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.
If you think PA and NJ are bad, try RI, or CT or NY. Having some personal experience in these places I would say PA is the least corrupt of this lot. But that ain't saying much!
If you think PA and NJ are bad, try RI, or CT or NY. Having some personal experience in these places I would say PA is the least corrupt of this lot. But that ain't saying much!
I'm sure they are bad but my BIL is in the FBI, he's said NJ has more cases than any other state. You would be surprised how much crime we can pack into that little state.
OK, I've been following this thread, but not posting because, well, reasons. However, a couple of things I just have to say:
Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania in general have long been known for corrupt politics.
OK, here's the post that really brought me into this conversation. As you can see, I joined CD in 2007. As the time got closer to the 2010 census, people on here were making all sorts of predictions about how Pittsburgh/the MSA would have increased in population because high tech. Then when the results came out in early 2011 showing otherwise, someone actually posted (paraphrasing) "wait until 2020"! Now the 2020 census is near, and we're seeing "wait until 2030"? How many decades are going to have to pass until people accept that Pittsburgh may not be growing?
One of the reasons I moved to WV. I grew tired of the local public policy and the inaction on trying to make it better. WV has its issues and bad rep because well listen to all of the jokes about the state. However they are genuinely trying to make it better here. Hard work is paying off. Businesses are coming here and the first new housing development in over 20 years is being built in the city. So I am seeing hope. They are jumping on the gas drilling and it’s opening the door for small businesses expansion and small manufacturing set up along the Ohio River in once abandoned sites.
Your point is well taken about population. How long is it going to take? I have stated in other threads that the poor public policy has really hurt a lot of things including population and economic growth I’m the Pittsburgh area. Until that changes who knows? The national economy is the best it’s ever been for around 8-10 years now. Pittsburgh has had excellent press over the last 10 years. Heck the G-20 was there in 2009. If it isn’t going to grow now then when? You know what I mean? Good things should be happening right now. Growth should be happening right now.
And if the 2020 census shows losses greater than what has been talked about ie. trifecta (city below 300k, county dropping below 1.2 million and the metro dropping under 2.3 million in the same census), there is some serious soul searching that needs to go on. The future here won’t be liked by most people. It will be a struggle for relevancy at that point. The population numbers will go viral nationally. Just hopefully we aren’t at the bottom or last. And the numbers are more in line with the estimates and not way off and being much worse than expected.
One thing to note is that the "Pittsburgh disease" seems to be spreading across the nation in the last few years. With the aging national population, continually declining birth rate, and the post-Trump decline in international immigration, the core counties in areas like NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles are all now declining in population, because there simply aren't enough new births/immigrants to overcome the outflow via domestic migration.
One thing to note is that the "Pittsburgh disease" seems to be spreading across the nation in the last few years. With the aging national population, continually declining birth rate, and the post-Trump decline in international immigration, the core counties in areas like NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles are all now declining in population, because there simply aren't enough new births/immigrants to overcome the outflow via domestic migration.
^ Brilliant addition to a discussion, as always. Bravo.
Nobody really took the bait about my example, but here it is again to show why Pittsburgh declines every year, again using fictitious numbers for easier math:
The first issue is that we have had and continue to have a very gray population that has not yet fully died off. The second issue is gentrification---which people on this sub-forum deny exists, of course.
I expect us to only be a smidge above 300,000 in the 2020 Census. I'm really hoping we THEN start to turn things around because psychologically being sub-300,000 for population is a huge kick to the gut, but there's no guarantee that 300,000 will be our 2020 floor when we're already estimated to be at 301,000 as of 2018.
How many more decades until all of these old people who have been the cause of our natural population decline finally die off, anyways? They must be super-geezers by now. I feel like by the time all of these old people die off the Millennials will be old and starting to die, no?
^ Brilliant addition to a discussion, as always. Bravo.
Nobody really took the bait about my example, but here it is again to show why Pittsburgh declines every year, again using fictitious numbers for easier math:
The first issue is that we have had and continue to have a very gray population that has not yet fully died off. The second issue is gentrification---which people on this sub-forum deny exists, of course.
I expect us to only be a smidge above 300,000 in the 2020 Census. I'm really hoping we THEN start to turn things around because psychologically being sub-300,000 for population is a huge kick to the gut, but there's no guarantee that 300,000 will be our 2020 floor when we're already estimated to be at 301,000 as of 2018.
How many more decades until all of these old people who have been the cause of our natural population decline finally die off, anyways? They must be super-geezers by now. I feel like by the time all of these old people die off the Millennials will be old and starting to die, no?
The census does not break down births/deaths and domestic migration below the county level, so we really don't have hard numbers to tell us how the city of Pittsburgh fares versus Allegheny County as a whole. However, we do know that the median age of the city (33.3) is much lower than the county (41) or the metro as a whole (43.3). Thus the death rate is far lower than the metro as a whole. Obviously a large proportion of the younger half of the city population are college students who aren't reproducing. The percentage of children under age 5 in the city is only modestly smaller than the county as a whole though (5.3% versus 4.9%), but the over 55 population is significantly smaller (32.3% versus 26.1%). Thus it's likely the case that births outnumber deaths in the city of Pittsburgh proper.
Looking at Pittsburgh's population dynamics by age from 2010 to 2017, this is the basic breakdown:
Children (0-19): Lost 7,781
Young Adults (20-34): Gained 15,748
Middle Age (35-59): Lost 13,212
Young Old (60-74): Gained 5,691
Old Old (75+): Lost 4,015
Some of these shifts are due to the differing sizes of generational cohorts, since all residents of Pittsburgh aged seven years during that period. Thus there was no real influx of people in the 60-74 bracket - instead people ages 53-59 aged into this range (which also accounts for part of the decline). Similarly, there's less "Old Old" these days in large part because this group is people who were born during the "Baby Bust" around the Great Depression/World War II. The only true influx was in the Young Adults category, which was basically offset by declines everywhere else (though peaking with those who were in their 30s in 2010 and 40-44 today).
The census does not break down births/deaths and domestic migration below the county level, so we really don't have hard numbers to tell us how the city of Pittsburgh fares versus Allegheny County as a whole. However, we do know that the median age of the city (33.3) is much lower than the county (41) or the metro as a whole (43.3). Thus the death rate is far lower than the metro as a whole. Obviously a large proportion of the younger half of the city population are college students who aren't reproducing. The percentage of children under age 5 in the city is only modestly smaller than the county as a whole though (5.3% versus 4.9%), but the over 55 population is significantly smaller (32.3% versus 26.1%). Thus it's likely the case that births outnumber deaths in the city of Pittsburgh proper.
Looking at Pittsburgh's population dynamics by age from 2010 to 2017, this is the basic breakdown:
Children (0-19): Lost 7,781
Young Adults (20-34): Gained 15,748
Middle Age (35-59): Lost 13,212
Young Old (60-74): Gained 5,691
Old Old (75+): Lost 4,015
Some of these shifts are due to the differing sizes of generational cohorts, since all residents of Pittsburgh aged seven years during that period. Thus there was no real influx of people in the 60-74 bracket - instead people ages 53-59 aged into this range (which also accounts for part of the decline). Similarly, there's less "Old Old" these days in large part because this group is people who were born during the "Baby Bust" around the Great Depression/World War II. The only true influx was in the Young Adults category, which was basically offset by declines everywhere else (though peaking with those who were in their 30s in 2010 and 40-44 today).
I thought you would find this article of interest regarding the age of the workforce in the Pittsburgh area. The 16-44 age group declined by 27,000 in the metro while the population 45 and up increased.
Psychologically I'm happy as long as the city's population doesn't dip below 300,000. With our latest 2018 estimate Cincinnati pulled ahead of us and is now the larger city. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are similar in many ways; however, their metro area is growing steadily and their city is growing modestly while our metro area is stagnant, and our city is still losing population. We should really study Cincinnati more to see why they're growing while we're in decline.
Oh, and there are plenty on this sub-forum who like what Pittsburgh is on its way to become---leaner, meaner, and more "efficient" (i.e. an inversion of pricing out the poor and working-class to our generally undesirable suburbs while attracting more affluent and educated transplants into the city in droves). I personally don't like this, as I want our city to have a place for anyone and everyone who wants to live here.
Pittsburgh seems to be like this each year (using imaginary numbers for easier math):
Again, this isn't exact by any means, but as long as our death rate is outpacing our birthrate, and as long as wealthier singles and DINKs are replacing larger lower-income households, then we'll continue to decline by at least a few hundred residents annually. When will we hit our "floor"? I don't know. I'm hoping our floor will be 300,000. I was hoping Erie's floor would be 100,000, but they're well below that now and still dropping. I was hoping Johnstown's floor would be 20,000, but they're well below that now and still dropping. Pittsburgh's "floor" might end up being 275,000 for all we know, and that would make us barely bigger than Buffalo. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
To those saying this is a "good" thing, won't we lose Congressional representation and funding via housing a progressively lower and lower population?
Maybe the DINKs hurt, but there are plenty of TINKs and... QINKs?
Our household is a QINK thank you very much! And I know lots of other QINKs living in Pittsburgh proper too, haha.
I thought you would find this article of interest regarding the age of the workforce in the Pittsburgh area. The 16-44 age group declined by 27,000 in the metro while the population 45 and up increased.
Yeah, there's very different population dynamics going on in the City of Pittsburgh versus the rest of the metro. The Pittsburgh MSA outside of the city (excepting a few family-friendly suburbs with greenfield development) is basically demographically and economically imploding. Large blue-collar employers continue to close or relocate out of the metro. White collar anchors relocate out of the metro or move into the city proper.
The article makes far too much out of the decline in the 45-54 cohort, and the rise in the 55-64 cohort. Over the eight-year period, most of the people in the 45-54 cohort aged into the 55-64 cohort, to which much of this shift is attributed. This is not unexpected. Nationally, the most common year of birth for white Americans is 1960, which makes it the peak of the baby boom. In 2009, the "peak" was thus age 49. By 2017 it was up to 57, and is now 59. Thus in any given metro area, you'd expect over this period the absolute number of people in their late 40s/early 50s to decline, and the absolute number in their late 50s/early 60s to rise.
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.
