[PRCo] Re: population trends

Mon Apr 9 13:47:37 EDT 2012

I guess my perspective would be like Derricks.   

If you can live in cheaper digs in the city near where you work and telecommute too, that might just offset the taxes on a larger home in the burbs.   The millage rate may be higher in the city but the property may cost less and the commuting costs can also be a lot lower.   (And there is some similarity too when dad will's us a home as in your case or gives us the ground on which to build it, helps you build it, and gives a very low interest rate on a mortgage ... my case.   Our millage rate may be higher but we paid a lot less for the property so we can afford to live where we do.   If I had to buy where I live, would I?   There are a lot of "what ifs" that would change if I knew then what I know today.

On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 