Fascinating Immigration Report (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland: neighborhood, construction, universities)

[BrianTH]

It looks at foreign immigration and various economic issues in the top 25 metro areas:

http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/ImmigrantsIn25MetroAreas.pdf (broken link)

The whole thing is interesting, but regarding Pittsburgh, it confirmed Pittsburgh is an outlier in multiple senses: on the one hand we have a very low percentage of foreign-born residents, but on the other hand our immigrants are having an unusually large net positive impact on the economy, are relatively likely to be in professional or managerial jobs, are generally well paid, and so on.

As usual, my thought is that it would be nice to get more foreign immigrants, but even nicer if we could get more foreign immigrants while also more or less maintaining the relatively high economic value of the local immigrant mix.

[Hopes]

Your summary of the article validates what I've been saying. Our immigrants tend to be educated.

[Tiger Beer]

It makes sense...I've looked at asian demographic statistics...and Pittsburgh actually DOES have quite a few around the university areas in particular.

Pittsburgh also has a lot of great universities and colleges...and universities and colleges also attract a lot of educated foreign students.

Often times, once foreign students graduate, they network like everyone else for jobs, and land them...so they'd basically be putting that graduate work to good use in the 'Burg, etc.

Also, the other thread with things they see in the 'Strip', and asian foods once again. I think the Asian demographic has probably grown since the 2000 census (it has everywhere else, so probably in Pittsburgh too, even if slightly).

--

I was also viewing LATINO demographics...and if I can find the website again, I'll post it. But someone color-coded a map with heavier areas - and it's actually Shadyside, Oakland, etc. moreso than that other neighborhood most people quote - sorry I forget the name of that one at the moment.

[BrianTH]

There is definitely an increasingly multicultural vibe to the East End, which is great. I'm quite eager to get the 2010 Census data because I think it is going to be very interesting to see some of the recent trends in certain areas.

[pman]

in briefly looking over the numbers, it appears that Philadelphia has a nice mix. at 9% foreign born share it's sizable but far less than miami, ny, or washington (37, 28, 20%). they contribute slightly more (1.11) and are fairly evenly spread through industries (excepting agriculture...mexicans have dominated mushroom picking in southern chester county for many years...a thankless part time job). pittsburgh is only an anomaly in terms of contribution, it's foreign born share is right along with st. louis and cincy. It also found that foreign born share correlate with economic growth. that said, I know a foreign born student who recently graduated and moved form pitt to DC but according to his study, that was foolish. in his field, it's more dominated by native born. I'll have to ask him why he chose DC. I am also of the opinion that a little racial diversity helps alleviate the black-white tension that can exist.

[Fiddlehead]

These immigrant findings are very interesting in what they say about the future of different places. Pittsburgh is not changing nearly so fast as some of the immigration magnets. I don't think that is a bad thing. Yes, immigration is an indicator of growth, but many of the rapid growth areas (LA, Miami) are not looking so great now. Though in fairness, perhaps the immigration effect gets mixed up in the funny money effect, which emanated from the same areas in recent years.

[BrianTH]

The rate of increase of immigrant share in the labor force was positively (although not perfectly) correlated with gross economic growth, but much more weakly correlated with per worker earnings growth (and again Pittsburgh was an outlier with way below-average immigration and below-average gross economic growth, but also being right on the average for per worker earnings growth).

This makes sense, because the native-born population of the United States has a below-replacement-rate birth rate, and gross economic growth rates tend to be correlated with labor force growth rates, so to achieve the highest levels of gross economic growth you need net in-migration. Obviously domestic migration can contribute to that, but so does international immigration, hence the observed correlation. But the per worker economic effects depend in part on things like the in-migrant (domestic and international) mix and the sorts of jobs they are taking and creating.

[pman]

there's also the obvious, economic growth attracts immigrants. Of course if economic growth is the housing construction like miami, it may be false growth. I'd be careful about using it to predict the future, it seems more useful in explaining the past. if economic growth and wages increase, it's likely immigration will as well. I'd wager ten years ago Philadelphia's share would look a lot more like pittsburgh's. I think what you want is a balanced immigration, ideally, that brings people from all over and that perform all sorts of jobs. I wouldn't wish 37% foreign born on Pitt or even NY's 28% but I don't think it would be a bad thing if it were to increase to around 10%. I'd wager they didn't take into account the impact of people moving into an abandoned neighborhood and fixing it up.

[BrianTH]

10% (or even a bit more) would also be fine with me, but it is going to take a long time to get there at the recent rate of immigration. For various reasons I suspect that rate is going to pick up, but so I think will domestic in-migration, so it is still likely to take some time.

Which is OK with me. The bottomline is that I don't actually care much about gross economic growth rates. You need a little economic growth to maintain what you have and add new cool stuff and attract new quality residents and such, but you don't need high growth rates for that purpose and too-high growth rates can set off boom-and-bust cycles (which in fact Pittsburgh knows all too well) and cause other disruptions.

In that sense, I am more interested in improving the quality than the quantity of the near-future Pittsburgh economy. But a little more high-quality international immigration is consistent with that vision.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

10% (or even a bit more) would also be fine with me, but it is going to take a long time to get there at the recent rate of immigration. For various reasons I suspect that rate is going to pick up, but so I think will domestic in-migration, so it is still likely to take some time.

Which is OK with me. The bottomline is that I don't actually care much about gross economic growth rates. You need a little economic growth to maintain what you have and add new cool stuff and attract new quality residents and such, but you don't need high growth rates for that purpose and too-high growth rates can set off boom-and-bust cycles (which in fact Pittsburgh knows all too well) and cause other disruptions.

In that sense, I am more interested in improving the quality than the quantity of the near-future Pittsburgh economy. But a little more high-quality international immigration is consistent with that vision.

a lot of places, like Philly, get a lot of immigrants via NY. people move to NY first since that's what they know, then move elsewhere based on where opportunities are.