Census reports small drop in Pittsburgh's population (York: 2014, neighborhoods)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Paul2421

yep. no reason not to move outside of the border and pay less taxes and have significantly better schools.

First, the City of Pittsburgh's population has been continually declining since 1950. Hell, arguably the decline set in a bit earlier than that - Pittsburgh continued to annex largely undeveloped land from 1920 till the mid 1950s or so (particularly in the West End and South Hills) which helped mask the declining population in the urban core. So whatever you might say about the draw of the suburbs versus the city, the difference between the two has never been narrower.

On taxes, it all depends upon one's individual circumstances. Wage taxes are much higher in the city, but property taxes are also much lower. The tradeoff can work for many people - albeit more for retirees, given the City follows the state's lead in not taxing any retirement income.

On schools, you're just dead wrong. People always assume good schools make good students, when it's largely the other way around. Suburban schools do well not because they have better teachers, or more involved parents, but because wealthy, educated parents will tend to have smart children who do well in school wherever they are, so districts which appeal to wealthy educated parents will do very well in aggregate.

[theta_sigma]

I did the math on taxes if we moved to Reserve or Shaler and at our housing pricepoint and income level, the taxes pretty much came out in the wash, with the slight advantage to City of Pittsburgh.

The people who we're buying a new house from are moving to Bethal Park "for the schools." I bit my tongue. My background is in educational research. It really does not work that way.

[shogun221]

Given that Allegheny county is one of the grayest in the entire country, I'd expect mortality to tamp down growth until the population dynamics of the X'ers and millennials become the dominant trend.

[Geeo]

It's pretty much a wash, tax-wise. I don't plan my life on a spreadsheet, but as mentioned, the wage tax is higher and the property taxes are lower in the city. For us, we only need one car, which saves at least a couple thousand a year on gasoline, payments and maintenance. No grass to cut, so don't need a lawn mower, gas and oil. I grew up in the suburbs and swore I would never cut grass again.

Of the kids in my neighborhood, some go to private and some go to public schools. All seem to be getting a good education and make it home in one piece every day.

[lprmesia]

Hey, at least we're not my old stomping grounds of Detroit.

At this point the city of Detroit has lost almost as many people since it's peak as Allegheny County has in number of people today. Difference is only 58,007.

Detroit 1950: 1,849,568
Detroit 2015 : 677,116
Net Gain/Loss: 1,172,452

Allegheny 2015: 1,230,459

[SuburbanPioneer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

On schools, you're just dead wrong. People always assume good schools make good students, when it's largely the other way around. Suburban schools do well not because they have better teachers, or more involved parents, but because wealthy, educated parents will tend to have smart children who do well in school wherever they are, so districts which appeal to wealthy educated parents will do very well in aggregate.

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.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by shogun221

Given that Allegheny county is one of the grayest in the entire country, I'd expect mortality to tamp down growth until the population dynamics of the X'ers and millennials become the dominant trend.

What was once "leaving in droves" during the 1980s and 1990s has now become "dying in droves" during the 2000s and 2010s. It's part two of a two-part fundamental demographic reset.

[theta_sigma]

Well, define "better for them." There are also a number of ways to measure that, including social-emotional stuff such as "interacting with a diverse student body on a daily basis."

Our choice is mainly predicated on the fact that as the white male child of two parents with masters degrees in education and 3/4 grandparents with masters or PhDs, our kid is going to be just fine as long as his school environment is safe.

[fts11]

Originally Posted by eschaton

On schools, you're just dead wrong. People always assume good schools make good students, when it's largely the other way around. Suburban schools do well not because they have better teachers, or more involved parents, but because wealthy, educated parents will tend to have smart children who do well in school wherever they are, so districts which appeal to wealthy educated parents will do very well in aggregate.

I've always thought exactly this, and never understood why parents will spend so much money to put their kids in a "good" school, when the main reason it's a "good" school is only because other parents just like them did the same thing.

The other thing to consider is cultural education. If kids go to school in an all white upper-class district, sure they might learn more on paper, but they might go through their childhood living in an unrealistic "bubble" of perfection, surrounded by kids exactly the same as them. That's not how the world is.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by eschaton

First, the City of Pittsburgh's population has been continually declining since 1950. Hell, arguably the decline set in a bit earlier than that - Pittsburgh continued to annex largely undeveloped land from 1920 till the mid 1950s or so (particularly in the West End and South Hills) which helped mask the declining population in the urban core. So whatever you might say about the draw of the suburbs versus the city, the difference between the two has never been narrower.

On taxes, it all depends upon one's individual circumstances. Wage taxes are much higher in the city, but property taxes are also much lower. The tradeoff can work for many people - albeit more for retirees, given the City follows the state's lead in not taxing any retirement income.

On schools, you're just dead wrong. People always assume good schools make good students, when it's largely the other way around. Suburban schools do well not because they have better teachers, or more involved parents, but because wealthy, educated parents will tend to have smart children who do well in school wherever they are, so districts which appeal to wealthy educated parents will do very well in aggregate.

i didn't mean to offend. i was talking about the fringe areas of downtown that have the lowest performing school.

i also agree with your second point in that good students do equal good schools and that reinforces my point. the environment in which children are educated in their early years has a huge effect on their development.