The earnings of 25-to-34-year-olds who work full-time are lower today than they were in 2000 in almost every educational attainment group, according to a National Center for Education Statistics' analysis of the Current Population Survey. This is true for both men (see post) and women.
In 2016, the median earnings of women aged 25 to 34 with a bachelor's degree who worked full-time were 7 percent below the median earnings of their counterparts in 2000. Young adults know that a college degree guarantees them higher earnings than their less-educated peers. What they don't know is that a degree does not guarantee higher earnings than their college-educated counterparts in the past. Today's college graduates have less money to pay off much larger student loans.
Among all women aged 25 to 34 who work full-time, median earnings increased 1 percent between 2000 and 2016, after adjusting for inflation—rising from $37,620 to $38,000. But by educational attainment, only high school dropouts saw their median earnings rise during the time period. The biggest earnings decline occurred among women with some college. Their median earnings fell 14 percent between 2000 and 2016, after adjusting for inflation.
Median earnings of women aged 25 to 34 who work full-time by education, 2016 (and percent change in earnings since 2000; in 2016 dollars)
$21,900 for those who did not graduate from high school (+5.0%)
$28,000 for high school graduates only (–7.2%)
$29,980 for those with some college, no degree (–13.8%)
$31,870 for those with an associate's degree (–12.0%)
$44,990 for those with a bachelor's degree (–7.5%)
$57,690 for those with a master's or higher degree (–0.5%)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, Annual Earnings of Young Adults
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Decline in Median Earnings of Male College Graduates
The earnings of 25-to-34-year-olds who work full-time are lower today than they were in 2000 in almost every educational attainment group, according to a National Center for Education Statistics' analysis of the Current Population Survey.
Young people well know that a college degree guarantees them higher earnings than their less-educated peers. What they may not know is this: a degree doesn't guarantee them higher earnings than their college-educated counterparts in the past. As of 2016, the median earnings of men aged 25 to 34 with a bachelor's degree who worked full-time were 9 percent below the median earnings of their counterparts in 2000. Today's college graduates have less money to pay off much larger student loans.
Among all men aged 25 to 34 who work full-time, median earnings fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2016, after adjusting for inflation—from $44,880 to $43,970. By educational attainment, only high school dropouts saw their median earnings rise during the time period. The biggest earnings decline occurred among men with only some college, whose median earnings fell 14 percent between 2000 and 2016, after adjusting for inflation.
Median earnings of men aged 25 to 34 who work full-time by education, 2016 (and percent change in earnings since 2000; in 2016 dollars)
$28,560 for those who did not graduate from high school (+2.8%)
$34,750 for high school graduates only (–13.6%)
$37,980 for those with some college, no degree (–14.3%)
$43,000 for those with an associate's degree (–11.8%)
$56,960 for those with a bachelor's degree (–8.8%)
$71,640 for those with a master's or higher degree (–6.4%)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, Annual Earnings of Young Adults
Young people well know that a college degree guarantees them higher earnings than their less-educated peers. What they may not know is this: a degree doesn't guarantee them higher earnings than their college-educated counterparts in the past. As of 2016, the median earnings of men aged 25 to 34 with a bachelor's degree who worked full-time were 9 percent below the median earnings of their counterparts in 2000. Today's college graduates have less money to pay off much larger student loans.
Among all men aged 25 to 34 who work full-time, median earnings fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2016, after adjusting for inflation—from $44,880 to $43,970. By educational attainment, only high school dropouts saw their median earnings rise during the time period. The biggest earnings decline occurred among men with only some college, whose median earnings fell 14 percent between 2000 and 2016, after adjusting for inflation.
Median earnings of men aged 25 to 34 who work full-time by education, 2016 (and percent change in earnings since 2000; in 2016 dollars)
$28,560 for those who did not graduate from high school (+2.8%)
$34,750 for high school graduates only (–13.6%)
$37,980 for those with some college, no degree (–14.3%)
$43,000 for those with an associate's degree (–11.8%)
$56,960 for those with a bachelor's degree (–8.8%)
$71,640 for those with a master's or higher degree (–6.4%)
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, Annual Earnings of Young Adults
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
The Summer After Kindergarten
How do children spend their summers? Do they play outside, hang out with Grandma, attend a summer camp, visit a zoo? The National Center for Education Statistics took a crack at answering this question in its Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11. The survey interviewed the parents of a nationally representative sample of 2010–11 kindergarteners in the fall of 2011 about their activities during the summer—the summer after kindergarten. The NCES then compared children's summer activities by family income and parental education.
Child care: Most children—74 percent—had no regular nonparental care arrangement during the summer after kindergarten. Only 7 percent went to a day care center, and 13 percent were regularly cared for by a relative (often Grandma). There were few differences in these numbers by socioeconomic characteristic.
Playing outside: Most children—76 percent—played outside every day during a typical summer week, parents report. This figure did not vary much by socioeconomic characteristic.
Summer camp: About one in four kindergarteners attended a day camp at some point during the summer. A summer camp experience was much more common for kindergarteners from higher-income (38 percent) than lower-income (7 percent) families. Summer camp was also more likely for children whose parents had a bachelor's degree (43 percent) than for those whose parents had no more than a high school diploma (6 percent).
Visiting beaches, lakes, rivers, state or national parks: Most children—86 percent—visited these summer destinations. While there were some differences by socioeconomic status, the gap was relatively small. Among the higher-income children, 91 percent enjoyed these activities during the summer. The figure was 81 percent among those whose family incomes were below poverty level.
Visiting educational and entertainment venues: Children from higher-income and better-educated families were more than twice as likely to visit art galleries, museums, or historical sites during the summer after kindergarten. Among those whose parents had a bachelor's degree, 65 percent had these experiences. Among those whose parents had no more than a high school diploma, the figure was 30 percent. The gap was smaller for zoos or aquariums (73 versus 54 percent), and even smaller for amusement parks (64 versus 55 percent).
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Summer After Kindergarten: Children's Experiences by Socioeconomic Characteristics
Child care: Most children—74 percent—had no regular nonparental care arrangement during the summer after kindergarten. Only 7 percent went to a day care center, and 13 percent were regularly cared for by a relative (often Grandma). There were few differences in these numbers by socioeconomic characteristic.
Playing outside: Most children—76 percent—played outside every day during a typical summer week, parents report. This figure did not vary much by socioeconomic characteristic.
Summer camp: About one in four kindergarteners attended a day camp at some point during the summer. A summer camp experience was much more common for kindergarteners from higher-income (38 percent) than lower-income (7 percent) families. Summer camp was also more likely for children whose parents had a bachelor's degree (43 percent) than for those whose parents had no more than a high school diploma (6 percent).
Visiting beaches, lakes, rivers, state or national parks: Most children—86 percent—visited these summer destinations. While there were some differences by socioeconomic status, the gap was relatively small. Among the higher-income children, 91 percent enjoyed these activities during the summer. The figure was 81 percent among those whose family incomes were below poverty level.
Visiting educational and entertainment venues: Children from higher-income and better-educated families were more than twice as likely to visit art galleries, museums, or historical sites during the summer after kindergarten. Among those whose parents had a bachelor's degree, 65 percent had these experiences. Among those whose parents had no more than a high school diploma, the figure was 30 percent. The gap was smaller for zoos or aquariums (73 versus 54 percent), and even smaller for amusement parks (64 versus 55 percent).
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Summer After Kindergarten: Children's Experiences by Socioeconomic Characteristics
Friday, May 25, 2018
Median Household Income Rises in April 2018
More good news from Sentier Research. Median household income in April 2018 climbed to $61,483—higher than in any month since January 2000, after adjusting for inflation, and 1.3 percent higher than the April 2017 median. Sentier's estimates are derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and track the economic wellbeing of households on a monthly basis.
April's median was 3.2 percent higher than the median of December 2007, when the Great Recession began. It was 12.9 percent higher than the post-Great Recession low of June 2011. "We are at a point now where real median household income is 2.0 percent higher than January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series," says Sentier's Gordon Green. "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 April 2018 was 102.0 (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 Research, Household Income Trends: April 2018
April's median was 3.2 percent higher than the median of December 2007, when the Great Recession began. It was 12.9 percent higher than the post-Great Recession low of June 2011. "We are at a point now where real median household income is 2.0 percent higher than January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series," says Sentier's Gordon Green. "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 April 2018 was 102.0 (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 Research, Household Income Trends: April 2018
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
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
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?
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
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
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
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...
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
"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
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
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 Research, Household Income Trends: March 2018
"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 Research, Household Income Trends: March 2018
Friday, May 04, 2018
Single Parents Not Necessarily Going it Alone
Many single parents are living with a partner, reports Pew Research Center in an analysis of the Census Bureau's 2017 Current Population Survey. Fully 35 percent of single parents were living with a partner in 2017, up from 20 percent two decades ago in 1997.
Unmarried parents living with children under age 18
Solo mother: 53%
Solo father: 12%
Cohabiting mother: 18%
Cohabiting father: 17%
Many solo mothers and fathers aren't so alone either. A large share live with their own parents—31 percent of solo fathers and 22 percent of solo mothers. The grandparents "could be playing an important role as caregiver to any grandchildren in the household," says Pew.
Source: Pew Research Center, The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents
Unmarried parents living with children under age 18
Solo mother: 53%
Solo father: 12%
Cohabiting mother: 18%
Cohabiting father: 17%
Many solo mothers and fathers aren't so alone either. A large share live with their own parents—31 percent of solo fathers and 22 percent of solo mothers. The grandparents "could be playing an important role as caregiver to any grandchildren in the household," says Pew.
Source: Pew Research Center, The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents
Thursday, May 03, 2018
Winners and Losers in the Grocery Store, 2006 to 2016
When Americans shopped for groceries a decade ago, beef was number-one on the shopping list—the item on which the average household spent the most money. Today, the number-one expenditure is fresh fruit, followed by fresh vegetables. Beef is now in third place. Between 2006 and 2016, average household spending on beef—which includes everything from ground beef to steak and roasts—fell 13 percent after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, average household spending on fresh fruit climbed 24 percent, and fresh vegetable spending was up 10 percent. Here are some of grocery's biggest winners and losers during the decade...
Selected items with double-digit gain in average household spending, 2006–16 (in 2016 dollars)
Coffee: 61%
Rice: 45%
Spices: 43%
Cream: 33%
Nuts: 30%
Butter: 29%
Eggs: 28%
Fruit, fresh: 24%
Bacon: 19%
Vegetables, fresh: 10%
Selected items with double-digit loss in average household spending, 2006–16 (in 2016 dollars)
Fish:–10%
Beef: –13%
Carbonated drinks: –15%
Fruit juice, bottled: –16%
Ice cream: –20%
Cereal: –20%
Milk, fresh: –23%
Margarine: –30%
Fruit juice, fresh: –42%
Baby food: –42%
Of course, these lists cannot determine whether our diet has improved over the decade. Although Americans are spending less on carbonated drinks and ice cream at the grocery store, they may be gorging on these items at restaurants instead.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the Consumer Expenditure Survey
Selected items with double-digit gain in average household spending, 2006–16 (in 2016 dollars)
Coffee: 61%
Rice: 45%
Spices: 43%
Cream: 33%
Nuts: 30%
Butter: 29%
Eggs: 28%
Fruit, fresh: 24%
Bacon: 19%
Vegetables, fresh: 10%
Selected items with double-digit loss in average household spending, 2006–16 (in 2016 dollars)
Fish:–10%
Beef: –13%
Carbonated drinks: –15%
Fruit juice, bottled: –16%
Ice cream: –20%
Cereal: –20%
Milk, fresh: –23%
Margarine: –30%
Fruit juice, fresh: –42%
Baby food: –42%
Of course, these lists cannot determine whether our diet has improved over the decade. Although Americans are spending less on carbonated drinks and ice cream at the grocery store, they may be gorging on these items at restaurants instead.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the Consumer Expenditure Survey
Wednesday, May 02, 2018
Smartphone-Only Internet Access
Providing customers with a seamless mobile interface is critical to the success of businesses today. For proof, look no further than the findings of a recent Pew survey of household internet access. Fully one in five Americans does not have broadband service at home and relies on a smartphone to access the internet. This is especially true for Hispanics and younger adults...
Smartphone-only internet access at home by race/Hispanic origin
Whites: 14%
Blacks: 24%
Hispanics: 35%
Smartphone-only internet access at home by age
Aged 18 to 29: 28%
Aged 30 to 49: 24%
Aged 50 to 64: 16%
Aged 65-plus: 10%
Many older adults have neither broadband nor smartphone access to the internet at home—17 percent of the 50-to-64 age group and 40 percent of people aged 65-plus.
Source: Pew Research Center, Declining Majority of Online Adults Say the Internet Has Been Good for Society
Smartphone-only internet access at home by race/Hispanic origin
Whites: 14%
Blacks: 24%
Hispanics: 35%
Smartphone-only internet access at home by age
Aged 18 to 29: 28%
Aged 30 to 49: 24%
Aged 50 to 64: 16%
Aged 65-plus: 10%
Many older adults have neither broadband nor smartphone access to the internet at home—17 percent of the 50-to-64 age group and 40 percent of people aged 65-plus.
Source: Pew Research Center, Declining Majority of Online Adults Say the Internet Has Been Good for Society
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
College Graduates More Likely to be Married
At age 31, young adults with a bachelor's degree are much more likely to be married than their less-educated counterparts, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics' analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. The NLSY97 is tracking the education, labor force experience, and partner status of a representative sample of people born from 1980 to 1984. This group was aged 12 to 17 at the time of their first interview in 1997 and aged 30 to 36 at the time of their 17th (!) interview in 2015-16.
Looking at the partner status of the cohort at age 31, researchers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics found fewer than half were married—41 percent of men and 49 percent of women. But among the college graduates, most were married.
Percent of men married at age 31
34.4% of those who did not graduate from high school
35.9% of high school graduates, no college
39.1% of those with some college or associate's degree
50.1% of those with a bachelor's degree or higher
Percent of women married at age 31
32.2% of those who did not graduate from high school
45.1% of high school graduates, no college
46.9% of those with some college or associate's degree
56.8% of those with a bachelor's degree or higher
Young adults are hesitant to marry (or stay married to) partners without a college degree, most likely because the lack of a degree typically results in lower earnings.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans at Age 31: Labor Market Activity, Education and Partner Status Summary
Looking at the partner status of the cohort at age 31, researchers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics found fewer than half were married—41 percent of men and 49 percent of women. But among the college graduates, most were married.
Percent of men married at age 31
34.4% of those who did not graduate from high school
35.9% of high school graduates, no college
39.1% of those with some college or associate's degree
50.1% of those with a bachelor's degree or higher
Percent of women married at age 31
32.2% of those who did not graduate from high school
45.1% of high school graduates, no college
46.9% of those with some college or associate's degree
56.8% of those with a bachelor's degree or higher
Young adults are hesitant to marry (or stay married to) partners without a college degree, most likely because the lack of a degree typically results in lower earnings.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans at Age 31: Labor Market Activity, Education and Partner Status Summary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)