Thursday, May 24, 2018

City Population Growth, 2010 to 2017

Between 2010 and 2017, the population of the nation's 765 largest cities (incorporated places with populations of 50,000 or more in 2017) grew by an average of 7.0 percent. The remainder of the United States grew by a smaller 4.2 percent. Growth is fastest among cities with populations of 500,000 to 999,999, which saw a population gain of 8.5 percent between 2010 and 2017...

City population growth 2010-2017 by city size
1 million or more: 6.54%
500,000 to 999,999: 8.51%
250,000 to 499,999: 7.45%
200,000 to 249,999: 6.15%
150,000 to 199,999: 6.82%
100,000 to 149,999: 6.77%
50,000 to 99,999: 6.73%

Among all cities with populations of 50,000 or more, the annual growth rate since 2010 has slowed from about 1.0 percent per year to a smaller 0.8 percent between 2016 and 2017. At the same time, the annual growth rate of the population outside of large cities has increased, rising from about 0.5 percent per year to 0.7 percent between 2016 and 2017. Widespread recovery from the Great Recession is reducing the economic incentive to move to large cities. 

Source: Census Bureau, Census Bureau Reveals Fastest-Growing Large Cities

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

What If Every State Expanded Medicaid?

The percentage of Americans who do not have health insurance has plummeted over the past few years, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. When the ACA was enacted in 2010, a substantial 18.2 percent of people under age 65 did not have health insurance. By 2017, just 10.7 percent did not have health insurance, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The decline would be even greater if every state adopted Medicaid expansion, according to an analysis by Matthew Buettgens of the Urban Institute.

One of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act was to expand the Medicaid program in every state, providing insurance to people with incomes up to 138 percent of poverty level. As of March 2018, however, only 31 states and the District of Columbia had chosen to expand the program. If the 19 holdout states had a change of heart, according to Buettgens' analysis, the number of Americans without health insurance would fall by more than 4 million. Expanding Medicaid would reduce the number of nonelderly without health insurance by at least 20 percent in each of the 19 states and by an even larger 34 percent in Mississippi, 32 percent in Idaho, and 30 percent in Missouri. The percentage of the nonelderly without insurance in those states would drop from 16.9  to 12.6 percent on average, and it would fall into the single digits in six states including Maine and Wisconsin.

While Medicaid expansion would increase a state's Medicaid spending, the savings in other areas would more than make up for the cost, Buettgens says. "The research shows that, compared with nonexpansion states, Medicaid expansion states have seen larger declines in the number of uninsured people, lower uncompensated care, economic benefits from additional health care spending, and net gains to state budgets."

Source: Urban Institute, The Implications of Medicaid Expansion in the Remaining States: 2018 Update

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Less Poverty among Widows

Widows aren't as poor as they used to be. The poverty rate of widows fell from 20 to 13 percent between 1994 and 2014, according to the Center for Retirement Research. To find out why the poverty rate of widows has declined, CRR researchers analyzed data from the 1994 and 2014 waves of the Health and Retirement Study, linking widows aged 65 to 85 in the HRS with their Social Security earnings and benefits records. The poverty rate of widows has declined for two reasons, the researchers found—increased education and labor force participation.

Education: The widows of 2014 had an average of 12.1 years of schooling compared with only 10.7 years of schooling for their 1994 counterparts. More education equals higher earnings and bigger Social Security benefits, reducing poverty.

Labor force participation: The widows of 2014 had worked for 25.2 years, on average, compared with 14.7 years of work for the 1994 widows. More years in the labor force equals higher Social Security benefits and less poverty.

The poverty rate of widows will continue to decline, the researchers predict, falling to 8 percent by 2029. While educational attainment and labor force participation will be factors in the continuing decline, just as important will be marital selection—the greater likelihood of marriage among better educated women. Unlike in decades past, better educated women today are more likely to marry (and less likely to divorce if married) than their less-educated counterparts. Consequently, the pool of widows is becoming increasingly educated and less likely to be poor.

Source: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, What Factors Explain the Decline in Widows' Poverty?

Monday, May 21, 2018

No State Immune from Baby Bust. Well, maybe one...

To the surprise of many, the baby bust is deepening. The number of births fell by 92,000 between 2016 and 2017–from 3.946 million to 3.853 million, the lowest number in 30 years. This is the largest annual decline since 2010, when the nation was struggling to recover from the Great Recession.

No state was immune from the baby bust in 2017. Well, maybe one: Tennessee was the only state in which births did not decline in 2017. But the rise in births was so small (just 36) that the percent increase rounded to 0.0.

Looking at the longer trends in births during the baby bust—from 2007 (the year births peaked) to 2017—only North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen an increase. But they did not make gains in 2017. The number of births in North Dakota fell 5.7 percent during the year, making it the third biggest loser of 2017, after Alaska (–7.0 percent) and Wyoming (–6.6 percent). The District of Columbia experienced a 3.2 percent drop in births in 2017—larger than the 2.3 percent decline nationally.

Twenty-three states experienced a bigger decline in births between 2016 and 2017 than the 2.3 percent national loss. Among them are Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, and Utah. Only seven states experienced declines of less than 1 percent between 2016 and 2017. As you might expect, most are in the rapidly growing South (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), but Ohio and Massachusetts are also on the list.

Source: Demo Memo analysis of National Center for Health Statistics Birth Data

Friday, May 18, 2018

Who Likes to Drive?

One-third of Americans enjoy driving "a great deal," according to a Gallup survey. Another 44 percent enjoy it moderately. That may be why the 52 percent majority of the public says it "never wants to use" a driverless car.

Do you personally enjoy driving?
A great deal: 34%
Moderately: 44%
Not much: 13%
Not at all: 8%

Men and women feel somewhat differently about driving. While 41 percent of men enjoy driving a great deal, only 27 percent of women feel the same way.

Source: Gallup, Driverless Cars Are a Tough Sell to Americans

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Births in 2017 at Lowest Level in 30 Years

Despite the economic recovery, the baby bust continues. Only 3,853,472 babies were born in the U.S. in 2017—the lowest number since 1987, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Except for a small increase in 2014, the number of births has fallen in every year since 2007, when births hit a record high of 4.3 million.

Number of births (in 000s)
2017: 3,853
2016: 3,946
2015: 3,978 
2014: 3,988
2013: 3,932
2012: 3,953
2011: 3,954
2010: 3,999 (start of baby bust)
2009: 4,131
2008: 4,248
2007: 4,316 (record high)

The most recent decline in births is not trivial: 92,000 fewer babies were born in 2017 than in 2016, a 2 percent drop. The NCHS report is littered with record lows. The nation's 
fertility rate fell to 60.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, an all-time low. Birth rates for women aged 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29 fell to new record lows. Even among women in their 30s, birth rates fell between 2016 and 2017, after rising for the past few years. Women aged 40 or older were the only ones with higher birth rates in 2017.

The continuing baby bust despite the economic recovery is a surprise. While there are many possible explanations, one stands out. Young adults are economically fragile. Student loans, rising rents, unpredictable work schedules, costly day care, and the growing importance of women's earnings to financial wellbeing are all behind the baby bust.  

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Provisional Data for 2017 (pdf)

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Are Those Born in the 1980s a "Lost Generation"?

Born in the 1980s? Then you belong to what could be a "lost generation." This is not a tabloid headline, but the considered opinion of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. In an examination of trends in household wealth, fed researchers determined which households had recovered from the Great Recession and which had not.

For the analysis, the researchers estimated typical life cycle wealth trajectories using the 1989 through 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances. They then compared actual wealth to expected wealth for household heads born in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Two stories emerged, and only one had a happy ending.

  • Here's the story with the happy ending: By 2016, the net worth of older Americans (born in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s) had recovered from the Great Recession. 
  • Here's the other story: By 2016, the net worth of younger adults (born in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s) had not recovered from the Great Recession. Those born in the 1960s were still 11 percent short of their expected net worth in 2016. Those born in the 1970s were 18 percent short. Those born in the 1980s were even worse off. Their net worth was 34 percent short of what it should have been based on the lifecycle wealth trajectory of earlier generations.

Housing and mortgage debt explain the wealth shortfall for the 1960s and 1970s cohorts. These age groups bought homes during the housing bubble and lost equity when the bubble collapsed. Few in the 1980s cohort were homeowners during the housing bubble, so the shortfall is caused by other types of debt—student loans, auto loans, and credit card debt, say the researchers. There is still hope for those born in the 1980s, however, because of their high educational attainment and the many years of catch-up available to them. But, the feds conclude, "the 1980s cohort is at greatest risk of becoming a 'lost generation' for wealth accumulation."

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, A Lost Generation? Long-Lasting Wealth Impacts of the Great Recession on Young Families

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Big Increase in Death by Falling

Older Americans are increasingly likely to die from a fall, the CDC reports. The annual number of people aged 65 or older who die because of falling climbed from 18,000 in 2007 to 30,000 in 2016. Even more telling, the death rate from falls grew steeply during those years—from 47 deaths per 100,000 people aged 65 or older in 2007 to 62 deaths per 100,000 in 2016, a 31 percent increase. The rise in the death rate from falls among older Americans is not a new phenomenon, according to the CDC. Between 2000 and 2006, the rate climbed 42 percent.

Why is falling a growing problem for older Americans? The increase in the 85-plus population may be one factor, says the CDC, since the death rate from falls is highest in the oldest age group. But even among the oldest old, the death rate from falls has surged—up 41 percent between 2007 and 2016. How to explain this? "Nationally, the rate of deaths from falls might be increasing because of longer survival after the onset of common diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke," the CDC speculates.

One possible factor behind the increase, not mentioned in the CDC report, is obesity. Older Americans are increasingly likely to be obese, and the obese may find it more difficult to maintain their balance as they age. Among men aged 75 or older, the prevalence of obesity grew from 18 to 27 percent between 1999–2002 and 2011–14, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Among their female counterparts, obesity increased from 24 to 31 percent.

If the death rate from falls cannot be reduced, the CDC warns, many more older people will die from falls in the years ahead. "If the current rate remains stable," it reports, "an estimated 43,000 U.S. residents aged ≥ 65 years will die because of a fall in 2030, and if the rate continues to increase, 59,000 fall-related deaths could result."

Source: CDC, Deaths from Fall among Persons Aged ≥ 65 Years—United States, 2007–2016

Monday, May 14, 2018

Expected Age of Retirement Now 66

On average, workers today expect to retire at an average age of 66—substantially higher than the expected retirement age of 60 in the mid-1990s, according to a Gallup survey. The percentage who expect to retire when they are 66 or older...

Percentage of workers who expect to retire at age 66 or older
2018: 41%
2015: 37%
2010: 34%
2005: 31%
2002: 21%
1995: 12%

Source: Gallup, Snapshot: Average American Predicts Retirement Age of 66

Friday, May 11, 2018

Going to the Movies, by Generation

Millennials go to the movies more frequently than Boomers or Gen Xers, according to an AARP survey. The 56 percent majority of Millennials say they go to a theater to see a film at least once a month. For Gen Xers, a smaller 44 percent go to a movie at least monthly. Among Boomers, only 22 percent attend a movie that often.

Although Boomers do not go to the movies as often as younger people, fully 71 percent go to a movie at least once a year. The annual attendance figure is 84 percent for Gen Xers and 89 percent for Millennials.

When asked whether in-home entertainment options and streaming have reduced their movie going, a large share of every generation says yes—52 percent of Boomers, 49 percent of Gen Xers, and 56 percent of Millennials.

Source: AARP, What Boomers Want: Insights into Cinema Experience Preferences and Behaviors

Thursday, May 10, 2018

The Most Successful Entrepreneurs Are...

Does age predict entrepreneurial success? Yes, say many Americans, and they would be right. But they would be wrong about the age that predicts success. According to a recent study, it's not youthfulness that leads to entrepreneurial success...
"We find that age indeed predicts success, and sharply, but in the opposite way that many observers and investors propose. The highest success rates in entrepreneurship come from founders in middle age and beyond."
You read that right: "middle age and beyond." This is the conclusion reached by researchers from MIT and the Census Bureau after linking IRS, Census Bureau, patent, and third-party venture capital databases. They crunched the numbers to determine the average age of founders for the 1 in 1,000 fastest growing new businesses in the past decade. Average age = 45.0. Notably, the average age of successful entrepreneurs does not vary much by industry sector, including high tech.

There's a good reason for this surprising finding: experience is the key to success. "These findings are consistent with theories in which key entrepreneurial resources (such as human capital, financial capital, and social capital) accumulate with age," explain the researchers. "To the extent that venture capital targets younger founders, early-stage finance appears biased against the founders with the highest likelihood of successful exits or top 1 in 1,000 growth outcomes."

Source: Census Bureau, Working Papers, Age and High-Growth Entrepreneurship

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

If your customers are people who hunt, fish, or watch birds and other wildlife, you're in luck. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides an in-depth look at them in its 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The report provides detailed demographic, spending, and activity profiles of Americans aged 16 or older who participated in hunting, fishing, and/or wildlife observation. The survey, which is fielded by the Census Bureau every five years, has been ongoing since 1955.

Among the three recreational activities examined, wildlife watching is by far most popular. More than one-third (34 percent) of Americans aged 16 or older participated in wildlife watching in 2016 compared with 14 percent who fished and 4 percent who hunted. The survey defines wildlife watching as closely observing, feeding, and/or photographing wildlife, or visiting natural areas with wildlife observation as the primary objective.

Wildlife watching is more popular than fishing or hunting, and it is growing faster and generates more spending. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of wildlife watchers grew 21 percent—from 71 million to 86 million. The number of birdwatchers alone (45 million) almost surpasses the number of anglers and hunters combined. Wildlife watchers spent $76 billion in 2016. The number of people who fish grew from 30 million to 36 million between 2006 and 2016. Anglers spent $46 billion on fishing equipment and services in 2016. The number of hunters fell during the decade, from 12.5 million to 11.5 million. Hunters spent $26 billion in 2016.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Tuesday, May 08, 2018

College Grads Control 74 Percent of Household Wealth

More than one-third of households in the U.S. (34 percent) are headed by someone with a bachelor's degree or more education. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis examined data from the Survey of Consumer Finances to determine trends in the net worth of households by educational attainment of householder. Here are the findings...

Household net worth by educational attainment, 2016 (and 1989; in 2016 dollars)
Householder is a college graduate: $291,000 ($238,000)
Householder not a college graduate: $54,000 ($66,000)

The net worth of college graduates has increased over the decades, while the net worth of householders without a college degree has declined. Consequently, households headed by college graduates now control 74 percent of household wealth, up from 50 percent in 1989.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Income and Wealth Gaps: College Grads vs. Nongrads

Monday, May 07, 2018

Median Household Income Now Tops $61,000

It's back! After a hiatus of nearly one year, Sentier Research is restarting its monthly household income estimate series. The latest estimate is good news. Median household income in March 2018 was $61,227, statistically no different from February's $61,234. The medians in February and March of this year are the highest measured in the nearly 20 years of estimates Sentier has created, beginning with January 2000. Sentier's estimates are derived from the Census Bureau's monthly Current Population Survey.

"Real median household income has continued to display a strong performance over the past 12 months (up 2.0 percent), and especially since the low point reached in June 2011 (up 12.7 percent)," reports Sentier's Gordon Green. "We are at a point now where real median household income is 1.8 percent higher than January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series. Not an impressive performance by any means over a period spanning almost two decades, but the trend line has been positive for nearly seven years."

Sentier's Household Income Index in March 2018 was 101.8 (January 2000 = 100.0). Back when the Great Recession began in December 2007, the Index was at 98.8. It fell to 97.0 by June 2009, the official end of the Great Recession. It continued to fall, reaching the low of 90.4 in June 2011. To stay on top of these trends, look for the next monthly update from Sentier.

Source: Sentier ResearchHousehold Income Trends: March 2018