Census reports small drop in Pittsburgh's population (Bethel Park, Plum: rent, house)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Merge

That's what many of us have been telling you for a long time, yet it still hasn't stopped you from commenting in many of the threads in this subforum wherein you've nothing to add because you have no firsthand experience with the area. So it's kind of ironic that you are saying this to another poster.

I'm in da 'burgh quite often and sounds like I visit its amenities more than many who live there.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

Indeed. Cranberry gets mentioned a lot on this subforum. I'm curious how many actually speak from experience.

Was think the exact same thing...especially since it's obvious that most don't.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SuburbanPioneer

This is a bit of an odd statement, but I do agree with some of it. There are two points that are worth making:
- The term "better" is broad, complex and includes different things for different people. For example, even if your statement was correct, I would argue that suburban schools is a better option than the city school district.
- While there is a very strong correlation, children are not smart just because they have wealthy educated parents. But perhaps because these parents provide parenting and resources for their children to be successful. Let's assume for a moment that such parenting, among other thing, means being involved in your child's education. While all those indicators usually go hand in hand, it would contradict your statement that suburban schools do well not because they have more involved parents, but merely because they have wealthy and educated parents.

Now circling back to what constitutes a better school district. Would my kids do well in the city school district? Likely, yes. Would an average city school district be better for them than a top suburban school district? Likely, no.

Regarding better, you're of course right that it's subjective. I like that the City of Pittsburgh gives parents and students a lot of different educational options, from arts-focused to STEM-focused curriculum. About the only suburb I considered moving to when we were looking for a new house was Dormont, since it was closer to my wife's parents and more urban than the city neighborhoods in the South Hills. But I decided against in part due to the schools. In aggregate Keystone Oaks does than Pittsburgh, but that is because it's a district where the average student is...average...with few underperformers (and also less high performers than the City). But the lack of any choices besides the neighborhood school made the option unappealing to me personally.

No one has disentangled what causes students to perform well or fall behind. Some suggest that the results are mostly due to genetics, finding a big gap in the performance of biological children (who track with their parents) and adoptive children (who mostly do not). Others have suggested that home environment can still play a role. But there have been multiple studies which have shown that schools simply don't matter, at least in any systematic fashion. Almost the entirety of differences in school performance (urban, suburban, public, private, magnet, charter, etc) comes down to the socio-economic status of the parents. When this is accounted for, there is no evidence that any kind of school is any better than any other kind. Individual teachers may be better or worse for individual students, but everything gets washed out in the averages. Meaning the best thing a parent can do is just live where they want to with the assurance it won't ruin their child.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The problem is the city is unable to attract or retain those in their prime earning years, 35-60.

I'd hazard a guess that Pittsburgh does a better than average job of retaining people in those age brackets than the average American core city. I'll have to look into the statistics to see.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd hazard a guess that Pittsburgh does a better than average job of retaining people in those age brackets than the average American core city. I'll have to look into the statistics to see.

Then something very interesting happens. The age group from 35 to 65 accounts for a substantially higher portion of the national population than it does in Pittsburgh, 39.0 to 33.8 percent. This is the age group that by and large represents the highest income earners (those at the top end of this age range) and accounts for the lion’s share of those with middle and high school age students (in the middle portion of the range)...

Pittsburgh

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Pittsburgh

That's also because the 20 to 34 demographic so much larger here. Do you know what that means? It means young people are moving here. Pittsburgh is 50% higher than the national average for that age group. Cities don't grow through influx of middle-aged people.

[Goinback2011]

But they don't stay in the city after a certain age.


If they did, there wouldn't be an unusually small percentage of children.

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

But they don't stay in the city after a certain age.

Except you can't extrapolate that. All you can determine is that the last generation didn't.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Except you can't extrapolate that. All you can determine is that the last generation didn't.

There's plenty of recent research indicating Millenials move to the suburbs after their extended adolescence. Do you have any reason to believe Pittsburgh's millenials are different?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

I lived in the Pittsburgh area for 15 years, so I already know the basics. And since then, I've been back often enough and still know enough people who live there to have a clue what's going on. That's all that matters. I remember what Pittsburgh was when I moved away, and I've seen enough of it since to know that it's much better off now than it used to be.

Yet I lived in the area for 21, almost 22 years, went to college worked there as an adult, have been back many times to visit and have had family in the area consistently since about 1870, and I'm told I don't belong on this forum many times. Not by you, I have to say.