The 2020 census, for the first time, will allow the public to respond online rather than fill out a paper form. According to a 2018 Census Bureau survey of attitudes toward the census, most Americans would prefer to respond to the census online or don't care whether the form is online or paper. Overall, 40 percent would prefer online to paper, 28 percent do not have a preference, and 32 percent would prefer paper. Young adults and Asians are two of the groups who would most prefer to answer the census online...
More than half of young adults would prefer the online option: Among people aged 18 to 34, a substantial 56 percent would prefer to fill out the census online, as would 54 percent of those aged 35 to 44. The preference for an online form falls to 39 percent among 45-to-64-year-olds and to just 19 percent among people aged 65 or older. Fully 56 percent of the oldest age group would prefer a paper form.
Most Asians would prefer the online option: The 59 percent majority of Asians would prefer an online form, with only 20 percent expressing a preference for paper. Blacks are least likely to prefer the online option (29 percent) and most likely to prefer paper (44 percent).
Having the option to answer the 2020 census online may boost census response rates, helping communities better attract the government funding they are due because of a more complete count of residents. Those who would most prefer an online form—young adults and Asians—are also the demographic segments least enthusiastic about the census. Just 54 percent of young adults and 55 percent of Asians report being "very" or "extremely" likely to fill out a census form. This compares with a larger 67 percent of all adults, 69 percent of non-Hispanic Whites, and 73 percent of people aged 65 or older.
Source: Census Bureau, 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study (CBAMS) Final Survey Report
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Number of Homeless Has Declined since 2007
Every January in communities across the country the homeless are counted in a one-night census. The recently released 2018 report on the homeless has both good news and bad. The good news is that the number of homeless has fallen considerably since 2007. The bad news is that there are still more than half a million people living in shelters or on the street and the number has increased for the past two years.
Number of homeless in the U.S.
2018: 552,830
2017: 550,996
2016: 549,928
2015: 564,708
2010: 637,077
2007: 647,258
The nationwide effort to count the homeless divides the homeless population into individuals and families with children. Of the 372,417 homeless individuals in 2018, 52 percent were in shelters and the rest were on the street. Seventy percent of homeless individuals were men and 30 percent were women, transgender, or gender non-conforming, according to the Housing and Urban Development report to Congress. Among homeless individuals, 54 percent were White, 35 percent were Black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Among homeless families with children, Blacks accounted for 51 percent.
Not surprisingly, the most populous state also has the largest number of homeless. California accounted for 30 percent of homeless individuals in 2018 and nearly half (49 percent) of the nation's unsheltered homeless. Among cities, Los Angeles had the largest number of homeless—42,079 in 2018. New York City was second with 33,391 homeless.
The 2019 count of the homeless is happening this week—it is conducted during the last 10 days of January. The 2019 report on the homeless population will be released by the end of the year. It will show us whether the number of homeless ticked upward for the third year in a row.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress
Number of homeless in the U.S.
2018: 552,830
2017: 550,996
2016: 549,928
2015: 564,708
2010: 637,077
2007: 647,258
The nationwide effort to count the homeless divides the homeless population into individuals and families with children. Of the 372,417 homeless individuals in 2018, 52 percent were in shelters and the rest were on the street. Seventy percent of homeless individuals were men and 30 percent were women, transgender, or gender non-conforming, according to the Housing and Urban Development report to Congress. Among homeless individuals, 54 percent were White, 35 percent were Black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Among homeless families with children, Blacks accounted for 51 percent.
Not surprisingly, the most populous state also has the largest number of homeless. California accounted for 30 percent of homeless individuals in 2018 and nearly half (49 percent) of the nation's unsheltered homeless. Among cities, Los Angeles had the largest number of homeless—42,079 in 2018. New York City was second with 33,391 homeless.
The 2019 count of the homeless is happening this week—it is conducted during the last 10 days of January. The 2019 report on the homeless population will be released by the end of the year. It will show us whether the number of homeless ticked upward for the third year in a row.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Student Loans May Explain Rural Population Decline
Rural counties have been losing population in recent years and urban counties have been growing. One factor behind rural population loss is the migration of young adults from rural to urban areas. What's driving young adults away from their rural homes? Student debt may be a factor, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Board. In an analysis of how student debt affects the migration of young adults in rural areas, the Feds examined Equifax/Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel data, comparing student debt levels of young adults in rural areas with changes in their census tract of residence over a six-year time period. These are the findings...
"With students borrowing at higher rates and in larger amounts to pursue postsecondary education," conclude the Fed researchers, "student loan debt may play an increased role in the dynamics of urban-rural migration."
Source: Federal Reserve Board, Consumer and Community Context, January 2019, "Rural Brain Drain": Examining Millennial Migration Patterns and Student Loan Debt," (PDF)
- Young adults with student loans were less likely to remain in rural areas than those without student loans—52 percent of those with student loans were still in a rural area six years later versus 66 percent of those without student loans.
- Young adults with the greatest student loan debt were least likely to remain in rural areas—37 percent of those in the highest quartile of student loan debt were in a rural area six years later versus 73 percent of those in the lowest quartile of debt.
- Young adults who moved to metropolitan areas did better than those who stayed in rural areas. They paid down their loans faster, had higher credit scores, and were more likely to have mortgage debt (own a home).
"With students borrowing at higher rates and in larger amounts to pursue postsecondary education," conclude the Fed researchers, "student loan debt may play an increased role in the dynamics of urban-rural migration."
Source: Federal Reserve Board, Consumer and Community Context, January 2019, "Rural Brain Drain": Examining Millennial Migration Patterns and Student Loan Debt," (PDF)
Monday, January 28, 2019
How Overweight Are Americans?
When the General Social Survey is taken every two years, GSS interviewers who talk to respondents in person are asked to rate respondents and their home and neighborhood on a variety of measures. How clean is their home, and how safe is their neighborhood? How attractive is the respondent, how well groomed, and how overweight? The answers to these questions can reveal interviewer bias and, over time, perhaps changes in the health and wellbeing of the public. Here is what GSS interviewers thought about the weight of Americans (the nationally representative sample of respondents to the GSS) in 2016...
How would you rate the respondent's weight?
5.7% very overweight
26.7% overweight
60.2% about the right weight
6.6% slightly underweight
0.9% very underweight
GSS interviewers clearly don't know what overweight looks like since they report that only 32 percent of respondents are overweight or very overweight. Measurements of a nationally representative sample of the population, taken by the federal government’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, show that a much larger 70 percent of the public is overweight and 40 percent is obese. GSS interviewers report that most respondents (68 percent!) are the right weight or underweight, but in reality just 30 percent of the public is normal or underweight.
It’s no surprise that GSS interviewers are poor judges of weight. The public is bad at judging weight too—especially their own. Only 43 percent of obese Americans know they’re obese, according to one study. The rest think they are about the right weight or only overweight and not obese. A Gallup survey finds that just 35 percent of men and 40 percent of women think they are overweight, well below the 70 percent measured by the government.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey
How would you rate the respondent's weight?
5.7% very overweight
26.7% overweight
60.2% about the right weight
6.6% slightly underweight
0.9% very underweight
GSS interviewers clearly don't know what overweight looks like since they report that only 32 percent of respondents are overweight or very overweight. Measurements of a nationally representative sample of the population, taken by the federal government’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, show that a much larger 70 percent of the public is overweight and 40 percent is obese. GSS interviewers report that most respondents (68 percent!) are the right weight or underweight, but in reality just 30 percent of the public is normal or underweight.
It’s no surprise that GSS interviewers are poor judges of weight. The public is bad at judging weight too—especially their own. Only 43 percent of obese Americans know they’re obese, according to one study. The rest think they are about the right weight or only overweight and not obese. A Gallup survey finds that just 35 percent of men and 40 percent of women think they are overweight, well below the 70 percent measured by the government.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey
Friday, January 25, 2019
How Clean Are American Homes?
More about this little known fact: when the General Social Survey is taken every two years, GSS interviewers who talk to respondents in person are asked to rate respondents and their home and neighborhood on a variety of measures. How clean is their home, and how safe is their neighborhood? How attractive is the respondent, how well groomed, and how healthy? The answers to these questions can reveal interviewer bias and, over time, perhaps changes in the health and wellbeing of the public. Here is what GSS interviewers thought about the cleanliness of the homes of Americans (the nationally representative sample of respondents to the GSS) in 2016...
How clean was the interior of the housing unit?
32.4% very clean
44.4% clean
15.0% so-so
5.3% not very clean
2.8% dirty
Opinions on cleanliness vary by age of respondent. The homes of younger respondents are perceived to be less spotless than the homes of their older counterparts. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 18 to 29, only 23 percent reported that the respondent's home was very clean. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 65 or older, a larger 46 percent reported that the respondent had a very clean home.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey
How clean was the interior of the housing unit?
32.4% very clean
44.4% clean
15.0% so-so
5.3% not very clean
2.8% dirty
Opinions on cleanliness vary by age of respondent. The homes of younger respondents are perceived to be less spotless than the homes of their older counterparts. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 18 to 29, only 23 percent reported that the respondent's home was very clean. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 65 or older, a larger 46 percent reported that the respondent had a very clean home.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Furloughed Workers Are Owed $4.7 Billion
The government shutdown is now in its 34th day, with an estimated 800,000-plus furloughed workers missing their paychecks. Just who are these federal workers? Sentier Research, which produces a monthly median household income series, analyzed the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to determine the characteristics of furloughed federal government employees. Here are a few of the findings...
Source: Sentier Research, Furloughed Workers
- 56% of furloughed workers are men, 44% are women.
- Furloughed workers have median earnings of $67,000.
- 38% of the households of furloughed workers include children.
- Among the 74% of households with a furloughed worker who own their home, 82 percent have a mortgage. Those with a mortgage have an average monthly mortgage payment of $1,600. The nation's furloughed workers’ cumulative monthly mortgage payment is $752 million.
Source: Sentier Research, Furloughed Workers
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
How Attractive Is the American Public?
Little known fact: when the General Social Survey is taken every two years, GSS interviewers who talk to respondents in person are asked to rate respondents and their home and neighborhood on a variety of measures. How attractive is the respondent, how well groomed, and how healthy? How clean is their home and how safe their neighborhood? The answers to these questions can reveal interviewer bias and, over time, perhaps changes in the health and wellbeing of the public. Here is what GSS interviewers thought about the attractiveness of the American public (the nationally representative sample of respondents to the GSS) in 2016...
How attractive was the respondent?
7.0% very attractive
31.0% attractive
55.4% about average
4.9% unattractive
1.8% very unattractive
Interviewer opinions about attractiveness vary by the age of the respondent being interviewed. Younger respondents are perceived to be more attractive than their older counterparts. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 18 to 29, the 53 percent majority reported that the respondent was attractive or very attractive, 42 percent said average, and 5 percent said unattractive or very unattractive. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 65 or older, a smaller 24 percent reported that the respondent was attractive or very attractive, 68 percent said average, and 8 percent said unattractive or very unattractive.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey
How attractive was the respondent?
7.0% very attractive
31.0% attractive
55.4% about average
4.9% unattractive
1.8% very unattractive
Interviewer opinions about attractiveness vary by the age of the respondent being interviewed. Younger respondents are perceived to be more attractive than their older counterparts. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 18 to 29, the 53 percent majority reported that the respondent was attractive or very attractive, 42 percent said average, and 5 percent said unattractive or very unattractive. Among interviewers whose respondent was aged 65 or older, a smaller 24 percent reported that the respondent was attractive or very attractive, 68 percent said average, and 8 percent said unattractive or very unattractive.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Is There an Economic Bar to Marriage?
Is there an "economic bar" to marriage? To answer this question, try this thought experiment. Who would you rather marry: someone who lives on a couch in his/her parents' basement, or someone who has a job with health insurance and a home of his/her own? If you would rather marry the person with health insurance and a home, then yes, Virginia, there is an economic bar to marriage. We can all feel the bar, but there have been few empirical studies to determine whether facts support our feelings.
Until now. A recent study in Demography sets out to describe the economic bar to marriage and tests whether those who meet the bar are more likely to marry than those who do not. Researchers defined the bar as these seven accomplishments: 1) having private health insurance; 2) experiencing earnings growth in the past 15 months; 3) homeownership; 4) having a bank account; 5) being employed; 6) not experiencing any material hardship in the past year (hardship is defined as not being able to pay rent or mortgage, having utilities cut off, and/or being evicted); and 7) not receiving public assistance in the past month. Those who scored a four out of seven were defined as meeting the economic bar.
Analyzing three waves of the Building Strong Families dataset, the researchers determined how many unmarried parents in their 20s got married after a 15 and 36 month time period, controlling for whether or not they met the economic bar. Among study respondents, one or the other parent passed the bar (had a score of 4 or higher) in 67 percent of the couples. Only the mother passed the bar in 28 percent of couples, and only the father in 48 percent of couples. Both parents passed the bar in 14 percent of couples.
Those who met the bar were more likely to have gotten married after 15 and 36 months, the study found. "At both time points, using the either parent definition of the bar, couples who met the bar were significantly more likely to marry than couples who did not meet the bar." The study also found that "meeting the both-parent bar was associated with larger increases in marriage than meeting the either-parent bar." Meeting the mother-only bar also boosted marriage, although not as much as meeting the father-only bar. "Our findings suggest that father's economic contributions may be more important than mother's in determining marriage entry. Nevertheless...the bar's association with marriage was not driven solely by the father's contribution," report the researchers.
"Our results suggest that the [academic] enthusiasm for the marriage bar is warranted," conclude the researchers. "Couple-level economic progress may play a role in marriage formation."
Source: Demography, "His" and "Hers": Meeting the Economic Bar to Marriage, Volume 55, No. 6 ($39.95)
Until now. A recent study in Demography sets out to describe the economic bar to marriage and tests whether those who meet the bar are more likely to marry than those who do not. Researchers defined the bar as these seven accomplishments: 1) having private health insurance; 2) experiencing earnings growth in the past 15 months; 3) homeownership; 4) having a bank account; 5) being employed; 6) not experiencing any material hardship in the past year (hardship is defined as not being able to pay rent or mortgage, having utilities cut off, and/or being evicted); and 7) not receiving public assistance in the past month. Those who scored a four out of seven were defined as meeting the economic bar.
Analyzing three waves of the Building Strong Families dataset, the researchers determined how many unmarried parents in their 20s got married after a 15 and 36 month time period, controlling for whether or not they met the economic bar. Among study respondents, one or the other parent passed the bar (had a score of 4 or higher) in 67 percent of the couples. Only the mother passed the bar in 28 percent of couples, and only the father in 48 percent of couples. Both parents passed the bar in 14 percent of couples.
Those who met the bar were more likely to have gotten married after 15 and 36 months, the study found. "At both time points, using the either parent definition of the bar, couples who met the bar were significantly more likely to marry than couples who did not meet the bar." The study also found that "meeting the both-parent bar was associated with larger increases in marriage than meeting the either-parent bar." Meeting the mother-only bar also boosted marriage, although not as much as meeting the father-only bar. "Our findings suggest that father's economic contributions may be more important than mother's in determining marriage entry. Nevertheless...the bar's association with marriage was not driven solely by the father's contribution," report the researchers.
"Our results suggest that the [academic] enthusiasm for the marriage bar is warranted," conclude the researchers. "Couple-level economic progress may play a role in marriage formation."
Source: Demography, "His" and "Hers": Meeting the Economic Bar to Marriage, Volume 55, No. 6 ($39.95)
Monday, January 21, 2019
Rise in Student Loan Debt Accounts for 20% of Homeownership Decline among Young Adults
If student debt had not increased between 2005 and 2014—both in prevalence and in the amount owed—there would be 400,000 additional homeowners in the 24-to-32 age group. This is the finding of a Federal Reserve Board study of the factors behind the steep decline in homeownership among young adults.
The homeownership rate of 24-to-32-year-olds fell from 45 to 36 percent between 2005 and 2014, report the Fed researchers, an 8.8 percentage-point decline. This was much greater than the 3.9 percentage-point decline for the total population. At the same time, the share of the age group that had student debt climbed from 30 to 40 percent, and the average amount owed per capita doubled from $5,000 to $10,000. The researchers calculated how much these increases reduced homeownership, estimating that there would have been 400,000 additional homeowners in the age group if student debt had remained at the 2005 level.
But the increase in student debt accounts for only 2 percentage points of the 8.8 percentage-point decline in the homeownership rate of young adults (20 percent). What accounts for the rest? The Fed researchers suggest that student loan debt affected the credit scores of young adults in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Lower credit scores made it harder for young adults to qualify for a mortgage, resulting in lower rates of homeownership.
Source: Federal Reserve Board, Consumer and Community Context, January 2019, Can Student Loan Debt Explain Low Homeownership Rates for Young Adults? (PDF)
The homeownership rate of 24-to-32-year-olds fell from 45 to 36 percent between 2005 and 2014, report the Fed researchers, an 8.8 percentage-point decline. This was much greater than the 3.9 percentage-point decline for the total population. At the same time, the share of the age group that had student debt climbed from 30 to 40 percent, and the average amount owed per capita doubled from $5,000 to $10,000. The researchers calculated how much these increases reduced homeownership, estimating that there would have been 400,000 additional homeowners in the age group if student debt had remained at the 2005 level.
But the increase in student debt accounts for only 2 percentage points of the 8.8 percentage-point decline in the homeownership rate of young adults (20 percent). What accounts for the rest? The Fed researchers suggest that student loan debt affected the credit scores of young adults in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Lower credit scores made it harder for young adults to qualify for a mortgage, resulting in lower rates of homeownership.
Source: Federal Reserve Board, Consumer and Community Context, January 2019, Can Student Loan Debt Explain Low Homeownership Rates for Young Adults? (PDF)
Friday, January 18, 2019
Opioid Prescriptions Are More Common in Rural Areas
Rural areas have been hit hard by the opioid epidemic. The injury is, in part, self-inflicted. Primary care physicians in rural areas are more likely than those in urban areas to prescribe opioids for their patients, reports the CDC in a study of opioid prescribing rates.
CDC researchers examined electronic prescriptions written by 31,422 primary health care providers during the January 2014 to March 2017 time period. Their findings document the big differences in opioid prescription rates by a county's urban-rural status...
Percent of patients receiving opioid prescriptions, January 2014—March 2017 average
9.6% in rural counties
9.4% in micropolitan counties
7.7% in small metro areas
6.7% in medium metro areas
5.6% in large fringe metros
5.2% in large central metros
The CDC undertook the study to determine whether the 2016 release of its Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain had helped to reduce opioid prescriptions. It did. In every type of county, the opioid prescription rate declined over the time period. In rural counties, the percentage of patients who received opioid prescriptions fell from 10.3 percent in 2014 to 9.0 percent during the March 2016 to March 2017 time period. In large central metropolitan counties, the rate fell from 5.4 to 5.0 percent.
"As less densely populated areas appear to indicate both substantial progress in decreasing opioid prescribing and ongoing need for reduction," the researchers conclude, "community health care practices and intervention programs must continue to be tailored to community characteristics."
Source: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Opioid Prescribing Rates in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties among Primary Care Providers Using an Electronic Health Record System—United States, 2014–2017
CDC researchers examined electronic prescriptions written by 31,422 primary health care providers during the January 2014 to March 2017 time period. Their findings document the big differences in opioid prescription rates by a county's urban-rural status...
Percent of patients receiving opioid prescriptions, January 2014—March 2017 average
9.6% in rural counties
9.4% in micropolitan counties
7.7% in small metro areas
6.7% in medium metro areas
5.6% in large fringe metros
5.2% in large central metros
The CDC undertook the study to determine whether the 2016 release of its Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain had helped to reduce opioid prescriptions. It did. In every type of county, the opioid prescription rate declined over the time period. In rural counties, the percentage of patients who received opioid prescriptions fell from 10.3 percent in 2014 to 9.0 percent during the March 2016 to March 2017 time period. In large central metropolitan counties, the rate fell from 5.4 to 5.0 percent.
"As less densely populated areas appear to indicate both substantial progress in decreasing opioid prescribing and ongoing need for reduction," the researchers conclude, "community health care practices and intervention programs must continue to be tailored to community characteristics."
Source: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Opioid Prescribing Rates in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties among Primary Care Providers Using an Electronic Health Record System—United States, 2014–2017
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Below-Replacement Fertility in 48 States
The average woman in the United States will have 1.8 children in her lifetime, according to the age-specific fertility rates of 2017. This calculation, called a "total fertility rate" (TFR), is well below the 2.1 children the average woman would have based on age-specific fertility rates in 2007—the year the number of births in the U.S. peaked. A TFR of 2.1 is considered replacement level—meaning the population will neither grow nor decline, absent immigration. A TFR below 2.1, if extended for decades, will eventually lead to population decline.
Every state had a lower TFR in 2017 than it did a decade earlier. Here are comparisons between then and now...
In 2017, non-Hispanic White women had a TFR below the replacement level of 2.1 in every state, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Black women had a TFR at or above replacement level in 12 states, Hispanic women in 29 states.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Birth Data, Total Fertility Rates by State and Race and Hispanic Origin: United States, 2017 and Births: Final Data for 2007
Every state had a lower TFR in 2017 than it did a decade earlier. Here are comparisons between then and now...
- In 2017, only 2 states had at least replacement-level fertility (South Dakota and Utah). In 2007, more than half the states (27) had a TFR of 2.1 or higher.
- In 2017, the lowest TFR was in Washington D.C., at 1.4. This was well below the lowest TFR in 2007, which was 1.7 in Vermont.
- The highest TFR in 2017 was 2.2 in South Dakota, followed by 2.1 in Utah. In 2007, the highest TFR was 2.6 in Utah.
- Between 2007 and 2017, the biggest declines in TFR (more than 20 percent) occurred in eight states: Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Georgia, and Texas.
- Between 2007 and 2017, the smallest declines in TFR (below 10 percent) occurred in six states: Iowa, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, South Dakota, and North Dakota.
In 2017, non-Hispanic White women had a TFR below the replacement level of 2.1 in every state, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Black women had a TFR at or above replacement level in 12 states, Hispanic women in 29 states.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Birth Data, Total Fertility Rates by State and Race and Hispanic Origin: United States, 2017 and Births: Final Data for 2007
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
44% of Americans Are "Revolvers"
How many Americans carry a credit card balance, and how much do they owe? The answers can be found in a study by economist Joanna Stavins of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. She wanted to determine the unique characteristics of credit card users and in particular those who are "revolvers" — meaning they owe a balance on their credit cards.
Stavins examined findings from the Survey of Consumer Payment Choice, comparing revolvers' self-reports of their credit card balances with the Equifax credit bureau records of individual respondents. One of her goals was to determine the accuracy of self-reported balances, and she discovered they aren't all that accurate. Self-reported credit card balances are significantly lower than the balances reported by Equifax. Overall, 44 percent of adults in 2015–16 were revolvers (carrying a credit card balance). The average balance on the credit cards of revolvers was $6,597—25 percent greater than what respondents self-reported. Here are the percentages of Americans who are credit card revolvers by age, and their average credit card balance based on Equifax records...
Credit card revolvers by age, 2015–16 (and Equifax credit card balance)
Total adults: 44% ($6,597)
Under age 25: 26% ($2,913)
Aged 25 to 34: 44% ($4,472)
Aged 35 to 44: 49% ($7,192)
Aged 45 to 54: 51% ($8,336)
Aged 55 to 64: 48% ($7,493)
Aged 65-plus: 35% ($6,261)
Actual credit card balances are higher than self-reported balances in every age group. The biggest difference is among people aged 65 or older, who report an average balance of $3,795 while Equifax data show an average balance of $6,261.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Credit Card Debt and Consumer Payment Choice: What Can We Learn from Credit Bureau Data?
Stavins examined findings from the Survey of Consumer Payment Choice, comparing revolvers' self-reports of their credit card balances with the Equifax credit bureau records of individual respondents. One of her goals was to determine the accuracy of self-reported balances, and she discovered they aren't all that accurate. Self-reported credit card balances are significantly lower than the balances reported by Equifax. Overall, 44 percent of adults in 2015–16 were revolvers (carrying a credit card balance). The average balance on the credit cards of revolvers was $6,597—25 percent greater than what respondents self-reported. Here are the percentages of Americans who are credit card revolvers by age, and their average credit card balance based on Equifax records...
Credit card revolvers by age, 2015–16 (and Equifax credit card balance)
Total adults: 44% ($6,597)
Under age 25: 26% ($2,913)
Aged 25 to 34: 44% ($4,472)
Aged 35 to 44: 49% ($7,192)
Aged 45 to 54: 51% ($8,336)
Aged 55 to 64: 48% ($7,493)
Aged 65-plus: 35% ($6,261)
Actual credit card balances are higher than self-reported balances in every age group. The biggest difference is among people aged 65 or older, who report an average balance of $3,795 while Equifax data show an average balance of $6,261.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Credit Card Debt and Consumer Payment Choice: What Can We Learn from Credit Bureau Data?
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
How Many Americans Have Ever Been Homeless?
More than half a million Americans are homeless on a given night, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. An annual survey, which is taken on a January night each year, counted 552,830 people homeless or in shelters in the United States in 2018.
Half a million people is a small fraction of the population on any one night. A much larger share of Americans experience homelessness at some point in their life. Among Boomers, the figure is 6.2 percent, according to a study in Demography.
The Demography study analyzed data from the Health and Retirement Study—a longitudinal survey of people aged 50 or older, which included a question about homelessness ("Have you ever been homeless or lived in a shelter?") in 2012 and 2014. The researchers calculated the lifetime prevalence of homelessness for people born from 1946 through 1964 (Boomers) as a whole and by race and Hispanic origin...
Percentage of Boomers who have ever been homeless
Total: 6.2%
Blacks: 16.8%
Hispanics: 8.1%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 4.8%
After controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, the difference in the experience of homelessness between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites disappears, report the researchers. Not so the difference between Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites. Black Boomers are three times as likely as non-Hispanic White Boomers to have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives, the researchers find.
"Do experiences of homelessness contribute to racial disparities in health?" they ask. "Do health disparities contribute to differences in the prevalence of homelessness? Are the two mutually reinforcing, or do they covary as products of social discrimination or economic inequalities? Future research might aim to better understand these complex pathways."
Source: Demography, Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Prevalence of Homelessness in the United States, Vol. 55, No. 6 ($39.95)
Half a million people is a small fraction of the population on any one night. A much larger share of Americans experience homelessness at some point in their life. Among Boomers, the figure is 6.2 percent, according to a study in Demography.
The Demography study analyzed data from the Health and Retirement Study—a longitudinal survey of people aged 50 or older, which included a question about homelessness ("Have you ever been homeless or lived in a shelter?") in 2012 and 2014. The researchers calculated the lifetime prevalence of homelessness for people born from 1946 through 1964 (Boomers) as a whole and by race and Hispanic origin...
Percentage of Boomers who have ever been homeless
Total: 6.2%
Blacks: 16.8%
Hispanics: 8.1%
Non-Hispanic Whites: 4.8%
After controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, the difference in the experience of homelessness between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites disappears, report the researchers. Not so the difference between Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites. Black Boomers are three times as likely as non-Hispanic White Boomers to have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives, the researchers find.
"Do experiences of homelessness contribute to racial disparities in health?" they ask. "Do health disparities contribute to differences in the prevalence of homelessness? Are the two mutually reinforcing, or do they covary as products of social discrimination or economic inequalities? Future research might aim to better understand these complex pathways."
Source: Demography, Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Prevalence of Homelessness in the United States, Vol. 55, No. 6 ($39.95)
Monday, January 14, 2019
36% Have Used Ride-Sharing Services
The percentage of Americans who use ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft more than doubled between 2015 and 2018, according to a Pew Research Center survey, climbing from 15 to 36 percent. Just 3 percent of the public had not heard of these services in 2018, down from a substantial 33 percent in 2015. Not surprisingly, young adults are most likely to have ever used a ride-sharing service...
Percent who have ever used a ride-sharing service, 2018
Aged 18 to 29: 51%
Aged 30 to 49: 43%
Aged 50-plus: 24%
Among those who use ride-sharing services, 10 percent say they use them at least weekly, 22 percent monthly, and 67 percent less often.
Source: Pew Research Center, More Americans Are Using Ride-Hailing Apps
Percent who have ever used a ride-sharing service, 2018
Aged 18 to 29: 51%
Aged 30 to 49: 43%
Aged 50-plus: 24%
Among those who use ride-sharing services, 10 percent say they use them at least weekly, 22 percent monthly, and 67 percent less often.
Source: Pew Research Center, More Americans Are Using Ride-Hailing Apps
Friday, January 11, 2019
40% of Women Under Age 30 Want to Leave U.S.
"Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move PERMANENTLY to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in this country?" Sixteen percent of Americans aged 15 or older say they would like to move to another country, larger than the share who wanted to move during the Obama (10 percent) or George W. Bush (11 percent) administrations.
Politics are a big factor in the desire to leave the United States. Among those who disapprove of Trump, 22 percent want to move. Among those who approve, only 7 percent want to get out.
There are also big differences by age and sex. The percentage who would like to move out of the U.S. is higher among women (20 percent) than men (13 percent). It is higher among adults under age 30 than older adults...
Desire to leave the U.S. by age
Aged 15 to 29: 30%
Aged 30 to 49: 19%
Aged 50-plus: 8%
Among women under age 30, fully 40 percent say they would like to leave the United States versus 20 percent of their male counterparts.
Source: Gallup, Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S.
Politics are a big factor in the desire to leave the United States. Among those who disapprove of Trump, 22 percent want to move. Among those who approve, only 7 percent want to get out.
There are also big differences by age and sex. The percentage who would like to move out of the U.S. is higher among women (20 percent) than men (13 percent). It is higher among adults under age 30 than older adults...
Desire to leave the U.S. by age
Aged 15 to 29: 30%
Aged 30 to 49: 19%
Aged 50-plus: 8%
Among women under age 30, fully 40 percent say they would like to leave the United States versus 20 percent of their male counterparts.
Source: Gallup, Record Numbers of Americans Want to Leave the U.S.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Household Growth Will be Slower, According to New Projections
Between 2018 and 2028, the number of households in the United States is projected to increase by 12.2 million, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS). This figure is 1.4 million less than the household growth projected by JCHS a few years ago.
Why the decline? The primary reason for the decline is that the Census Bureau issued new population projections, updating its 2014 vintage with a 2017 series. The Census Bureau's 2017 projections forecast slower population growth than the earlier series, says Daniel McCue of the JCHS and author of the report. The bureau's population projections form the basis of the JCHS household projection series.
Change in number of households by age of householder, 2018 to 2028 (in 000s)
As shown above, the greatest growth in the number of households in the decade ahead—accounting for more than half the increase—will occur in the 75-plus age group. Households headed by people aged 45 to 64 will decline as the small Generation X passes through. Very little growth is forecast in the number of households headed by adults under age 35.
Behind the Census Bureau's scaled back 2017 vintage projections—and behind the slower household growth forecast by JCHS—is lower immigration. Rather than gaining a net of 1.27 international immigrants per year during the coming decade (the assumption of the bureau's 2014 projections), the annual gain will be just 1.0 million. Fewer immigrants will slow the growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations and reduce the number of young adults establishing households in the years ahead.
Because of lower immigration, the JCHS projects that the total baseline demand for new housing in the 2018-to-2028 decade will be 1.51 million units a year, down from 1.69 million a year projected in its earlier series. The report cautions, however, that the new projection may not be conservative enough: "Given the strong steps taken by the Trump administration to curtail immigration, it remains to be seen whether there will be further declines going forward."
Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Updated Household Growth Projections: 2018–2028 and 2028–2038
Why the decline? The primary reason for the decline is that the Census Bureau issued new population projections, updating its 2014 vintage with a 2017 series. The Census Bureau's 2017 projections forecast slower population growth than the earlier series, says Daniel McCue of the JCHS and author of the report. The bureau's population projections form the basis of the JCHS household projection series.
Change in number of households by age of householder, 2018 to 2028 (in 000s)
| number (in 000s) | |
|---|---|
| Total households | 12,174 |
| Under age 25 | 21 |
| Aged 25 to 34 | 64 |
| Aged 35 to 44 | 2,855 |
| Aged 45 to 54 | -401 |
| Aged 55 to 64 | -1,513 |
| Aged 65 to 74 | 4,361 |
| Aged 75 or older | 6,787 |
As shown above, the greatest growth in the number of households in the decade ahead—accounting for more than half the increase—will occur in the 75-plus age group. Households headed by people aged 45 to 64 will decline as the small Generation X passes through. Very little growth is forecast in the number of households headed by adults under age 35.
Behind the Census Bureau's scaled back 2017 vintage projections—and behind the slower household growth forecast by JCHS—is lower immigration. Rather than gaining a net of 1.27 international immigrants per year during the coming decade (the assumption of the bureau's 2014 projections), the annual gain will be just 1.0 million. Fewer immigrants will slow the growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations and reduce the number of young adults establishing households in the years ahead.
Because of lower immigration, the JCHS projects that the total baseline demand for new housing in the 2018-to-2028 decade will be 1.51 million units a year, down from 1.69 million a year projected in its earlier series. The report cautions, however, that the new projection may not be conservative enough: "Given the strong steps taken by the Trump administration to curtail immigration, it remains to be seen whether there will be further declines going forward."
Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Updated Household Growth Projections: 2018–2028 and 2028–2038
Wednesday, January 09, 2019
Most Older Workers Experience Involuntary Job Loss
If you think you've got a retirement plan, think again. A study by the Urban Institute finds that more than half of older full-time workers—seasoned employees—are likely to lose their job before they turn 65, with dire consequences for earnings, household income, and retirement savings.
Examining Health and Retirement Study data from 1992 to 2016, the Urban Institute researchers tracked full-time workers aged 51 to 54 who had been with their current employer or self-employed for at least five years. Respondents were followed from their early 50s until at least age 65 to determine how many experienced an involuntary job separation—defined as an employer-related separation that resulted in at least six consecutive months of nonemployment or that reduced weekly earnings by 50 percent or more for at least two years.
Most of these seasoned older workers lost their job at some point during those years, with some losing a long-term job more than once. Fully 56 percent experienced at least one employer-related involuntary job separation. Demographics do not explain these derailments. There were few differences in the percentage of workers who experienced an employer-related job separation by sex, race, Hispanic origin, education, industry, or region of the country. Losing a steady job appears to be the norm for workers as they age.
The consequences of this kind of job loss are ugly. Only 10 percent of those who lost their job ever again earned as much as they had on the job, report the researchers. Median household income fell 42 percent after the job separation, with little difference in the extent of decline by demographic characteristic. At age 65, those who had experienced a job separation had a significantly lower household income than those who did not have a job separation, whereas the incomes of the two groups at ages 51 to 54 were essentially the same.
"Employment becomes increasingly precarious as workers age," conclude the researchers. "The steady earnings that many people count on in their 50s and 60s to build their retirement savings and ensure some financial security in later life can vanish, upending retirement expectations and creating economic hardship."
Source: Urban Institute, How Secure is Employment at Older Ages?
Examining Health and Retirement Study data from 1992 to 2016, the Urban Institute researchers tracked full-time workers aged 51 to 54 who had been with their current employer or self-employed for at least five years. Respondents were followed from their early 50s until at least age 65 to determine how many experienced an involuntary job separation—defined as an employer-related separation that resulted in at least six consecutive months of nonemployment or that reduced weekly earnings by 50 percent or more for at least two years.
Most of these seasoned older workers lost their job at some point during those years, with some losing a long-term job more than once. Fully 56 percent experienced at least one employer-related involuntary job separation. Demographics do not explain these derailments. There were few differences in the percentage of workers who experienced an employer-related job separation by sex, race, Hispanic origin, education, industry, or region of the country. Losing a steady job appears to be the norm for workers as they age.
The consequences of this kind of job loss are ugly. Only 10 percent of those who lost their job ever again earned as much as they had on the job, report the researchers. Median household income fell 42 percent after the job separation, with little difference in the extent of decline by demographic characteristic. At age 65, those who had experienced a job separation had a significantly lower household income than those who did not have a job separation, whereas the incomes of the two groups at ages 51 to 54 were essentially the same.
"Employment becomes increasingly precarious as workers age," conclude the researchers. "The steady earnings that many people count on in their 50s and 60s to build their retirement savings and ensure some financial security in later life can vanish, upending retirement expectations and creating economic hardship."
Source: Urban Institute, How Secure is Employment at Older Ages?
Tuesday, January 08, 2019
Attitudes toward Public Transit by Metropolitan Area
How many metro residents are happy with their public transit system? It depends on where they live, according to the 2017 American Housing Survey, which was fielded nationally and in 15 metropolitan areas. One of the questions asked by the survey is whether residents agree or disagree that their neighborhood has "good bus, subway, or commuter bus service." Here is the percentage of respondents who agree by metropolitan area...
Neighborhood has good bus, subway, or commuter bus service, 2017 (percent agreeing)
75.4% in San Francisco
75.4% in New York City
67.3% in Los Angeles—Long Beach
65.1% in Boston
65.1% in Washington, DC
64.5% in Chicago
62.1% in Riverside—San Bernardino
61.6% in Philadelphia
59.7% in Seattle
56.2% in Miami
47.6% in Phoenix
40.4% in Detroit
36.5% in Dallas
35.6% in Houston
32.7% in Atlanta
Attitudes toward public transit vary not only by metro area but also by homeownership status within metros. Near the top of the list is New York, for example, where 87 percent of renters and 64 percent of homeowners say public transit in their neighborhood is good. At the bottom of the list is Atlanta, where only 50 percent of renters and 22 percent of homeowners give their public transit a thumbs-up.
Nationally, 42 percent of Americans think their neighborhood has good bus, subway, or commuter bus service—57 percent of renters and 35 percent of homeowners.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2017 American Housing Survey
Neighborhood has good bus, subway, or commuter bus service, 2017 (percent agreeing)
75.4% in San Francisco
75.4% in New York City
67.3% in Los Angeles—Long Beach
65.1% in Boston
65.1% in Washington, DC
64.5% in Chicago
62.1% in Riverside—San Bernardino
61.6% in Philadelphia
59.7% in Seattle
56.2% in Miami
47.6% in Phoenix
40.4% in Detroit
36.5% in Dallas
35.6% in Houston
32.7% in Atlanta
Attitudes toward public transit vary not only by metro area but also by homeownership status within metros. Near the top of the list is New York, for example, where 87 percent of renters and 64 percent of homeowners say public transit in their neighborhood is good. At the bottom of the list is Atlanta, where only 50 percent of renters and 22 percent of homeowners give their public transit a thumbs-up.
Nationally, 42 percent of Americans think their neighborhood has good bus, subway, or commuter bus service—57 percent of renters and 35 percent of homeowners.
Source: Demo Memo analysis of the 2017 American Housing Survey
Monday, January 07, 2019
Wireless-Only Now the Majority in 45-to-64 Age Group
The 55 percent majority of Americans aged 18 or older live in a wireless-only household, according to January-June 2018 estimates by the National Center for Health Statistics. Another 37 percent have both cell phones and a landline phone in their household. Just 5 percent are landline-only, and 3 percent are phoneless.
The percentage of adults who live in a wireless-only household became the majority in 2016. The wireless-only share grows each year as older age groups abandon landlines through generational replacement and/or technological surrender. Here are the percentages of adults by age who lived in a wireless-only household in the first half of 2018 (and 2015)...
Adults who live in a wireless-only household, January-June 2018 (and 2015)
Total, 18-plus: 55.2% (46.7%)
Aged 18 to 24: 65.0% (59.4%)
Aged 25 to 29: 77.3% (71.3%)
Aged 30 to 34: 77.3% (67.8%)
Aged 35 to 44: 65.7% (56.6%)
Aged 45 to 64: 50.7% (40.8%)
Aged 65-plus: 29.2% (19.3%)
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January—June 2018
The percentage of adults who live in a wireless-only household became the majority in 2016. The wireless-only share grows each year as older age groups abandon landlines through generational replacement and/or technological surrender. Here are the percentages of adults by age who lived in a wireless-only household in the first half of 2018 (and 2015)...
Adults who live in a wireless-only household, January-June 2018 (and 2015)
Total, 18-plus: 55.2% (46.7%)
Aged 18 to 24: 65.0% (59.4%)
Aged 25 to 29: 77.3% (71.3%)
Aged 30 to 34: 77.3% (67.8%)
Aged 35 to 44: 65.7% (56.6%)
Aged 45 to 64: 50.7% (40.8%)
Aged 65-plus: 29.2% (19.3%)
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January—June 2018
Friday, January 04, 2019
Median Household Income Rises in November 2018
Median household income in November 2018 climbed to $63,554, reports Sentier Research. This is the highest median recorded by Sentier since the January 2000 start of its monthly household income series. The November 2018 median was 3.2 percent higher than the November 2017 median, after adjusting for inflation. Sentier's estimates are derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and track the economic wellbeing of households on a monthly basis.
"We are at a point now where real median household income is 4.3 percent higher than January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series," reports 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 about seven years." More impressive is the 15.4 percent rise in median household income since the post-Great Recession low reached in June 2011—two years after the official end of the Great Recession.
Sentier's Household Income Index in November 2018 was 104.3 (January 2000 = 100.0). To stay on top of these trends, look for the next monthly update from Sentier.
Source: Sentier Research, Household Income Trends: November 2018
"We are at a point now where real median household income is 4.3 percent higher than January 2000, the beginning of this statistical series," reports 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 about seven years." More impressive is the 15.4 percent rise in median household income since the post-Great Recession low reached in June 2011—two years after the official end of the Great Recession.
Sentier's Household Income Index in November 2018 was 104.3 (January 2000 = 100.0). To stay on top of these trends, look for the next monthly update from Sentier.
Source: Sentier Research, Household Income Trends: November 2018
Thursday, January 03, 2019
10 Questions: An Update (Part 2)
Two years ago Demo Memo presented 10 vital demographic questions and asked how many answers to these questions we would have once we had more data in hand. Two years later, the same questions are still of great importance. We have more data. So how much more do we know? Questions 1 through 5 were examined in this post. Here's a look at the rest...
6. Is the average American getting richer? With the benefit of hindsight, the answer to this question is yes and no. The wealth of American households plunged in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Median household net worth fell from $139,700 in 2007 to a post-Great Recession low of $83,700 in 2013, then climbed to $97,300 in 2016, after adjusting for inflation—still 30 percent below the 2007 peak. An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis finds that the wealth of Americans born in the 1950s and earlier has recovered from the Great Recession losses, while the wealth of those born in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s has not.
7. Who voted in the 2016 election? This question was answered by the Census Bureau's survey of voting and registration, released in the spring of 2017. We now know that the number of older non-Hispanic White voters surged in 2016. Largely because of the aging of the baby-boom generation, 2.8 million more non-Hispanic Whites aged 65 or older voted in 2016 than in 2012. This trend is only going to intensify as the baby-boom generation continues to fill the 65-plus age group. While minorities will become the majority of the population in 2044, they will not become the majority of voters until 2064.
8. Are we back to square one with health insurance? Although Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act have not been successful, this question still matters after a federal judge in Texas declared the entire Affordable Care Act invalid—a case that may be headed for the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a growing share of the public has a favorable view of the ACA, the figure rising from 43 percent in November 2016 to 53 percent in November 2018. This battle is ongoing.
9. How big is the gig economy? Are gig workers a tiny and stable fraction of the workforce, or are they an enormous and growing share of workers—24 percent according to one study and 31 percent according to another? We still don't know. In the past year, the BLS failed in its attempt to measure the gig economy, but nevertheless claimed gig workers to be few, far between, and not growing as a share of workers. Researchers scoffed at the BLS findings, theorizing that the Current Population Survey's labor force questions failed to capture gig work. The BLS fired back with a defense of the CPS. As the dust settles from this kerfuffle, all we know is that the size of the gig economy ranges from negligible to enormous.
10. Are we over the automobile? The evidence is building that we are past the point of peak transportation spending. The percentage of the household budget devoted to transportation is well below the all-time high of 19-plus percent of the mid-1980s and early 2000s. In 2017, transportation consumed a smaller 15.9 percent of the household budget. With transportation the second biggest expense for the average household, helping Americans cut their transportation costs is a no-brainer for both businesses and governments. It also helps explain the appeal of cities: urban households spend much less than their rural counterparts on transportation.
6. Is the average American getting richer? With the benefit of hindsight, the answer to this question is yes and no. The wealth of American households plunged in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Median household net worth fell from $139,700 in 2007 to a post-Great Recession low of $83,700 in 2013, then climbed to $97,300 in 2016, after adjusting for inflation—still 30 percent below the 2007 peak. An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis finds that the wealth of Americans born in the 1950s and earlier has recovered from the Great Recession losses, while the wealth of those born in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s has not.
7. Who voted in the 2016 election? This question was answered by the Census Bureau's survey of voting and registration, released in the spring of 2017. We now know that the number of older non-Hispanic White voters surged in 2016. Largely because of the aging of the baby-boom generation, 2.8 million more non-Hispanic Whites aged 65 or older voted in 2016 than in 2012. This trend is only going to intensify as the baby-boom generation continues to fill the 65-plus age group. While minorities will become the majority of the population in 2044, they will not become the majority of voters until 2064.
8. Are we back to square one with health insurance? Although Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act have not been successful, this question still matters after a federal judge in Texas declared the entire Affordable Care Act invalid—a case that may be headed for the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a growing share of the public has a favorable view of the ACA, the figure rising from 43 percent in November 2016 to 53 percent in November 2018. This battle is ongoing.
9. How big is the gig economy? Are gig workers a tiny and stable fraction of the workforce, or are they an enormous and growing share of workers—24 percent according to one study and 31 percent according to another? We still don't know. In the past year, the BLS failed in its attempt to measure the gig economy, but nevertheless claimed gig workers to be few, far between, and not growing as a share of workers. Researchers scoffed at the BLS findings, theorizing that the Current Population Survey's labor force questions failed to capture gig work. The BLS fired back with a defense of the CPS. As the dust settles from this kerfuffle, all we know is that the size of the gig economy ranges from negligible to enormous.
10. Are we over the automobile? The evidence is building that we are past the point of peak transportation spending. The percentage of the household budget devoted to transportation is well below the all-time high of 19-plus percent of the mid-1980s and early 2000s. In 2017, transportation consumed a smaller 15.9 percent of the household budget. With transportation the second biggest expense for the average household, helping Americans cut their transportation costs is a no-brainer for both businesses and governments. It also helps explain the appeal of cities: urban households spend much less than their rural counterparts on transportation.
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
10 Questions: An Update (Part 1)
Two years ago Demo Memo presented 10 vital demographic questions and asked how many answers to these questions we would have once we had more data in hand. Two years later, the same questions are still of great importance. We have more data. So how much more do we know? Let's take a look...
1. When will the baby bust end? We now know it might not end. The decline in births since the 2007 peak is as great as the decline in the aftermath of the Great Depression (a 10.7 percent drop). But this may be more than a dip in the road. An analysis by the Center for Retirement Research suggests the fertility decline may be permanent, driven by structural changes in childbearing patterns. The United States appears to be adopting the low-fertility regime common in other developed countries.
2. Why is life expectancy declining? In two of the past three years, life expectancy in the United States has declined. We now know that the declines in 2015 and 2017 were due in large part to rising mortality rates among people under age 65—primarily from drug overdoses and suicides. The biggest increases in drug overdoses and suicide rates have occurred in rural areas—see Question 4, below.
3. Will homeownership make a comeback? The homeownership rate hit a post-Great Recession low of 63.4 percent in 2016, then climbed to 63.9 percent in 2017—the first statistically significant rise in more than a decade. While the increase is encouraging, the homeownership rate is unlikely to return to the highs of the early 2000s. The Millennial generation—now at the age of first-time home buying—is burdened by student loan payments. Student loans delay homeownership by 7 years, according to the National Association of Realtors. Consequently, the age of first-time home buying (the age at which the homeownership rate first surpasses 50 percent) has shifted from the early to the late thirties.
4. What will save small town and rural America? Corporate America will not be coming to the rescue, judging by Amazon's choice to place its second headquarters in two of the largest and richest metropolitan areas in the country. The continuing allure of urban areas makes this question more important than ever—and we don't yet have any answers. But we may know more about why rural areas are falling behind. A statistical concept called "gambler's ruin" explains it, says economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. The gambler (small town or rural area) who starts with the fewest pennies (economic opportunities) is the one most likely to go bankrupt. Small towns and rural America have a shrinking pile of pennies to play with and are increasingly likely to face ruin because of it. We still don't know how to solve this problem or even if we can.
5. When will Millennials marry? The median age at first marriage continues to rise, reaching a new record high in 2017 of 27.8 years for women and 29.8 years for men. Why are Millennials delaying marriage? One reason is that a much larger share of them go to college, which delays marriage and childbearing. Another reason is student loan debt, which not only delays homeownership but also marriage, according to the National Association of Realtors.
To be continued tomorrow...
1. When will the baby bust end? We now know it might not end. The decline in births since the 2007 peak is as great as the decline in the aftermath of the Great Depression (a 10.7 percent drop). But this may be more than a dip in the road. An analysis by the Center for Retirement Research suggests the fertility decline may be permanent, driven by structural changes in childbearing patterns. The United States appears to be adopting the low-fertility regime common in other developed countries.
2. Why is life expectancy declining? In two of the past three years, life expectancy in the United States has declined. We now know that the declines in 2015 and 2017 were due in large part to rising mortality rates among people under age 65—primarily from drug overdoses and suicides. The biggest increases in drug overdoses and suicide rates have occurred in rural areas—see Question 4, below.
3. Will homeownership make a comeback? The homeownership rate hit a post-Great Recession low of 63.4 percent in 2016, then climbed to 63.9 percent in 2017—the first statistically significant rise in more than a decade. While the increase is encouraging, the homeownership rate is unlikely to return to the highs of the early 2000s. The Millennial generation—now at the age of first-time home buying—is burdened by student loan payments. Student loans delay homeownership by 7 years, according to the National Association of Realtors. Consequently, the age of first-time home buying (the age at which the homeownership rate first surpasses 50 percent) has shifted from the early to the late thirties.
4. What will save small town and rural America? Corporate America will not be coming to the rescue, judging by Amazon's choice to place its second headquarters in two of the largest and richest metropolitan areas in the country. The continuing allure of urban areas makes this question more important than ever—and we don't yet have any answers. But we may know more about why rural areas are falling behind. A statistical concept called "gambler's ruin" explains it, says economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. The gambler (small town or rural area) who starts with the fewest pennies (economic opportunities) is the one most likely to go bankrupt. Small towns and rural America have a shrinking pile of pennies to play with and are increasingly likely to face ruin because of it. We still don't know how to solve this problem or even if we can.
5. When will Millennials marry? The median age at first marriage continues to rise, reaching a new record high in 2017 of 27.8 years for women and 29.8 years for men. Why are Millennials delaying marriage? One reason is that a much larger share of them go to college, which delays marriage and childbearing. Another reason is student loan debt, which not only delays homeownership but also marriage, according to the National Association of Realtors.
To be continued tomorrow...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)