ShareThis Page
Colin McNickle: Latest Pittsburgh jobs report disappoints | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Colin McNickle: Latest Pittsburgh jobs report disappoints

Colin McNickle
| Tuesday, February 26, 2019 7:00 p.m
767245_web1_GTR-Sawmill4-012019
Employees work in the Ames Companies’ wood mill in Donegal Township in January 2018.

Overall job growth continues to be lackluster in Greater Pittsburgh. And in an interesting twist, the sector pacing that meager growth does the least to boost economic growth while the one so regularly touted as its future is showing paltry gains, say scholars at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

According to the latest figures for the seven-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), private sector payroll employment (not seasonally adjusted) rose by a mere 8,100, or 0.75 percent, between December 2017 and December 2018.

“A primary reason that jobs growth continues to languish in the Pittsburgh MSA, and even statewide, are economic policies that make the business climate less friendly than other areas and, consequently, making it a less desirable place for startups and existing businesses to grow,” say Frank Gamrat, executive director of the institute, and Jake Haulk, president emeritus.

To place the jobs situation in perspective, nationwide total jobs grew by 2.02 percent for the year ended in December. The Pittsburgh MSA’s job growth also fell short of that in the comparable MSAs of Indianapolis (2.31 percent), Nashville (2.14 percent) and Columbus (1.72 percent).

Neither did Greater Pittsburgh perform very well in several important subsets. In the goods-producing “super sector” — including things like mining, logging, construction and manufacturing — there was, nationally, a solid overall employment gain of 3.13 percent.

Indianapolis paced the MSA comparables at 5.67 percent while Pittsburgh posted a 1.41 percent increase, led by construction. Columbus saw a gain of 1.33 percent while Nashville saw its goods-producing “super sector” employment drop by 0.88 percent.

While the Pittsburgh MSA did show positive manufacturing growth (a meager 0.12 percent rise), it trailed the national growth rate of 2.11 percent and was much lower than two of the MSA comps — Columbus (1.49 percent), Indianapolis (1.41 percent) — but above Nashville’s negative 1.56 percent.

And for all the touting of Pittsburgh’s “eds and meds” economy, Greater Pittsburgh’s employment gains in that sector for the period lagged both the national and comparable MSA rate at a beggarly 0.47 percent. Nationally, those jobs posted a 2.25 percent gain in the 12-month period. Columbus saw a 3.21 percent increase. Indianapolis and Nashville saw increases of 1.86 and 1.72 percent, respectively.

The Pittsburgh MSA registered solid gains in the leisure and hospitality sector, with employment increases of 2.33 percent, well ahead of the national rate (1.18 percent) and handily besting its peer group.

But “this is the one sector that perhaps does the least to boost economic growth because of its very weak multiplier effect and low wages,” remind Gamrat and Haulk.

And future growth in that sector could be retarded by Gov. Tom Wolf’s renewed push to raise Pennsylvania’s minimum wage — now at the $7.25 federal rate — to $15 an hour by 2025.

“Apparently no amount of evidence of the negative effects of large increases in mandated minimum wages will deter politicians who prefer to look concerned about incomes, as opposed to helping their states and regions grow businesses and employment with higher wages and produce strong demand for workers,” the think tank scholars say.

“Strong sales and good profits lead to higher wages in a competitive labor market. Avoiding this truism is not a good way to boost economic prosperity.”

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.