Pittsburgh ranks 6th in the U.S. in per capita income growth since 1984 (Beaver: unemployment rate, college)

[Craziaskowboi]

Top 10 U.S. cities in per capita income growth since 1984

1. El Paso, TX
2. Baton Rouge, LA
3. Baltimore, MD
4. Virginia Beach, VA
5. New Orleans, LA
6. Pittsburgh, PA
7. Oklahoma City, OK
8. Little Rock, AR
9. Jackson, MS
10. Honolulu, HI

Among the top 10, only Baltimore and Honolulu have a higher per capita income than Pittsburgh.

[BrianTH]

If you look back even farther, Pittsburgh is on a pretty unique track. Back before the steel bust, Pittsburgh was above-average in per capita income among U.S. metros, basically because there were a lot of good jobs available even for those with a limited education. Then the steel bust and other industrial contractions in the early 1980s caused Pittsburgh to dip substantially below the U.S. metro average. As this study indicates, Pittsburgh has since been in recovery mode, and now is back above the U.S. metro average (and continuing to climb in relative terms). But now rather than being driven by good jobs for people with relatively little education, Pittsburgh's relatively good income statistics are being driven by a younger population which is among the best-educated in the country, which is good for income statistics in general, and particularly good in this recession.

[Katarina Witt]

Here's the methodology, with an interesting comment:

Methodology Of 25 Year Income Growth Analysis - Special Reports - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/10/13/methodology-of-25-year-income-growth-analysis - broken link)

In 1984, Pittsburgh was in a major recession. It's no wonder per capita income has grown a lot since then.

The region's unemployment rate peaked at 18.2 percent in January 1983, with 212,400 people out of work. In Beaver County alone, which lost at least five major steelmaking plants, the jobless rate hit a staggering 28 percent -- higher than for many states during the Great Depression, Mr. Briem noted.

Read more: For Pittsburgh, this recession is nothing in comparison to '80s

Also note:

El Paso was mired in 99th place with its PCI of $28,638. The only market to finish lower was another Texas metro along the Mexican border, McAllen-Edinburg, at $19,720.

But Portfolio.com took a different tack—looking for the strongest growth rates, not the highest income levels.
Read more: El Paso Texas Sets National Pace For Income Growth - Special Reports - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/10/13/el-paso-texas-sets-national-pace-for-income-growth#ixzz12GUor16f - broken link)

Further support for my opinion that you can prove just about anything with statistics.

[BrianTH]

When you compare Pittsburgh's per capita income to the U.S. metro average, 1984 wasn't the trough--that actually came a bit later in the 1980s:



By the way, I was wrong above--Pittsburgh was above the overall U.S. average for per capita income in the late 1970s, but still slightly below the U.S. metro average.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

When you compare Pittsburgh's per capita income to the U.S. metro average, 1984 wasn't the trough--that actually came a bit later in the 1980s:


By the way, I was wrong above--Pittsburgh was above the overall U.S. average for per capita income in the late 1970s, but still slightly below the U.S. metro average.

No, but it was pretty low. If UE was 18.2% in 1983 (and 28% in Beaver County), it was likely higher than that in 1984, according to this graph.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

No, but it was pretty low.

Interestingly, as of 1984 it was pretty much around the same as it was prior to the late 1970s bubble.

Anyway, here is the same graph, now with three different linear fits: to the whole series, starting in 1984 (like the study), and starting in 1991 (when it had recovered to its pre-steel bust levels):



It is true the 1984 fit gives you the highest rate of increase, as you would expect since it starts during the steel bust period (albeit not at the bottom). But all three of these fits nonetheless give you a rising trend, and the 91 fit really isn't that far off from the 1984 fit, meaning the recent trend is pretty robustly positive even if you start from after the steel bust.

[Katarina Witt]

I believe the choice of year was that it was 25 years of PCI history, 1984-2009.

[DaBurgh]

I love charts and graphs

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Here's the methodology, with an interesting comment:

Methodology Of 25 Year Income Growth Analysis - Special Reports - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/10/13/methodology-of-25-year-income-growth-analysis - broken link)

In 1984, Pittsburgh was in a major recession. It's no wonder per capita income has grown a lot since then.

The region's unemployment rate peaked at 18.2 percent in January 1983, with 212,400 people out of work. In Beaver County alone, which lost at least five major steelmaking plants, the jobless rate hit a staggering 28 percent -- higher than for many states during the Great Depression, Mr. Briem noted.

Read more: For Pittsburgh, this recession is nothing in comparison to '80s

Also note:

El Paso was mired in 99th place with its PCI of $28,638. The only market to finish lower was another Texas metro along the Mexican border, McAllen-Edinburg, at $19,720.

But Portfolio.com took a different tack—looking for the strongest growth rates, not the highest income levels.
Read more: El Paso Texas Sets National Pace For Income Growth - Special Reports - Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/10/13/el-paso-texas-sets-national-pace-for-income-growth#ixzz12GUor16f - broken link)

Further support for my opinion that you can prove just about anything with statistics.

Pittsburgh's per capita income growth rate has been well above the U.S. average since 1969.

Originally Posted by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

While Pittsburgh ranked low in college attainment in 1970, its gains in this metric since then have been the most rapid. Perhaps not accidentally, Pittsburgh’s growth in per capita income also outpaced other cities in the region.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Pittsburgh's per capita income growth rate has been well above the U.S. average since 1969.

If 1.0 on the graph Brian posted is the US average, which is what I think that means, Pgh's PCI was not at the nat. average from 1969 until 2007. I'm not arguing growth rate, I'm saying, it was pretty low to begin with, especially in the base year of the article, 1984.