Downtown Population increased 25% since 2000 (Pittsburgh, York: how much, job market, bankruptcy)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I assume "quality" includes things like leased percentages and/or local leasing prospects.

If this is the assumption, then the comment is admitting the poor conditions in commercial real estate.

[BrianTH]

Well, poor conditions in most places--as noted in the article, Downtown Pittsburgh CRE is actually doing quite well.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, poor conditions in most places--as noted in the article, Downtown Pittsburgh CRE is actually doing quite well.

The questions is not about how downtown real estate has done in the past, but rather how its going to perform in the future. A sale off of commercial real estate is not exactly a bullish signal...

National trends always seem to hit Pittsburgh late, perhaps because its key industries are so recession proof (which really just means they respond slowly to recessions, nothing is recession proof).

[BrianTH]

Yeah, some people have been waiting for the recession to hit Pittsburgh at a lag. They have been waiting for a while now--of course it did hit Pittsburgh a bit, but not nearly as much as the national average, and now we seem to be ahead of the average during the recovery too.

The thing is, the recession was really driven by a real estate bubble and subsequent financial crisis that never happened in Pittsburgh. And in fact the other areas which didn't participate in the real estate bubble are typically doing relatively well now too. So the people waiting for the other shoe to drop in the non-bubble markets may be waiting a long time.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yeah, some people have been waiting for the recession to hit Pittsburgh at a lag. They have been waiting for a while now--of course it did hit Pittsburgh a bit, but not nearly as much as the national average, and now we seem to be ahead of the average during the recovery too.

A bit? Pittsburgh unemployment rate is just a bit behind the national average. But local unemployment rate in itself does not tell you that much. Pittsburgh unemployment rate has been low for a long time, yet population has declined. You see, when people leave they are no longer counted as unemployed. In this sense areas with more transient populations (The ratio of college students to general population is high in Pittsburgh) will have a tendency to have lower unemployment rates than areas with the same economic conditions yet a less transient population.

If unemployment rates in themselves said anything about one's economy than ND should be attracting hordes of unemployed folks.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The thing is, the recession was really driven by a real estate bubble and subsequent financial crisis that never happened in Pittsburgh.

Those were more so effects, not causes. The recession was driven by a large credit bubble, the most visible aspect of such being the real estate bubble as it was the first to crash. But equally troubling are the bubbles in student loan debt, state/local debt, private equity debt, etc. The crisis is starting to move from a financial crisis to a sovereign/municipal debt crisis and Pittsburgh will not escape such without sufficient damage (bankruptcy).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by user_id

A bit? Pittsburgh unemployment rate is just a bit behind the national average. But local unemployment rate in itself does not tell you that much. Pittsburgh unemployment rate has been low for a long time, yet population has declined. You see, when people leave they are no longer counted as unemployed.

Yeah, but as I noted in another thread, Pittsburgh's labor force has actually grown, not shrunk, during the recession. That is unusual in itself, and the upshot is that our unemployment rate is probably around 2 points higher, give or take, than it would have been if not for this increase in the size of the local labor force. And even so, we remain below the national average, as we have been for many, many months (I think it is 42 straight months now).

In other words, I'm happy to ignore the unemployment rate. If you instead look at percentage of jobs lost since before the recession, Pittsburgh is doing even better.

PittsburghTODAY

Because the Pittsburgh Region lost fewer jobs during the recession than other regions, merely average growth during the recovery will keep us ahead of them, and above average growth will further widen our lead. In fact, if you compare where we stand today to two years ago (June 2008), before the recession really took hold, the Pittsburgh Region has lost fewer jobs than any of our benchmark regions. Perhaps more dramatically, most other regions have lost at least twice as many jobs (in percentage terms) as we have. For example, while Pittsburgh still has 28,000 fewer jobs today than it did two years ago, Charlotte has 54,000 fewer jobs, Denver has 80,000 fewer jobs, and Detroit has lost over 200,000 jobs.

The crisis is starting to move from a financial crisis to a sovereign/municipal debt crisis and Pittsburgh will not escape such without sufficient damage (bankruptcy).

Eh, the City might well go bankrupt. Whether that will cause a local repeat of the national recession is another matter.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Yeah, but as I noted in another thread, Pittsburgh's labor force has actually grown, not shrunk, during the recession.

I really don't care what you noted in another thread, what is the basis of the claim?

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Eh, the City might well go bankrupt. Whether that will cause a local repeat of the national recession is another matter.

The city going bankrupt will effects its ability to improve city infrastructure and therefore attract new residents and businesses.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by user_id

I really don't care what you noted in another thread, what is the basis of the claim?

Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. You can get tons of data linking through here:

Pittsburgh, PA Economy at a Glance

Here is labor force:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

May 2010 is the latest currently available. As of May 2007, the labor force was 1196484. In May 2010, it was 1228200. That is a difference of 31716.

The city going bankrupt will effects its ability to improve city infrastructure and therefore attract new residents and businesses.

Possibly, although depending on how it restructures its liabilities that may not be the case. In any event, City investment in infrastructure is only one component of local infrastructure investment, let alone investment in all factors affecting local businesses and residents. I'm particularly interested to see if the state does in fact pass a PPP (public-private partnership) law, as they are planning. That could be transformative for places like Pittsburgh.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

May 2010 is the latest currently available. As of May 2007, the labor force was 1196484. In May 2010, it was 1228200. That is a difference of 31716.

That data is pretty noisy, and the labor force increased during the last recession yet went back down afterward. If I had to guess people may be moving back to the area (with relatives, etc) when the employment hot beds cool down.

But this is also for the entire metro area, not Pittsburgh. The metro area as far as I know has grow a bit recently.

[BrianTH]

There are seasonal effects in the data, and a bit of noise as well, but if you compare same months from before the recession and now the effect is quite clear. What will happen when the national recession recedes is anyone's guess, but my point above stands: this growth in the labor force means the unemployment rate actually understates, not overstates, how Pittsburgh's employment situation has been doing relative to national averages during the recession. So the long wait for Pittsburgh to match national trends, as some have been predicting, continues.

Of course all this is metro-level data--that makes the most sense for labor market issues, and is what is available on a regular basis.