[PRCo] Re: population trends

Mon Apr 9 12:38:09 EDT 2012

 Suspect people look at monthly mortgage payment, which is a mix of sale price, interest rates and property tax.  That eliminates dealing with details - moving is complicated enough.   > From: trams2 at comcast.net
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: population trends 
> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:34:28 -0400
> 
> You have to look where Allegheny's population growth is...new communities
> are springing up on vacant land all over the place, and it's most definitely
> suburban.  I believe the population numbers, but don't understand the desire
> to pay high property taxes.  Butler and Washington taxes are about half of
> Allegheny's.  I guess my perspective is different from many.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Fred
> Schneider
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 4:18 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: population trends 
> 
> Some of the U. S. Census Bureau's intercensal estimates have been way off
> base.   Do I believe growth in Allegheny County?
> 
> The county is much more urban than the surrounding areas.   It includes
> Pittsburgh.  Many other cities showed unprecedented growth in the 2010
> census ... perhaps we are learning that we cannot afford to live on huge
> lots in the suburbs in humongous homes that cost a fortune to heat and cool
> and require inordinate expense to get to and from our daily destinations.
> Would I believe a slight gain ... maybe.   The gain they are showing is 0.2
> percent, which, if extrapolated over ten years, would only be one-third of
> the loss between 2000 and 2010.
> 
> For the first time, Pittsburgh's unemployment is slightly below the national
> average.  Maybe the region has finally reached equilibrium and can accept a
> slight influx of people.  Time will tell.   
> 
> But the story tells us it was driven not by more births than deaths but by
> people moving into the area.   If you start with a given ... given we
> already believe that the population is growing, and we know from vital
> statistics that deaths exceed births, then we must blame the increase on
> people into the area.   Yes, you all know I am a cynic.   But I also know
> there is no good way to document migration between states or counties or
> cities.   
> 
> We should be creating the estimate by adding together births minus deaths
> plus in migration minus out migration.  However, I want you to tell me how
> you are going to measure migration from state to state.   If the federal
> government was really good at it, then we would know where all those
> Mexicans are dispersed!   :<)   Truth is, they don't know.   If they want to
> take the time to look, for example, at where courtesy claims for
> unemployment insurance are being filed, they might have some idea that
> people from Pittsburgh moved to Topeka or that people from Wichita moved to
> Dallas.   They might also get a clue by looking at school enrollment data.
> But my experience in looking at some of their intercensal estimates makes me
> believe they are more along the line of projections based on the past than
> honest attempts at estimating the future.   The latter takes too much work
> and is awfully hard to defend.    But this Pittsburgh number is the reverse
> of the past.   I have no clue!
>   what they are doing.   Maybe they know some cities went up and think it's
> only proper to move them all up?????
> 
> I remember a urinating contest I got into back in the early 1970s over how
> many Spanish speaking people lived in Lancaster County. I inflamed the
> Spanish speaking community by telling them that my estimate was 2,500.  My
> estimate was one-quarter of the number they wanted us to believe.   I had
> based it on the percentage of kids in the schools and the family size of
> Spanish kids compared to non Spanish.   All knowns.   When the census came
> in a few months later at 2,475, we were of course both idiots ... I didn't
> know how to estimate and the census didn't know how to count.    But the guy
> who argued most loudly with me moved back to Puerto Rico.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Dennis F Cramer wrote:
> 
> > http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_79037
> > 7.html This was in the Sunday (4-8) Tribune Review. What is not 
> > included in the online version is the graph showing the various 
> > counties. I have attached a scan of it.
> > 
> > Here is a small portion of the article.
> > "The 10-county area of Western Pennsylvania showed population gains in 
> > 2011, according to Census Bureau population estimates released last week.
> > 
> > Allegheny County's population increased by 2,233 people from 2010 for 
> > a 2011 population of 1.2 million people. The region's population - 
> > despite losses in some counties, like Westmoreland, which saw a 614 
> > decrease from 2010 - rose by 930 people for a 2011 population of 2.6
> million people.
> > 
> > The 10-county region includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, 
> > Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington and Westmoreland counties.
> > 
> > Newcomers rather than newborns made the difference. The region had 
> > 3,468 more deaths than births, Census figures showed."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >          Dennis F. Cramer
> > http://home.windstream.net/dfc1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 433k (444399 bytes)
> > -- URL : 
> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/population%20trend
> > s.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>