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.
Here's a graph illustrating net migration in the Pittsburgh MSA since 2000:
And here's a graph illustrating the unemployment rate in the Pittsburgh MSA relative to the United States since 1970:
Focus on 2000 onward, and notice how it appears to be the inverse of the net migration graph above. By comparing the relative unemployment rate, we can forecast the net migration. We can also observe a one-year lag time between the relative unemployment rate and net migration, since the difference between the Pittsburgh MSA and the United States was greatest in 2010, and net migration was most positive in 2011.
Since the metropolitan and national unemployment rates appeared to be converging in 2012, it wouldn't surprise me if net migration is less positive than we'd hoped. Now some people will consider that testament to how horrible Pittsburgh is, but even zero net migration just means that one person moves in and another person moves out. It's not even close to a mass exodus like the 1980's, nor is it even a slow bleed like the mid-1990's to the mid-2000's. And slightly positive is still positive.
It appears that the relative unemployment rate convergence that appeared ready to happen in 2012 stalled in 2013, though, with the metropolitan unemployment rate settling in at about 0.5% below the national rate. Now some will say, "DUDE ITS ONLY CUZ PEEPLES LEAVING TEH WORKFORCE LOLOL!!!!!!!!!11" But if that's true, then it just means they're giving up looking for work before they need to, and, thus, leaving the door open for people from elsewhere to take the jobs they could be applying for.
The only time that dropping out of the workforce is a viable option is if the relative unemployment rate compares unfavorably to the national rate, which hasn't happened in 87 consecutive months (seven years and three months). Even in a flat job market, there are openings, and they're not all menial either. Those who give up when the relative unemployment rate is still favorable might not have the dedication to be employable anyway.
It also appears that the "Mendoza line" for the Pittsburgh MSA is an unemployment rate that averages at least 0.3% below the national rate over the course of a calendar year. I say this because Pittsburgh's unemployment rate was slightly below the national rate during the early 2000's, but net migration was still slightly negative. Also, Pittsburgh did have net positive migration in 1991 and 1992, mirroring a period in 1990 and 1991 when the relative unemployment rate was very favorable.
Anyway, I believe that the population numbers in the Pittsburgh MSA will be flat or slightly negative for 2013. Some people here will gloat about it, but I also believe that net migration will remain positive in spite of it all, due to a relative unemployment rate that's still favorable. When the 2008 ACS estimates were released, it showed that net migration was positive, but the population still decreased because the positive net migration was not enough to offset the negative natural population growth (more deaths than births). Even in 2011, the Pittsburgh MSA had net migration of about +8,000, but that only translated to population growth of about +5,000. In other words, net migration that's lower than +3,000 probably puts Pittsburgh in the red.
The big disadvantage to transitioning from one of the oldest metropolitan areas in the United States to one of the younger ones is that it involves a massive die-off, which is going to act as a drag on population growth, and is totally beyond anybody's control. Being the only major metropolitan area in the United States with a natural decrease means that Pittsburgh has to work harder than all of them in order to grow its population, and it more than likely won't get any easier until after 2020, when the "Baby Boomers," who are underrepresented in the Pittsburgh MSA, become elderly.
Here's a graph illustrating net migration in the Pittsburgh MSA since 2000:
And here's a graph illustrating the unemployment rate in the Pittsburgh MSA relative to the United States since 1970:
Focus on 2000 onward, and notice how it appears to be the inverse of the net migration graph above. By comparing the relative unemployment rate, we can forecast the net migration. We can also observe a one-year lag time between the relative unemployment rate and net migration, since the difference between the Pittsburgh MSA and the United States was greatest in 2010, and net migration was most positive in 2011.
Since the metropolitan and national unemployment rates appeared to be converging in 2012, it wouldn't surprise me if net migration is less positive than we'd hoped. Now some people will consider that testament to how horrible Pittsburgh is, but even zero net migration just means that one person moves in and another person moves out. It's not even close to a mass exodus like the 1980's, nor is it even a slow bleed like the mid-1990's to the mid-2000's. And slightly positive is still positive.
It appears that the relative unemployment rate convergence that appeared ready to happen in 2012 stalled in 2013, though, with the metropolitan unemployment rate settling in at about 0.5% below the national rate. Now some will say, "DUDE ITS ONLY CUZ PEEPLES LEAVING TEH WORKFORCE LOLOL!!!!!!!!!11" But if that's true, then it just means they're giving up looking for work before they need to, and, thus, leaving the door open for people from elsewhere to take the jobs they could be applying for.
The only time that dropping out of the workforce is a viable option is if the relative unemployment rate compares unfavorably to the national rate, which hasn't happened in 87 consecutive months (seven years and three months). Even in a flat job market, there are openings, and they're not all menial either. Those who give up when the relative unemployment rate is still favorable might not have the dedication to be employable anyway.
It also appears that the "Mendoza line" for the Pittsburgh MSA is an unemployment rate that averages at least 0.3% below the national rate over the course of a calendar year. I say this because Pittsburgh's unemployment rate was slightly below the national rate during the early 2000's, but net migration was still slightly negative. Also, Pittsburgh did have net positive migration in 1991 and 1992, mirroring a period in 1990 and 1991 when the relative unemployment rate was very favorable.
Anyway, I believe that the population numbers in the Pittsburgh MSA will be flat or slightly negative for 2013. Some people here will gloat about it, but I also believe that net migration will remain positive in spite of it all, due to a relative unemployment rate that's still favorable. When the 2008 ACS estimates were released, it showed that net migration was positive, but the population still decreased because the positive net migration was not enough to offset the negative natural population growth (more deaths than births). Even in 2011, the Pittsburgh MSA had net migration of about +8,000, but that only translated to population growth of about +5,000. In other words, net migration that's lower than +3,000 probably puts Pittsburgh in the red.
The big disadvantage to transitioning from one of the oldest metropolitan areas in the United States to one of the younger ones is that it involves a massive die-off, which is going to act as a drag on population growth, and is totally beyond anybody's control. Being the only major metropolitan area in the United States with a natural decrease means that Pittsburgh has to work harder than all of them in order to grow its population, and it more than likely won't get any easier until after 2020, when the "Baby Boomers," who are underrepresented in the Pittsburgh MSA, become elderly.
This was a long and drawn out start to a thread. It took you a while, but the population growth the last two years is most likely a blip on the radar.
IMO the recession made pittsburgh look better than it actually is. We have always been losing population and jobs. When the recession hit the other cities looked worse because their growth and gains were far superior to pittsburghs. Now the high growth areas are growing again while pittsburgh is back at the bottom. For me i just saw a lot of people having blind faith. Nothing has changed how this region has done business the last 40 years. I found it hard to believe things magically corrected themselves.
Oh yes the ongoing excuse of more deaths than births and trying to spin it positive. Economic opportunity (job growth, wages, promotional opportunity, business startups) lacks in pittsburgh. If we had economic opportunity then the diversity, population loss and aging problems would take care of themselves.
Location: The Flagship City and Vacation in the Paris of Appalachia
2,773 posts, read 3,857,920 times
Reputation: 2067
Gnutella
Thanks for posting this and this is what I used to argue with BrianTH and some other posters about in regards to Pittsburgh's population growth. It is not that Pittsburgh is unattractive to people looking to relocate or the job market is terrible, it is the simple fact that Pittsburgh is transitioning from an older city to a younger city and that type of transition takes time. The key is to weather the storm of the deaths by doing everything possible to increase in migration and retaining as many young people as possible so they settle in the Pittsburgh area and eventually contribute to the birth rate. Pittsburgh could also look to what Erie has been doing recently and that is focusing in refugee resettlement and increasing immigration to the area. If you look at the report I have posted below this appears to be working and it looks like Erie will at least be able to maintain population and possibly have a little bit of growth despite the large elderly population by 2030. The International Institute of Erie is really bringing a good number of people from all over the world to the area.
Thanks for posting this and this is what I used to argue with BrianTH and some other posters about in regards to Pittsburgh's population growth. It is not that Pittsburgh is unattractive to people looking to relocate or the job market is terrible, it is the simple fact that Pittsburgh is transitioning from an older city to a younger city and that type of transition takes time. The key is to weather the storm of the deaths by doing everything possible to increase in migration and retaining as many young people as possible so they settle in the Pittsburgh area and eventually contribute to the birth rate. Pittsburgh could also look to what Erie has been doing recently and that is focusing in refugee resettlement and increasing immigration to the area. If you look at the report I have posted below this appears to be working and it looks like Erie will at least be able to maintain population and possibly have a little bit of growth despite the large elderly population by 2030. The International Institute of Erie is really bringing a good number of people from all over the world to the area.
Pittsburgh has opened its doors to Bhutanese refugees. In fact, Pennsylvania now has the largest Bhutanese population of any U.S. state. There's been an uptick in Nepali immigrants as well. This is part of why I believe the Asian population in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area will grow even faster than before.
It is hard to argue against statistics. Seems some folks don't understand hard numbers. Nice thread. Interesting indeed. Hope the great trend continues.
Pittsburgh has opened its doors to Bhutanese refugees. In fact, Pennsylvania now has the largest Bhutanese population of any U.S. state. There's been an uptick in Nepali immigrants as well. This is part of why I believe the Asian population in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area will grow even faster than before.
Pennsylvania : Bhutanese :: Minnesota : Hmong
The Nepalese have opened a restaurant here. I hope the Bhutanese will do the same.
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.
