Profiting on the Troubled

When I read about a Strip club opening up next to a space for recovering addicts, I can't help but think about how "economizing" on space wound up with a mental health, drug and alcohol treatment center, which introduced mentally disabled Jennifer Daugherty to her killers.

Maybe we'll have public outrage spreading beyond 30 neighbors against the impending West Carson Street strip club when a woman is murdered there. Until then, "sex sells" as the protest signs say.

In the meantime, Rivers Casino is looking for dealers. With the introduction of table games at Pennsylvania casinos, the Rivers Casino is planning to hire 300 to 350 new employees.

"Mr. Barnabei [the casino's vice president of human resources] said the casino had seen a lot of interest from dealers at casinos in West Virginia or other areas who are from Pittsburgh and who want to work closer to home or their hometown."

Welcome to the city, roofers and gamblers. Get here quick and fill out your 2010 census forms.

Buenos Aires Not So Different From Pittsburgh

I've been living, working, and blogging in Buenos Aires for the last month. With that in mind, here are my inevitable comparisons between the cities.

5 Ways Pittsburgh is Like Buenos Aires

1. Bus Routes - Buenos Aires has over 150 squiggly bus routes. Of course, their bus routes are all run by private companies and don't use public support. Different courses to the same messy result. Additionally, Buenos Aires has countless taxis, subway lines, and commuter and light rail lines. Traffic is still awful.
   
2. The Immigration Effect - Buenos Aires had a huge influx of European immigrants (especially Italian, German and Spanish) in the late 1800s. Similarly, Pittsburgh experienced a huge rush of Eastern European and German immigrants during the rise of the steel industry. We have Pierogies and Pennsylvania Macaroni Company. They have great coffee and home-made pastas and amazing ice cream.
   
3. Neighborhoods - Like Pittsburgh, Buenos Aires is a city of neighborhoods. There are trendy neighborhoods, under-the-weather neighborhoods, business neighborhoods, and historical neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is incredibly distinct from the other as much as the South Side versus Lawrenceville versus Downtown.
   
4. Culture - Buenos Aires is referred to as the "Paris of South America" while Pittsburgh is referred to as the "Paris of Appalachia". Both cities have a grand history of excellent museums and theater, dance and art.
5. Cost - Buenos Aires is expensive for Argentina, but for Americans it's a great deal. Similarly, Pittsburgh is one of the cheapest high-cultural destinations you can live in. They both had severe market crashes contributing to their undervalue. In Argentina that crash occurred much more recently (in 2001) and they are still struggling to recover from inflation rates and record unemployment.
   

1 Major Difference

1. Population - Buenos Aires has a population of over 3 million people, including the metro area, that population swells to 13 million. Pittsburgh is a tiny city comparatively registering in at only 300,000 city residents and 2 million metro residents. The density of shops, restaurants, and buildings is hard to envision. Its population density is 38,862 people/Square mile. Compare that to New York City which falls in at a mere 27,440 people per square mile. Pittsburgh checks in at 5,636 for those curious.

On School Population

Everyone talks about the story of Pittsburgh's population. It's halved since 1950. It's in a continual state of decline. This year marked the lowest population drop in a while and may be signs that the city's population is turning around (as Chris Briem reminds us). Similarly, Pittsburgh City Schools just reported the lowest decline in school students in the past 9 years. This parallels the city's smallest population loss in the decade. There was an increase in Kindergarten enrollment for the first time in 4 years. Pittsburgh schools are crediting programs like the Pittsburgh Promise for this slow in decline. It's easy to try to make a parallel between the city's population and the city's school enrollment. However, you'd be far off. While the city has lost barely 7.5% of its population over the past 9 years, the school district has lost a resounding 30% of its population.

Just last year, the Post-Gazette headline was:

City school enrollment falling fast

Contrast that with this week's Post-Gazette headline:

Pittsburgh schools like enrollment trend

Too early to tell? Yes. Have there been flukes in previous years followed by drastic drops? Yes. Can I have a little optimism? Yes.

Study Highlights Pittsburgh's Lack of Immigrants

The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative has released a study stating that Philadelphia was under-counted in the 2000 census. Their goal? To direct more moneys to Philadelphia for the upcoming 2010 census count.

"The report finds that almost all of the cities studied have less money and fewer staffers for this Census than they did in 2000."

And the results of this study? Philadelphia was under-counted by 8,326 residents. Pittsburgh was over-counted by exactly 752 residents. They claim that certain groups are "hard-to-count" including low-income renters, immigrants, African Americans and Hispanics.

Additionally, there are groups of folks that they tend to over-count, typically non-
Hispanic whites with more than one residence.

From the PEW report:

After each Census, the Census Bureau conducts research to determine roughly what percentage of those groups it missed. Using that research, a noted Temple University statistician, Eugene P. Ericksen, found that the 2000 count likely missed an estimated 8,326 Philadelphians, or about 0.5 percent of the city’s population.

So what is the scientific evidence used in this study?

Eugene P. Ericksen, Temple University, at the request of the Philadelphia Research
Initiative calculated the ratio of under-counts/over-counts to true population to be -1.84
percent for non-Hispanic blacks, -3.17 percent for Hispanics and 1.09 percent for non-Hispanic whites. Eugene doesn't appear to actually account for those other "hard-to-count" groups including low-income residents and renters.

Philly 2008 statistics:
Total Population: 1,447,395
44.8% Black
11.3% Hispanic
39.0% White non-Hispanic (versus 47.5% total White people)
Total under-count: 8,326 (-0.5%)

Pittsburgh 2008 statistics:
Total Population: 334,563
27.1% Black
1.3% Hispanic
67.6% White
Total over-count: 752 (0.2%)

In Pittsburgh, the census doesn't appear to track the number of non-Hispanic whites versus Hispanics that also identify as white. I assume it's a fairly negligible number.

As a state, then Pennsylvania 2008 statistics:
Total Population: 12,448,279
Black: 10.8% * -1.84% = -24,737
Hispanic: 4.8% * -3.17% = -18,941
White non-Hispanic: 81.4% * 1.09% = 110,448
Total over-count: 66,770 (0.5%)

To put these numbers in perspective, Pennsylvania would have been over-counted by 0.5%, more than twice as much as the city of Pittsburgh which is claimed to be over-counted by 0.2%. Any city with a majority of white residents and a vast minority of Hispanic residents, will show an over-count. Whether you believe our Hispanic residents are systematically under-counted and our white residents are systematically over-counted is a matter of debate. But what this study showcases yet again is our striking lack of Hispanic immigrants. Of the 239 cities in the United States with a population over 100,000 residents, Pittsburgh ranks 232nd in terms of its percentage of Hispanic immigrants. Pittsburgh is not a comparable city to Philadelphia in terms of population or demographics. In my opinion, Pittsburgh was included in their 11 cities list merely to pull more money in the state to Philadelphia. Why doesn't the highly reputable Pew Charitable Trust perform a study on the disparity of Hispanic immigrants to Pittsburgh?

So what is the justification for Pittsburgh's inclusion in the study?

From the PEW report:

The 10 cities examined for this report besides Philadelphia include the five with larger populations—Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York and Phoenix—
plus five chosen on the basis of their similarity to Philadelphia and their experience in dealing with the Census—Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit and Pittsburgh. No consideration was given to fiscal condition or population growth.

Philadelphia is the 6th largest city in the country. If they had chosen the top 10 in terms of population (actual peers of Philadelphia), would Philadelphia have been dead-last? San Antonio, ranked 7th in population, has a Hispanic population of 61%. Dallas, San Diego, and San Jose round out the top 10. It's pretty obvious why the trust left them out of the running. Why else is Pittsburgh included in this study but to make Philadelphia look better and affect state funding of census studies? I'm only surprised they didn't include Cincinnati in the list - a city which ties Pittsburgh with its meager Hispanic population yet has a higher overall population. My serious question to pose is: Why are immigrants skipping over cities like Pittsburgh (1.3% Hispanic) and Cincinnati (1.3%) in favor of fellow rust belt cities like Rochester (12.8%) and Buffalo (7.5%) and Cleveland (7.3%)?

*Note: The city over-count/under-count numbers are based on the 2000 census, whereas my state numbers are based on 2008 estimates. There are more Hispanic residents in Pennsylvania in 2008 than in 2000 which would result in an even higher over-count back in 2000, but those numbers are harder to parse.