Are There Enough Jobs in Pittsburgh?

I guess it depends what you mean by "enough." And what kind of jobs, etc. But this is an interesting question, made more interesting by Harold Miller's op-ed in the Sunday Post-Gazette. In it, he points out Pittsburgh's lagging job growth over the past few years, and a growing reliance on jobs in healthcare.

So our job outlook is crappy, right? Well, maybe. But according to Chris Briem, who knows such things, Pittsburgh has more jobs today than it did 50 years ago, when the mills were humming along:

...jobs in the city of Pittsburgh have remarkably remained the same, or even gone up some, at the same time. Not many cities similar to Pittsburgh can say that. Maybe that deserves repeating: there are at least as many, possibly more, jobs located within the city of Pittsburgh today than there were 50 years ago.

I am not saying that these two are disagreeing. It is entirely possible to have just an many jobs today as 50 years ago, but fewer than five years ago.

I just wonder what it all means. What does it mean that "not many cities similar to Pittsburgh can say that"? Similar in what way? Rust Belt? Shrinking?

And I wonder what the numbers look like in cities that have had a better 50 years. In, say, a city that has kept its population steady? With women going to work en masse, I would assume that such a city would have to have far MORE jobs than it had 50 years ago. But is that the case? That is, does having the same number of jobs as 50 years ago indicate things are going well, or that things are tanking? Surely growing cities like Las Vegas have far more jobs than they did 50 years ago. But what about NYC? Boston? Cleveland?

Might also be worth pointing out what Chris discusses in the post I linked to: the difference between city stats and county stats and regional stats. I think a lot of the ye olde "Pittsburgh jobs" people talk about were never in Pittsburgh. The Homestead mill was in... Homestead. Carrie Furnace was in Rankin. Etc. Etc. It all gets quite confusing.

So what do the job totals for the county look like from 50 years ago? For the region? I am sure Chris has it all charted out somewhere.

Either way, like I said, I wonder what it all means. Especially MIller's bit about the growing reliance on healthcare. Mike Madison wonders about that, too. And is hosting an interesting discussion about it.

Comments

[C. Briem]

Seriously.. how can I be clearer? That quote you pull out says CITY OF Pittsburgh. CITY. As in the the city proper, otherwise known as the incorporated municipality of Pittsburgh, a city of the 2nd Class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a minor civil division within Allegheny County, PA. Harold is equally clear on this point and is not talking about the city at all. he is only talking about the region. The Pittsburgh REGION.. not just the city, not even limited to the county but 7 whole counties in SW PA. An area with 9-10 times the population of the city proper.

apples and oranges in the context you use the two terms.

[Sam M]

Chris,

I realize this. That is, I recignize the distiction you make here. Not sure what the confusion is about. That is, I tried to make it clear that I understood the two of you were talking about different things.

[CB]

You start by talking about Harold's comments about some regional data and then jump directly into a quote I made about city numbers. Just completely irrelevant in the context you use that. You might as well have been pulling someone's comments about jobs located in Mumbai. You have completely confused your readers if nothing else about what I was talking about and possibly whatever your point is which I can't discern because I don't know if you are commenting on jobs in the city or jobs in the region or something else.

Take your sentence: "It is entirely possible to have just an many jobs today as 50 years ago, but fewer than five years ago." .. City jobs 5 years ago? or regional jobs 5 years ago. Compared to what: city jobs 50 years ago or regional jobs 50 years ago. The answers are very different depending on what you mean. Because you have pulled two quotes out of context and juxtaposed them when they ought not to you have actually reinforced this confusion many have between the numbers.

[Sam M]

Chris,

Yes. All that. It's EXACTLY MY POINT. It is, in fact, confusing. Because we can talk about jobs. And we can talk about how there aren;t enough. And we can talk about how there are more than ever. Depending on which numbers you choose to use.

What I found interesting is that Harold's piece--about how a lack of jobs "here," or at least about the slow growth of jobs here--appeared at the same time as your blog post. Which talked about how there job base "here" is not, in fact, shrinking.

I was not trying to "reinforce" any confusion. I was trying to show how two people, both of whom are entirely correct, both of whom are using perfectly accurate numbers, can write very different sorts of things. The sentence you quote was not meant to mislead, but to point out that I do not have any reason to believe that one of you is right, or that one of you is wrong, or that you are disagreeing in any way.

Sorry if it came across as tring to compare city jobs with county jobs or regional jobs. I mean, speaking of not being able to be clearer, I pointed out that there is a "difference between city stats and county stats and regional stats."