Real Time Economics
says the US chose Pittsburgh (unemployment rate 7.6) to bring some much
needed business to a suffering city. But isn't 7.6% below the national
average? You want to bring much-needed business to a suffering city
near New York, try Philadelphia (employment: 9.7%).Instead, the G20 is treated to an excellent hotel window view of a city that once benefited from the United States' steel subsidy.* Now look, maybe Obama's just playing a sly game. Just two days ago, China was freshly accused of dumping steel dumping, seeing as its crazy high subsidies are allowing the country to ramp up steel production as global demand slows. In that case, maybe Pittsburgh would be an appropriate place to have an honest discussion about the impact of steel subsidies on developing and emerging markets. Or perhaps we're just bringing the Chinese Minister to Three Rivers so Steelers' safety Troy Polamalu can get him in a headlock until China makes concessions on protectionism.
*Update: Given the comment reaction below, I thought it essential to clarify and correct some points made in this post. For the most part, it was, stated simply, a shallow observation that Pittsburgh was, for many years, a poster child of the steel subsidies that would seem to cast shadows on the stated mission of the G20 to promote international development -- something that tariffs and subsidies would both impede.
But as my correct commenters pointed out, this observation is misleading in two ways: not only has the city manifestly emerged from its rusty reputation as a tech leader, but also that very reemergence would seem to make Pittsburgh not an ironic choice for a G20 meeting, but an appropriate one, given the international debate about how subsidy-reliant cities and regions can transform themselves to compete in a 21st century environment. Their points are all well taken.
Photo of Pittsburgh Steelers' Troy Polamalu from Wikipedia.
Typical uniformed comments about Pittsburgh from a typically uniformed member of the media. Obligatory Steelers reference-check. Obligatory mention of the steel industry-check (despite the fact that very few people actually work for the steel industry in Pittsburgh) and of course, the obligatory reference to a "rust belt" city that actually bears no resemblance at all to Pittsburgh.
Try to do some research next time rather than phoning in a very outdated take on the Pittsburgh.
Here's a start...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08collapse.html
dumping steel dumping?
And I agree with the first comment -- Pittsburgh is thriving while its rust belt brethren die a slow death, and it a result of the city having transcended its industrial past. Pittsburgh has elite research institutions, cutting edge biotech, and one of the best hospitals on the country. To suggest that U.S. steel subsidies create a blemish on Pittsburgh itself is uninformed at least, and anyway strikes me as a lazy angle on this story.
Does Derek Thompson know anything about Pittsburgh or did he just piece this article together from John Madden chatter during football games?
Pittsburgh is an example of a city that had an almost purely industrial economy evolving to an economy based on technology (medical, environmental and robotics) and knowledge (some of the best schools int the world - University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon).
If you're going to write poorly thought out articles based on stereotypes from 1991 - at least find someone slightly wittier to do so.
Really Derek? I was surprised that you were able to string a few sentences together. The Pittsburgh you described is a Pittsburgh from 30-40 years ago. Why don't you come visit and see what we're all about now?
If you're not going to bother to do any research or write anything intelligent, you may as well be a blogger. Oh wait...
From wikitravel:
Today Pittsburgh is a model of cleanliness due to the remediation of the polluting industrial plants in the late 1950s, as well as the gradual migration of the mills to other cities and countries. There is now only one operating steel mill in the region, Carnegie Steel's venerable Edgar Thompson Works, now a USS state-of-the-art integrated steel mill.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Pittsburgh
It is true that US Steel, Alcoa, and a few other smaller metals producers are still headquartered in Pittsburgh, and thus the steel industry and metal production generally still has a role in the local economy, but these are international companies who own and operate mills around the world. The majority of the people they employ and the revenues they generate are outside of the U.S. I think the author of this post would have a tough time making the case that the city is in some way (in any way, actually) dependent upon the vaguely-described, subsidies he mentioned, even if he were aware of any of the above.
But I'm guessing he was not, anyway. Far more likely, he came up with what he thought was a clever little observation about an imagined irony regarding the selected location for the next G-20 meeting, put a good eight seconds of (not very worthwhile) thought into a short post, and hit PUBLISH to get his thoughts out there in the very brief window of time when anyone actually cares (outside of the host city) where the next G-20 summit will be held, and in doing so has merely revealed his own ignorance of the subject he wished to address.
Better luck next time, DT.
Derek,
Have you been to Pittsburgh lately? It's nothing like you described it. Steel has long went away. Where have you been? it's been replaced by health care and high tech jobs. Not sure where you get your facts from bub. But you need to do a better job next time. Research before you write. You're only making yourself look foolish.
And why Pittsburgh?
Why not Pittsburgh?
Um, maybe it was because the president chose the location and since he's actually been here, he knows it's one of the most beautiful cities in America with one of the most outdated and unfair reputations. The laughter from the smug media idiots of the White House press corps (and this asinine article) kind of sum it up.
The irony is that the demise of the steel industry actually did have an impact on the city of Pittsburgh, as did the gradual exodus of many corporate headquarters. We’ve since had an exodus of many younger Pittsburghers in search of what were (until recently) better opportunities. Who didn't leave were all the steel worker retirees, and now one of the reasons Pittsburgh is a leader in matters medical is an aged population second only to Miami Dade in size.
So for a variety of reasons Pittsburgh’s tax base has eroded and five years ago it entered Pennsylvania’s special status created to avoid the word bankruptcy: distressed city. We were give new taxing powers (our parking tax got as high as 50%) and special powers to deny our municipal unions much bargaining strength in a five year plan. However, in the last five years we have made no progress in shrinking our municipal debt, even while our municipal pension fund has become dramatically shrunken (around 27% of fully funded). So we are starting a new five year plan this year, even while the President wants to show off Pittsburgh. This summit is going to cost us money we don't have.
And before anyone accuses me of misrepresenting Pittsburgh, I have lived there (here?) since 1970.
Yes, it is a very pretty city. And our convention center is LEED certified. But, although we are no Detroit, we mostly don't walk around downtown at night.
Because, Pittsburgh is to unhip to attract protesters.
I moved to the 'Burgh four years ago, having lived in Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and Chicago. It is far far different from the assumptions people make about it, which are 30 year old stereotypes. It is a fantastic city.