Pittsburgh in Top 10 again (low crime, school rankings, living)

[StanleyRoper]

This time it is for single moms.

[url=http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/05/07/pittsburgh-ranked-as-top-10-city-for-single-moms/]Pittsburgh Ranked As Top 10 City For Single Moms « CBS Pittsburgh[/url]

[PeterRabbit]

The Daily Beast ranks America's 100 Best

[Katarina Witt]

Moms per capita? That doesn't even make sense! The school rankings seem a little out of whack, too, considering what I know about education in several of these cities. I don't put a lot of stock in "Great Schools", as I've seen many errors on their site.

[Hopes]

They don't mean moms per capita. They're merely claiming that certain factors make these top cities easier for single moms to support and raise their families.

I personally don't think those factors are the most important thing for single mothers though. A strong support network is far more important.

A single mother would be crazy to move to Pittsburgh simply based on the cost of living, low crime, higher earnings, etc., if that meant losing a support network where they currently live.

[Katarina Witt]

This is from the link. It simply doesn't make sense. Of course, it is The Daily Beast.

Mothers-per-capita: the percentage of mothers in each city with one or more children under 18 years old, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Then they assign Pittsburgh 98%. Really? 98% of Pittsburgh mothers have one or more kids under 18?

I do agree that their criteria are not the best measures of what's "best" for single moms or any moms.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Mothers-per-capita: the percentage of mothers in each city with one or more children under 18 years old, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Then they assign Pittsburgh 98%. Really? 98% of Pittsburgh mothers have one or more kids under 18?

Pittsburgh ranks 98th out of 100.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Pittsburgh ranks 98th out of 100.

OK, thanks. But that's not what "per capita" means.

[BrianTH]

It is a ranking out of 100 by Moms per capita.

Not really sure why that matters, however. Moms will find each other if the amenities for moms exist--they aren't randomly moving around having only chance encounters.

[Katarina Witt]

Well, the ratio of Moms per capita is one per person, in the biological sense anyway. Per capital means 'per person' or more literally, 'per head'. My point is it's a fluff article if they can't even get the definitions right. All these lists are kind of silly. As Hopes says, a single mom isn't going to move to Pittsburgh for the low housing prices (not even addressed in the article, BTW) if she has no support system in place.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, the ratio of Moms per capita is one per person, in the biological sense anyway.

Well, that's not necessarily true in general because some moms are common between people: a family with one mom and 5 kids does not have one mom per capita. Moreover, it is not necessarily true in a given area, because moms can move, pass away, and so on. Finally, they defined moms as people currently raising a child 18 or younger.

I don't really see a problem with the definitions. I just don't understand why it matters.

As Hopes says, a single mom isn't going to move to Pittsburgh for the low housing prices (not even addressed in the article, BTW) if she has no support system in place.

I agree, but of course not all single moms have an existing support system. Generally, I don't know how many single moms are looking to relocate for some reason, but in principle I don't have a problem with giving such single moms at least a starting point for places they might consider.