

I said "since 1969," not "in every year since 1969." Here's a reading assignment:

Originally Posted by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

While Pittsburgh ranked low in college attainment in 1970, its gains in this metric since then have been the most rapid. Perhaps not accidentally, Pittsburgh’s growth in per capita income also outpaced other cities in the region.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

I said "since 1969," not "in every year since 1969." Here's a reading assignment:

Thanks for finally sourcing your information. I read the article. You will note that Pittsburgh's per-capital income growth since 1969 was #1 of those 11 cities, not necessarily of the US.

As Honest Bob says, this is a "most improved" type of award. The author of Brian's article set the base year as 1984, when Pittsburgh had an unemployment rate of >12%, compared to the US rate of <8%.

http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/peq/peq_2008-12.pdf

It's not hard to improve so much when it was so bad to begin with.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Thanks for finally sourcing your information. I read the article. You will note that Pittsburgh's per-capital income growth since 1969 was #1 of those 11 cities, not necessarily of the US.

A point about which Gnutella had been quite clear.

It's not hard to improve so much when it was so bad to begin with.

As I documented above, on average Pittsburgh has also been improving relative to the U.S. metro average since 1991, after it had already fully recovered to its pre-steel-bust level, and since 1969, which is all the data available in my source.

Generally, this gain relative to the U.S. metro average is a robust result given the data, meaning it doesn't depend on 1984 being the beginning point. And I thought we had already established that above.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

A point about which Gnutella had been quite clear.

As I documented above, on average Pittsburgh has also been improving relative to the U.S. metro average since 1991, after it had already fully recovered to its pre-steel-bust level, and since 1969, which is all the data available in my source.
Generally, this gain relative to the U.S. metro average is a robust result given the data, meaning it doesn't depend on 1984 being the beginning point. And I thought we had already established that above.

The data we have seen here do not support the latter. They support that Pittsburgh has performed better than 11 midwestern cities since 1969. That data says nothing about Pittsburgh v the US average since 1969.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Katiana

The data we have seen here do not support the latter. They support that Pittsburgh has performed better than 11 midwestern cities since 1969. That data says nothing about Pittsburgh v the US average since 1969.

The 11 Midwestern cities included Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Columbus. Pittsburgh outpaced them too.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

The 11 Midwestern cities included Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Columbus. Pittsburgh outpaced them too.

Yes, and I stand corrected, Pittsburgh did outpace the US in that time frame. However, we know nothing about Pittsburgh v any other cities from that article from the Federal Reserve Bank.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

The data we have seen here do not support the latter. They support that Pittsburgh has performed better than 11 midwestern cities since 1969. That data says nothing about Pittsburgh v the US average since 1969.

To refresh your memory, here is the same chart I already posted above:



The dark blue trend line is versus the U.S. metro average since 1969. The trend line versus the U.S. overall average would be the same.

It doesn't matter if you look at the U.S. overall average, U.S. metro average, or the average of what the Fed of Chicago considers Pittsburgh's peer cities. It doesn't matter if you start in 1984, 1969, or 1991. Anyway way you look at it, you are going to reach the same result: Pittsburgh's trend has been one of relative improvement.

[Honest Bob]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

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.

That is because of the disproportionate amount of senior citizens living in the Pittsburgh area that saved their money all of their lives and when they die they leave it to their children who blows it faster then a fire cracker on the 4th of July.

When you go to other cities that has more of a disposable income, their people do not save as much for the future - because they know that their next paycheck is only a week or two away and they never look for the future - because why pay for a hamburger today when someone will gladly let you pay them on Tuesday?

Out of 100 companies - 5 years ago, I never saw one company pull one penny of their own money out of their own pockets to pay for new infrastructure or maintenance or upkeep.
Everybody was so busy putting as much money into their own pockets and getting low interest government loans to pay for what they needed that they never realized that the gravy train was going to end.

There is two theory's to this economy. One is that it has already bottomed out and things are going to get better. The second is that the OBAMA administration has put up a false front and has made it appear as if things has gotten better and that happy days are here again.

When you create a road construction job and the contractor does not hire anyone - all you do is support the people who already had a job.
When you create jobs rebuilding bridges and the employer does not hire anyone without experience - you are not training the workers of tomorrow, just keeping the people who already had a job working.

When you give big business billions of dollars to move the automotive industry out of Detroit - to someplace that is non union and cheaper to produce automobiles - you support the local economy of people who had nothing and you improve their lives a little. But when you do not pay them a livable wage, they cannot afford the goods and services that they are manufacturing. That is the reason why the KIA automobile sells so well in our country and the reason why people in Pittsburgh are looking for cheap tires for their automobile. Because they either cannot afford the good ones or they want to spend all of their money on themselves and not on their vehicles.

The cheap tires comes from over seas because locally you have to pay a livable wage in order for a tire manufacturer to produce quality tires.
Even the people who runs China realizes that if they devalue their dollar they can still sell stuff on the open market cheaper then what it can be produced in the USA for.

I was sitting in a garage the other day and a fellow came in and was looking for a deal on some tires. When the guy behind the counter gave him a really good price - he still squawked and wanted them cheaper.
He had already been to three other tire shops and this price was the lowest - but he couldn't see spending $325 on two winter tires for his 3/4 ton pick up truck. They cost what they cost.

When a company like Latrobe Specialty Steel has a two tier pay scale and the union allows it to happen because the people who already has a job and is in the upper tier doesn't care what happens to the new hire as long as it is not a family member. So basically even though they make billions of dollars a year in profit, they apply to the government like the town pauper to give them a grant to put in a new furnace to make more steel and they screw the new hire employee's into working for less money - doing the same job - because it is the only way that they can stay competitive and appease their stock holders who expects a profit every year and is not satisfied putting their money in the bank and getting 1/4 of 1% interest on their money.

Everybody is living in the 80's where profit percentages in double digits is what kept people investing and buying stock in their companies.
If I could get 10% dividends on what I invested - I would give them every dollar I made. Your money would double about every 6 years.

The battles that our unions fought for our workers 50 years ago means nothing now that the profits are not high enough to keep the investors happy and to keep the people on the top - making the big salaries from leaving. The people on the bottom - who are accused of not producing and not being productive workers are not the blame because they are not the ones that determines how much profit a company makes.
One mistake - mismanagement - costs more then all the lost time due to accidents combined. One bad investment sometimes costs a company everything they own.

How many people saw the advertisement for Dicks Sporting Goods in the Sunday paper last week for warehouse workers. Seasonal work - $7.50 an hour - picking orders 10 - 50 lbs average weight. After Christmas - you won't have a job.
How many new jobs are they creating? How many of those people can raise a family on $7.50 an hour when it takes $14 a hour just to live in Pittsburgh?