NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Demography of Pittsburg Pittsburg has been a city in progress for nearly a century and a half. It is located at the point where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers meet. The earliest recorded history of this town starts in the year 1839 when the Mexican government granted almost 10, 000 acres to Jose Antone Mesa and Miguel Jose Garcia. Shortly thereafter the little town was named New York of the Pacific, possibly because the man who laid out the town, Colonel J. D. Stevenson, was a native of New York.
This area soon became known as New York Landing and thrived on fishing and canning industries. Following the discovery of coal in the hills three miles south of town, the town was renamed Black Diamond in 1903. In 1906 Columbia Geneva Steel opened for business, and by popular vote on February 11, 1911, the name was changed to Pittsburg, after the eastern birthplace of the steel industry but without the "H" for simplified spelling. (Arno, p. 89) In 1942 Camp Stoneman was built. This was to have a terrific impact on the City and its growth.
For thousands of GIs who went to fight in the Asiatic-Pacific operations during World War II, Camp Stoneman was the last contact with the United States. In 1954, the Camp was closed and the property was added to the City of Pittsburg for commercial and residential development. From a struggling settlement to an industrial center, Pittsburg has grown into a pleasant community of landscaped parks, recreational facilities, shopping centers, affordable housing and planned business and commercial development. Pittsburg is striding into the future, each day more prosperous than the one before.
New homes, renovated older homes, new businesses, a historic district being revived are all signs of even better times to come. Additionally, Pittsburgh's local government has expanded the parks system, improved the roads, increased commerce and employment, expanded the Marina and built a modern Civic Center to take it into the 21 st century. (Crimmins, p. 87) Now the Pittsburgh region is in the midst of an urgent conversation about its future. Demography, the science of population, is suddenly a hot topic for politicians, industry leaders, and media types. With terms like labor shortage and population hemorrhage hanging in the air, influential civic institutions are talking about the importance of attracting and retaining young people of every stripe: college students, knowledge or technology workers, skilled manufacturing workers, African American professionals, foreign-born and immigrant populations, to name just a few. These leaders understand that the current situation is more than an ugly curve on a demographic chart; it has very real implications for the regions current and future economic health. Overall population losses, combined with a larger-than-average elderly population, are redistributing growing tax burdens on an ever-smaller group of working people.
Key industries like manufacturing and health care already face challenges in finding qualified workers; absent changes in current demographic trends, these challenges will become more difficult. (Jean Chatzky, 57) The contributions made by the next generation of Pittsburghers will determine our regions future economic strength and quality of life: eighty percent of new businesses are started by people under the age of 39. Twenty- and thirty-years old people dont just replace older workers or prop up the local economy; they bring tremendous vitality to a region. They have fresh ideas and diverse experiences, embrace change and take risks, and create healthy, dynamic communities. They also bring economic vigor and innovation. Whats missing from the current conversation is a clear picture of the young people who already call the Pittsburgh region home. In order to understand the different characteristics and challenges faced by young people from Aliquippa to Oakland to Zelienople, it is necessary to get a snapshot of young people throughout the entire Pittsburgh region.
This research brief aims to develop a more detailed picture of Pittsburgh's next generation by answering some of the most basic demographic questions underlying the talent attraction and retention conversation. This information is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg a foundation for future, more complex investigations into young peoples motivations, behavior and priorities and for examinations of how our region compares with other places. (Arno, p. 49) The New Generations Program defined young Pittsburghers as individuals between the ages of 20 and 34 working-age people in the early stages of their work histories and careers, getting married and starting families, continuing their educations, preparing to settle down but still highly mobile. This age group aligns neatly with Census and other demographic categories, and avoids dipping too low (into high school students) and too high (into the middle-aged population). According to the analysis of ten counties in the Pittsburgh region: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington, and Westmoreland young people in the 10 -county Pittsburgh region are predominantly white (88 percent). There is a relatively small black population (8 percent), and the remaining 4 percent are Asian, some other race, or bi- or multi-racial. In the United States as a whole, whites made up 70 percent and blacks 13 percent of the 20 34 population.
Hispanics comprised only one percent of the young population in the Pittsburgh region, compared with 17 percent nationwide. Young people in southwestern Pennsylvania are significantly less racially and ethnically diverse than the nation as a whole. (Crimmins, p. 92) The median income for households headed by individuals under 25 is $ 17, 356, while households headed by 25 to 34 year olds average more than twice that, with $ 39, 308. National medians are somewhat higher than those for Pittsburgh, with 25 -and-under households earning an average of $ 22, 679 and 25 - 34 households earning an average of $ 41, 414. Compared to national averages, median incomes are consistently lower in the Pittsburgh region. There is substantial variation among the individual counties median incomes.
Median incomes for 25 to 34 year olds range from a high of $ 43, 286 in Butler County to a low of $ 29, 013 in Indiana County. Compared to older people in the region (35 to 64), young Pittsburghers (18 to 34 years old for this indicator) are substantially more likely to be poor. Fifteen percent of young people are poor, compared to eight percent of older people. The poverty rate for young people in the region parallels national averages for the age group (also 15 percent for 18 to 34 year olds). Where are young people poor in the region? Indiana County stands out with one in three young people below the poverty line (most likely attributable to the large numbers of low-earning students in that county), while only one in ten young people are poor in Westmoreland County.
Aggregate household income is the sum of all income generated by the households within a particular group. It is a helpful indicator in examining the distribution of income by age and may also be a rough proxy for the relative spending power of a group. In southwestern Pennsylvania, the total amount of income generated by households headed by people aged 15 - 34 is slightly more than $ 5 billion dollars. However, total regional household income is almost $ 42 billion. Young households only account for 12 percent of total household income in the region, less than their proportion of the population (18 percent). Nationally, the aggregated household income for the 15 to 34 age group accounts for 15 percent of all aggregate income, again lower than the 21 percent "young" share of the United States population.
Twenty percent of the regions young people are currently enrolled in school. This is, not surprisingly, almost ten times higher than the proportion of all people over 35 enrolled in school (2 percent). National rates for school enrollment are very similar to those for young Pittsburghers: 19 percent of young U. S. residents are currently enrolled. Due to the presence of Indiana University of Pennsylvania and a relatively small base population, Indiana County stands out among individual counties with an extremely high proportion of young students, with percent of 20 - 34 year olds currently enrolled.
Armstrong County has the lowest percentage of young people enrolled in school (10 percent). (Jean Chatzky, p. 26) Compared to national averages, young Pittsburghers are more highly educated. They are more likely to have graduated from high school 16 percent of young people nationally have not received a high school degree or graduate equivalency degree versus only 7 percent in the region. Young people in the region are also more likely to have completed college or graduate school (33 percent versus 28 percent nationally). In 2000, the unemployment rate for 20 34 year olds was 6 percent in the Pittsburgh region.
This is similar to the national average for the age group (5 percent). Slightly more than one in five young people was not in the labor force in 2000. Individuals categorized as not in the labor force are not currently employed and have not actively sought work in the previous 4 weeks. This may include disabled persons unable to work, full-time homemakers and students.
This is roughly the same as national averages for 20 34 year olds. Greene County has both the highest unemployment rate (8 percent) and the highest proportion of young people out of the labor force (36 percent) in the region. Butler County has the lowest unemployment rate (4 percent), and Beaver County has the lowest share of young people who are not in the labor force (18 percent). (Jackson, p. 91) Young people in southwestern Pennsylvania are not unemployed or out of the labor force significantly more than young people nationwide References Jean Chatzky. Gen Xers Arent Slackers After All, 2002. Arno, P. S. , Levine, C. , & Memmott, M.
M. The economic value of informal caregiving. Health Affairs. 1999. Crimmins, E. M. , Saito, Y. , & Ingegneri, D. Trends in disability free life expectancy in the United States: 1970 - 1990. 1997.
Jackson, J. S. , Chatters, L. M. , & Taylor, R. M. (Eds. ). Aging In Black America. 1993
Free research essays on topics related to: labor force, year olds, unemployment rate, young people, household income
Research essay sample on Labor Force Household Income
