[B]etween 2000 and 2004, the Pittsburgh metropolitan area fared better in its rate of domestic migration (people arriving versus leaving) than nine of the other 25 largest metro areas. That also means we were worse than 15 of 25, if you're one of those glass-half-empty people. Yes, it's true that 25,150 more people moved away from the Pittsburgh region than moved in from elsewhere in the United States, but that was still better than the rate of loss in Seattle, San Diego, Boston, San Francisco and some other nice-sounding places. Pittsburgh was last among the 25, however, in its overall population change (-1.1%), because it attracted the fewest international immigrants and was the only place with more deaths than births.
Chris undoubtedly has more data, and he can add some, if he likes, in the Comments. One important conclusion to draw, however, is that Pittsburgh is not losing "young people," if it is losing young people at all, at a rate that is larger or faster than, say, San Francisco is.