Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I saw this map in an article on The Atlantic Cities...
...and decided to break down the change in population for each county in the Pittsburgh MSA by three age cohorts: under 20, 20 to 64, and 65 and over. (In other words, children, working-age and elderly.) Here's what I got:
Allegheny County
65 and over (2000): 228,416
65 and over (2010): 205,059
65 and over (2000-2010): -23,357
Percent change: -10.2%
20 to 64 (2000): 738,375
20 to 64 (2010): 741,975
20 to 64 (2000-2010): +3,600
Percent change: +0.5%
Under 20 (2000): 314,875
Under 20 (2010): 276,314
Under 20 (2000-2010): -38,561
Percent change: -12.2%
Armstrong County
65 and over (2000): 13,053
65 and over (2010): 12,687
65 and over (2000-2010): -366
Percent change: -2.8%
20 to 64 (2000): 41,013
20 to 64 (2010): 40,532
20 to 64 (2000-2010): -481
Percent change: -1.2%
Under 20 (2000): 18,326
Under 20 (2010): 15,722
Under 20 (2000-2010): -2,604
Percent change: -14.2%
Beaver County
65 and over (2000): 33,424
65 and over (2010): 31,660
65 and over (2000-2010): -1,764
Percent change: -5.3%
20 to 64 (2000): 102,333
20 to 64 (2010): 99,720
20 to 64 (2000-2010): -2,613
Percent change: -2.6%
Under 20 (2000): 45,655
Under 20 (2010): 39,159
Under 20 (2000-2010): -6,496
Percent change: -14.2%
Butler County
65 and over (2000): 24,821
65 and over (2010): 27,853
65 and over (2000-2010): +3,032
Percent change: +12.2%
20 to 64 (2000): 101,391
20 to 64 (2010): 108,998
20 to 64 (2000-2010): +7,607
Percent change: +7.5%
Under 20 (2000): 47,871
Under 20 (2010): 47,011
Under 20 (2000-2010): -860
Percent change: -1.8%
Fayette County
65 and over (2000): 26,930
65 and over (2010): 24,580
65 and over (2000-2010): -2,350
Percent change: -8.7%
20 to 64 (2000): 84,456
20 to 64 (2010): 81,268
20 to 64 (2000-2010): -3,188
Percent change: -3.8%
Under 20 (2000): 37,258
Under 20 (2010): 30,758
Under 20 (2000-2010): -6,500
Percent change: -17.4%
Washington County
65 and over (2000): 36,323
65 and over (2010): 36,366
65 and over (2000-2010): +43
Percent change: +0.1%
20 to 64 (2000): 116,565
20 to 64 (2010): 122,859
20 to 64 (2000-2010): +6,294
Percent change: +5.4%
Under 20 (2000): 50,009
Under 20 (2010): 48,595
Under 20 (2000-2010): -1,414
Percent change: -2.8%
Westmoreland County
65 and over (2000): 67,781
65 and over (2010): 68,877
65 and over (2000-2010): +1,096
Percent change: +1.6%
20 to 64 (2000): 212,670
20 to 64 (2010): 214,675
20 to 64 (2000-2010): +2,005
Percent change: +0.9%
Under 20 (2000): 89,542
Under 20 (2010): 81,617
Under 20 (2000-2010): -7,925
Percent change: -8.9%
Pittsburgh MSA
65 and over (2000): 430,748
65 and over (2010): 407,082
65 and over (2000-2010): -23,666
Percent change: -5.5%
20 to 64 (2000): 1,396,803
20 to 64 (2010): 1,410,027
20 to 64 (2000-2010): +13,224
Percent change: +0.9%
Under 20 (2000): 603,536
Under 20 (2010): 539,176
Under 20 (2000-2010): -64,360
Percent change: -10.7%
---
Under 20 (numeric)
-860 - Butler County
-1,414 - Washington County
-2,604 - Armstrong County
-6,496 - Beaver County
-6,500 - Fayette County
-7,925 - Westmoreland County
-38,561 - Allegheny County -64,360 - Pittsburgh MSA
(59.9% of all population loss under the age of 20 came from Allegheny County.)
20 to 64 (numeric)
+13,224 - Pittsburgh MSA
+7,607 - Butler County
+6,294 - Washington County
+3,600 - Allegheny County
+2,005 - Westmoreland County
-481 - Armstrong County
-2,613 - Beaver County
-3,188 - Fayette County
(27.2% of all population gain between the ages of 20 and 64 came from Allegheny County.)
65 and over (numeric)
+3,032 - Butler County
+1,096 - Westmoreland County
+43 - Washington County
-366 - Armstrong County
-1,764 - Beaver County
-2,350 - Fayette County
-23,357 - Allegheny County -23,666 - Pittsburgh MSA
(98.7% of all population loss ages 65 and over came from Allegheny County.)
---
Under 20 (percent)
-1.8% - Butler County
-2.8% - Washington County
-8.9% - Westmoreland County -10.7% - Pittsburgh MSA
-12.2% - Allegheny County
-14.2% - Armstrong County*
-14.2% - Beaver County*
-17.4% - Fayette County
20 to 64 (percent)
+7.5% - Butler County
+5.4% - Washington County +0.9% - Pittsburgh MSA
+0.9% - Westmoreland County
+0.5% - Allegheny County
-1.2% - Armstrong County
-2.6% - Beaver County
-3.8% - Fayette County
65 and over (percent)
+12.2% - Butler County
+1.6% - Westmoreland County
+0.1% - Washington County
-2.8% - Armstrong County
-5.3% - Beaver County -5.5% - Pittsburgh MSA
-8.7% - Fayette County
-10.2% - Allegheny County
Every county in the Pittsburgh MSA lost children between 2000 and 2010. Armstrong, Beaver and Fayette Counties all lost working-age population, while Allegheny, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland Counties gained it. The slower rate of decline in children and the faster rate of working-age growth in Butler, Washington and Westmoreland Counties compared to Allegheny County illustrates the movement of families to the outer suburbs. Butler, Washington and Westmoreland Counties gained elderly population, while Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver and Fayette Counties all lost it. Allegheny County alone was responsible for nearly all the elderly population loss in the MSA, and had the steepest rate of elderly decline.
Armstrong, Beaver and Fayette Counties lost population in all three age cohorts. Butler, Washington and Westmoreland Counties gained population in two of the three age cohorts, losing only children. Allegheny County lost population in two of the three age cohorts, gaining only working-age population. Children had the fastest rate of decline in every county. Elderly had the fastest rate of growth in Butler and Westmoreland Counties, and the working-age population had the fastest rate of growth (or slowest rate of decline) in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette and Washington Counties.
Older areas in the MSA are also still experiencing the echoing effects of the steel bust--young adults leaving meant they de facto took their future kids with them. With jobs seeking migrants heading back into the MSA and Allegheny County in particular, gradually that dynamic should fade and may even reverse.
Thank you very much for this amazing analysis, Gnutella! It surprises me that you have yet to be selected for one of the forum's cash awards.
Essentially Allegheny County's elderly population is rapidly dying off (and not being replaced), and young families are continuing to flee to the expected exurban counties of Butler and Washington (where population loss of the very young was negligible). Meanwhile the county is seeing a relatively large influx of childless younger professionals, lured by the appeal of urban living and an economy that was largely recession-resistant.
I love, love, LOVE demographics analysis like this! I can't wait for BrianTH's insight.
Thank you very much for this amazing analysis, Gnutella! It surprises me that you have yet to be selected for one of the forum's cash awards.
Essentially Allegheny County's elderly population is rapidly dying off (and not being replaced), and young families are continuing to flee to the expected exurban counties of Butler and Washington (where population loss of the very young was negligible). Meanwhile the county is seeing a relatively large influx of childless younger professionals, lured by the appeal of urban living and an economy that was largely recession-resistant.
I love, love, LOVE demographics analysis like this! I can't wait for BrianTH's insight.
^ EDIT: Cross-posting! D'oh!
I wouldn't say young families are fleeing if the recent data shows positive net domestic migration.
Job-seeking migrants tend to be younger and have fewer children than working age people in general (not surprisingly). If they put down roots, however, eventually they will create a little baby boom.
Wow, great data. I am a bit surprised (and a tad concerned) about Allegheny's (et al.) sizable loss of of youth 20 and under, although as BrianTH noted, given the data, it's possible a mini baby boom could occur in the future.
Wow, great data. I am a bit surprised (and a tad concerned) about Allegheny's (et al.) sizable loss of of youth 20 and under, although as BrianTH noted, given the data, it's possible a mini baby boom could occur in the future.
I would agree, a mini baby boom may very well be part of the future of Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh.
My experience in San Diego has been that young singles seeking the urban lifestyle are flocking back to the somewhat marginal neighborhoods in San Diego. The want to escape the sterile suburban experience of their childhoods. They usually follow into neighborhoods gays have already spruced up rather than being the first pioneers themselves.
Once they live in these urban neighborhoods long enough, and see they won't be shot down in a drive by shooting, they stick around; marry; and even have kids. Here is the sticking point, they have to decide if they will stay once their kids either reach school age, or middle school age. In San Diego, the advent of the charter school, and the ability of parents to move their children to other public schools if the parents provide the transportation, has allowed more urban parents with kids to stick around in the old neighborhoods. If the local school pans out for their kids, great, they stay. If the local school doesn't pan out, they can still stay in the neighborhood, and they only will need to change the kids school which they can do by trying out other public school options. This removes the need to cough up money for private tuition.
The results is that newlyweds can stay with the urban neighborhoods they first settled down in, test the school waters with their kids, and whether or not things work out with the local school, they can stay in the neighborhood for the long haul. However, if school choice isn't available, parents won't stick around. A child is only educated once, and a few bad years can do unrectifiable damage. No one wants to sacrifice his child on the altar of someone else's hair-brained educational experiment.
Essentially Allegheny County's elderly population is rapidly dying off (and not being replaced), and young families are continuing to flee to the expected exurban counties of Butler and Washington (where population loss of the very young was negligible).
I would be a little careful with this.
Using a linear extrapolation of this data to determine what is currently happening can be relatively inaccurate, especially since other sources of data suggest that the population may have reached a minima around 2007 - 2009.
I would agree, a mini baby boom may very well be part of the future of Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh.
My experience in San Diego has been that young singles seeking the urban lifestyle are flocking back to the somewhat marginal neighborhoods in San Diego. The want to escape the sterile suburban experience of their childhoods. They usually follow into neighborhoods gays have already spruced up rather than being the first pioneers themselves.
Once they live in these urban neighborhoods long enough, and see they won't be shot down in a drive by shooting, they stick around; marry; and even have kids. Here is the sticking point, they have to decide if they will stay once their kids either reach school age, or middle school age. In San Diego, the advent of the charter school, and the ability of parents to move their children to other public schools if the parents provide the transportation, has allowed more urban parents with kids to stick around in the old neighborhoods. If the local school pans out for their kids, great, they stay. If the local school doesn't pan out, they can still stay in the neighborhood, and they only will need to change the kids school which they can do by trying out other public school options. This removes the need to cough up money for private tuition.
The results is that newlyweds can stay with the urban neighborhoods they first settled down in, test the school waters with their kids, and whether or not things work out with the local school, they can stay in the neighborhood for the long haul. However, if school choice isn't available, parents won't stick around. A child is only educated once, and a few bad years can do unrectifiable damage. No one wants to sacrifice his child on the altar of someone else's hair-brained educational experiment.
In other words, as has always been the case, the wealthy have school choice. Most of these urban hipsters also manage to get their kids into programs determined by lottery, etc, b/c they have the skills to know how to play the game. I do not see charter schools and open enrollment as the solution to urban schools' problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
