Percent moving between 2004 and 2005...
All ages: 14 percent
Aged 20 to 24: 30 percent
Aged 62 to 64: 6 percent
Percent moving out of state...
All ages: 19 percent
Aged 20 to 24: 16 percent
Aged 62 to 64: 34 percent
Source: Census Bureau, Geographic Mobility: 2004 to 2005
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
If Cell Phones Could Talk
Eighty-two percent of Americans say they have been annoyed by the cell phone use of others in public places, according to a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. But for demographers and others who love to track the trends, cell phones are more than an annoyance. They are an astonishing technological marvel that has revealed one of our deepest needs.
Before the cell phone, who knew Homo sapiens wanted to talk so much? Our prehistoric ancestors might have known, since they were the last to be within shouting distance of everyone they knew almost all the time. The African savannahs might have been humming with conversation as ancient humans discussed the latest hunt and gather. Then, as our species populated and migrated to distant lands without any means of communication with those left behind, we were forced to repress our need to stay in touch. Perhaps out of this melancholy longing art was born. We told stories, wrote ballads and poems, and drew pictures to mourn our loss of communication with loved ones far away. Finally, we invented the snail mail system to maintain some vestige of contact, however inadequate.
It has been thousands of years since we could strike up a conversation at will with any friend or family member. Only in the past ten years, as cell phones proliferated and the cost of using them dropped to pennies in our pocket, have we rediscovered our addiction to continuous communication with those we care about.
The cell phone's evolution over the past decade, from clunky and expensive accessory to sleek and cheap necessity, has revealed talk to be one of our most powerful urges. What we say is far less interesting than the act of saying it, all the time: "Where are you?" "What are you doing?" "Where should we meet?" "How about this for a plan?"
The cell phone's overarching importance is revealed not just by anecdotes, but in the spending statistics collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual Consumer Expenditure Survey. In the past decade, the cell phone's significance has grown more than any other household item. In 1997, only 10 percent of households spent on cell phone service. In that year, in a ranking of items on which the average household spends the most, cell phone service was lost in the crowd at 112th place. In 2004 (the latest data available), 46 percent of households spent on cell phone service, boosting it to a lofty 28th place. Cell phone service now ranks higher in our spending priorities than prescription drugs and is not far below cable TV and alcoholic beverages.
Interestingly, while 82 percent of the public has gotten annoyed with someone else's cell phone use, only 8 percent of cell phone users say they have annoyed others with their cell phone calls. They must have been too busy talking to notice.
Before the cell phone, who knew Homo sapiens wanted to talk so much? Our prehistoric ancestors might have known, since they were the last to be within shouting distance of everyone they knew almost all the time. The African savannahs might have been humming with conversation as ancient humans discussed the latest hunt and gather. Then, as our species populated and migrated to distant lands without any means of communication with those left behind, we were forced to repress our need to stay in touch. Perhaps out of this melancholy longing art was born. We told stories, wrote ballads and poems, and drew pictures to mourn our loss of communication with loved ones far away. Finally, we invented the snail mail system to maintain some vestige of contact, however inadequate.
It has been thousands of years since we could strike up a conversation at will with any friend or family member. Only in the past ten years, as cell phones proliferated and the cost of using them dropped to pennies in our pocket, have we rediscovered our addiction to continuous communication with those we care about.
The cell phone's evolution over the past decade, from clunky and expensive accessory to sleek and cheap necessity, has revealed talk to be one of our most powerful urges. What we say is far less interesting than the act of saying it, all the time: "Where are you?" "What are you doing?" "Where should we meet?" "How about this for a plan?"
The cell phone's overarching importance is revealed not just by anecdotes, but in the spending statistics collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual Consumer Expenditure Survey. In the past decade, the cell phone's significance has grown more than any other household item. In 1997, only 10 percent of households spent on cell phone service. In that year, in a ranking of items on which the average household spends the most, cell phone service was lost in the crowd at 112th place. In 2004 (the latest data available), 46 percent of households spent on cell phone service, boosting it to a lofty 28th place. Cell phone service now ranks higher in our spending priorities than prescription drugs and is not far below cable TV and alcoholic beverages.
Interestingly, while 82 percent of the public has gotten annoyed with someone else's cell phone use, only 8 percent of cell phone users say they have annoyed others with their cell phone calls. They must have been too busy talking to notice.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Does Religion Influence Sexual Behavior?
Does religious belief influence sexual attitudes and behavior? Most would call the question a no brainer--of course it does! But human nature being what it is, religious belief has less influence on behavior than on attitudes.
This becomes clear in an examination of the National Survey of Family Growth, a survey taken every few years by the National Center for Health Statistics. The NSFG probes the attitudes and behavior of a representative sample of Americans aged 15 to 44 toward sexuality and reproduction. An examination of the results suggests that religious belief affects the talk much more than the walk.
Religious belief shapes attitudes toward premarital sex:
The percentage of women who think it is all right for unmarried 18-year-olds to have sexual relations if they have strong affection for one another ranges from a high of 74 percent among women with no religion to a low of 29 percent for fundamentalist Protestant women. Among Catholic women, the 54 percent majority thinks premarital sex is OK.
But it delays first sexual intercourse by only a few months:
Among women aged 15 to 44 with no religion, average age at first sexual intercourse was 16.4 years. Fundamentalist Protestants held off for several more months, with an average age of 16.9 years at first sexual intercourse. Catholics just said no for nearly one year longer, with an average age at first sexual intercourse of 17.7 years.
And it has little impact on "saving oneself" for marriage:
Among women with no religion, only 12 percent waited until marriage before having sex. The proportion was a slightly higher 15 percent among Catholics and 17 percent among fundamentalist Protestants.
Religious belief drives attitudes toward out-of-wedlock childbearing:
Among women with no religion, fully 86 percent think it is OK for an unmarried woman to have a child. A 49 percent minority of fundamentalist Protestants agree. (Among fundamentalist Protestant men, the figure is an even smaller 37 percent.). A surprisingly large 72 percent of Catholic women think out-of-wedlock childbearing is OK.
But it has almost no effect on out-of-wedlock childbearing itself:
Among women aged 15 to 44 with children, the percentage who have ever had a child out-of-wedlock is similar regardless of religion. Among women with no religion, 49 percent have had a child out of wedlock. The proportion is 47 percent among fundamentalist Protestants and a slightly smaller 40 percent among Catholics.
This becomes clear in an examination of the National Survey of Family Growth, a survey taken every few years by the National Center for Health Statistics. The NSFG probes the attitudes and behavior of a representative sample of Americans aged 15 to 44 toward sexuality and reproduction. An examination of the results suggests that religious belief affects the talk much more than the walk.
Religious belief shapes attitudes toward premarital sex:
The percentage of women who think it is all right for unmarried 18-year-olds to have sexual relations if they have strong affection for one another ranges from a high of 74 percent among women with no religion to a low of 29 percent for fundamentalist Protestant women. Among Catholic women, the 54 percent majority thinks premarital sex is OK.
But it delays first sexual intercourse by only a few months:
Among women aged 15 to 44 with no religion, average age at first sexual intercourse was 16.4 years. Fundamentalist Protestants held off for several more months, with an average age of 16.9 years at first sexual intercourse. Catholics just said no for nearly one year longer, with an average age at first sexual intercourse of 17.7 years.
And it has little impact on "saving oneself" for marriage:
Among women with no religion, only 12 percent waited until marriage before having sex. The proportion was a slightly higher 15 percent among Catholics and 17 percent among fundamentalist Protestants.
Religious belief drives attitudes toward out-of-wedlock childbearing:
Among women with no religion, fully 86 percent think it is OK for an unmarried woman to have a child. A 49 percent minority of fundamentalist Protestants agree. (Among fundamentalist Protestant men, the figure is an even smaller 37 percent.). A surprisingly large 72 percent of Catholic women think out-of-wedlock childbearing is OK.
But it has almost no effect on out-of-wedlock childbearing itself:
Among women aged 15 to 44 with children, the percentage who have ever had a child out-of-wedlock is similar regardless of religion. Among women with no religion, 49 percent have had a child out of wedlock. The proportion is 47 percent among fundamentalist Protestants and a slightly smaller 40 percent among Catholics.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Bet You Didn't Know
Households with two or more earners, by household income quintile:
lowest quintile (with incomes below $19,178): 5 percent
highest quintile (with incomes above $91,705): 76 percent
Source: Census Bureau, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement
lowest quintile (with incomes below $19,178): 5 percent
highest quintile (with incomes above $91,705): 76 percent
Source: Census Bureau, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement
Monday, September 11, 2006
Comparing Crime
Recently, the FBI released preliminary numbers from its 2005 Uniform Crime Reporting Program. According to the findings, violent crime in the U.S. rose 2.5 percent between 2004 and 2005. The complete report will be released later this year, entitled Crime in the United States, with tables of data on crimes reported to nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the nation. But don't plan on using the report to determine how your local area ranks in the crime statistics. Those who want to compare one area with another are on their own.
The FBI makes no secret of the fact that they do not want users to compare crime rates. They even write extensively about the difficulty of doing so on their web site:
"Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents"
But you have to wonder whether this high-mindedness is more political than methodological. After all, if the FBI provided rankings of states and local areas by crime rate, then those 17,000 law enforcement agencies might not be so cooperative about sending their data to the FBI. And more than 400 congressional representatives, 100 senators, and countless local politicians would be very unhappy if their area appeared at the top of a high-crime list.
Unless an intrepid reporter burrows into the numbers by downloading, multiplying, dividing, and sorting, the average American is left pretty much in the dark about relative crime rates in the U.S. Everyone knows the central cities of metropolitan areas have high crime rates, but what about college towns, vacation spots, and retirement areas? The federal government makes it hard to find out.
Recently, crime seems to have surged in my town, Beaufort, South Carolina—a military base and resort area on the coast. Letters in the local newspaper have expressed shock at the crime, wondering what is happening to our once safe community. But how safe is Beaufort, relatively speaking? I wanted to find out. Because the 2005 data are not yet available, I went to the FBI's 2004 report, finding a table listing crime rates by region and state. I was not surprised to see the South having the highest rate of violent crime—this is a well documented fact. By region, the violent crime rate per 100,000 population looks like this:
U.S. average 465.5
South 540.6
West 480.7
Midwest 391.1
Northeast 390.7
Next, I spent about 15 minutes sorting the 50 states by their violent crime rate. To my surprise, supposedly sleepy South Carolina came out on top, with 784.2 violent crimes per 100,000 population in 2004. The violent crime rate in South Carolina exceeds the rate in every other state, including those with high-crime reputations such as Florida (711.3), Nevada (615.9), Texas (540.5), and New York (441.6).
But what about Beaufort? Another table has the data, listing each city's population and the number of violent crimes reported in 2004. The rate has to be calculated, then the list sorted. Lo and behold, Beaufort's violent crime rate of 1,660.3 places it 7th out of 33 cities in the state with populations of 10,000 or more. Beaufort, in fact, has a higher crime rate than the central cities of the state's largest metropolitan areas—Columbia and Charleston. Beaufort has a lower crime rate, however, than the state's other resort area, Myrtle Beach.
While it is understandable that local businesses and politicians may not want these facts to be released, keeping residents in the dark about their chances of experiencing violent crime is a disservice to the community. That kind of naiveté not only increases risk taking, but also adds more victims to the crime rolls.
The FBI makes no secret of the fact that they do not want users to compare crime rates. They even write extensively about the difficulty of doing so on their web site:
"Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents"
But you have to wonder whether this high-mindedness is more political than methodological. After all, if the FBI provided rankings of states and local areas by crime rate, then those 17,000 law enforcement agencies might not be so cooperative about sending their data to the FBI. And more than 400 congressional representatives, 100 senators, and countless local politicians would be very unhappy if their area appeared at the top of a high-crime list.
Unless an intrepid reporter burrows into the numbers by downloading, multiplying, dividing, and sorting, the average American is left pretty much in the dark about relative crime rates in the U.S. Everyone knows the central cities of metropolitan areas have high crime rates, but what about college towns, vacation spots, and retirement areas? The federal government makes it hard to find out.
Recently, crime seems to have surged in my town, Beaufort, South Carolina—a military base and resort area on the coast. Letters in the local newspaper have expressed shock at the crime, wondering what is happening to our once safe community. But how safe is Beaufort, relatively speaking? I wanted to find out. Because the 2005 data are not yet available, I went to the FBI's 2004 report, finding a table listing crime rates by region and state. I was not surprised to see the South having the highest rate of violent crime—this is a well documented fact. By region, the violent crime rate per 100,000 population looks like this:
U.S. average 465.5
South 540.6
West 480.7
Midwest 391.1
Northeast 390.7
Next, I spent about 15 minutes sorting the 50 states by their violent crime rate. To my surprise, supposedly sleepy South Carolina came out on top, with 784.2 violent crimes per 100,000 population in 2004. The violent crime rate in South Carolina exceeds the rate in every other state, including those with high-crime reputations such as Florida (711.3), Nevada (615.9), Texas (540.5), and New York (441.6).
But what about Beaufort? Another table has the data, listing each city's population and the number of violent crimes reported in 2004. The rate has to be calculated, then the list sorted. Lo and behold, Beaufort's violent crime rate of 1,660.3 places it 7th out of 33 cities in the state with populations of 10,000 or more. Beaufort, in fact, has a higher crime rate than the central cities of the state's largest metropolitan areas—Columbia and Charleston. Beaufort has a lower crime rate, however, than the state's other resort area, Myrtle Beach.
While it is understandable that local businesses and politicians may not want these facts to be released, keeping residents in the dark about their chances of experiencing violent crime is a disservice to the community. That kind of naiveté not only increases risk taking, but also adds more victims to the crime rolls.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Problems and Who Has Them
Every now and then someone does a study that tells it like it is. This is the case with "Troubles in America: A Study of Negative Life Events Across Time and Sub-groups," by Tom Smith, Director of the General Social Survey of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The study, prepared for the Russell Sage Foundation, is also mentioned in the post below and could be the subject of dozens of posts examining its many findings.
In both the 1991 and 2004 GSS surveys, a representative sample of Americans was asked whether they had experienced any of 66 problems during the past year. The incidence of problems alone is worth pondering. Here is a look at the some of the troubles and the percentage of Americans experiencing them in the past 12 months, based on the 2004 survey:
PERCENTAGE EXPERIENCING IN PAST YEAR
Sick enough to go to a doctor: 56.2
Death of a close friend: 22.0
Lacking health insurance coverage: 17.9
Major home repairs: 15.4
Being unemployed for as long as a month: 14.5
A major worsening of one's financial condition: 13.1
Not having a car for at least one month: 8.3
Undergoing counseling for emotional problems: 7.4
A cut in pay: 6.8
Having serious trouble with a child: 6.3
Being discriminated against: 4.7
Death of a parent: 3.1
Getting divorced: 2.7
Home destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, etc.: 2.0
In both the 1991 and 2004 GSS surveys, a representative sample of Americans was asked whether they had experienced any of 66 problems during the past year. The incidence of problems alone is worth pondering. Here is a look at the some of the troubles and the percentage of Americans experiencing them in the past 12 months, based on the 2004 survey:
PERCENTAGE EXPERIENCING IN PAST YEAR
Sick enough to go to a doctor: 56.2
Death of a close friend: 22.0
Lacking health insurance coverage: 17.9
Major home repairs: 15.4
Being unemployed for as long as a month: 14.5
A major worsening of one's financial condition: 13.1
Not having a car for at least one month: 8.3
Undergoing counseling for emotional problems: 7.4
A cut in pay: 6.8
Having serious trouble with a child: 6.3
Being discriminated against: 4.7
Death of a parent: 3.1
Getting divorced: 2.7
Home destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, etc.: 2.0
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Decade of Retreat
If the 1990s is known as the Decade of Affluence because household incomes reached a peak, then these years may well be called the Decade of Retreat—especially for the American worker. Hardly a day goes by without more evidence of workers falling behind.
The Current Population Survey data, released yesterday, show a signficant decline in the earnings of men and women who work full-time (see post below). Wages and salaries now account for a smaller share of the gross domestic product than at any time since 1947, according to an analysis by the New York Times. Not only are wages falling, but the percentage of Americans with employment-based health insurance is slipping, and those with insurance must pay more for it. In fact, the value of employee benefits is failing to keep pace with inflation, according to the Times.
Americans are feeling the pain. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of the public thinks today's workers must work harder to earn a decent living. Fifty-six percent say employers are less loyal to workers. Fifty-one percent think retirement benefits are not as good as they used to be. A comparison of the 2006 Pew results with surveys taken in 1989 and 1997 shows job satisfaction dropping sharply among workers aged 50 or older and growing discontent with employee benefits.
The quality of work life may not be alone in retreat. Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey (GSS) at the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, concludes in a study that "Americans on average are worse-off now than in the past." He came to this conclusion after comparing 2004 with 1991 GSS results. In both years, respondents were asked to identify the frequency and severity with which they encountered 66 different problems ranging from the death of a spouse to the loss of a job and the inability to pay for health insurance. The percentage of Americans experiencing at least one problem increased over the years from 89.1 to 91.5 percent. The average number of problems experienced grew from 4.03 to 4.34. Smith found significant increases in problems such as being unemployed, being pressured to pay bills, being unable to afford food, lacking medical insurance, and being hospitalized.
What factors might explain an erosion in the quality of life in the United States? One might be the aging of the population, which leads to more health problems. Another might be technological change and the consequent globalization of the workforce. The Pew survey shows how ambivalent Americans feel about these changes. Sixty-nine percent think email and other modern communication technologies have helped workers. But an even larger 77 percent think outsourcing—which is one consequence of the communications revolution—has hurt American workers.
Smith's study sheds some light on why things may be turning south, examining the demographic segments with the most and least troubles. The biggest change in the distribution of troubles was by education. In 1991, the lowest-educated group experienced 1.33 problems for every 1 problem experienced by the best-educated group. In 2004, the ratio had grown to 1.79 to 1. The growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in an increasingly competitive world may explain the Decade of Retreat.
The Current Population Survey data, released yesterday, show a signficant decline in the earnings of men and women who work full-time (see post below). Wages and salaries now account for a smaller share of the gross domestic product than at any time since 1947, according to an analysis by the New York Times. Not only are wages falling, but the percentage of Americans with employment-based health insurance is slipping, and those with insurance must pay more for it. In fact, the value of employee benefits is failing to keep pace with inflation, according to the Times.
Americans are feeling the pain. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of the public thinks today's workers must work harder to earn a decent living. Fifty-six percent say employers are less loyal to workers. Fifty-one percent think retirement benefits are not as good as they used to be. A comparison of the 2006 Pew results with surveys taken in 1989 and 1997 shows job satisfaction dropping sharply among workers aged 50 or older and growing discontent with employee benefits.
The quality of work life may not be alone in retreat. Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey (GSS) at the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, concludes in a study that "Americans on average are worse-off now than in the past." He came to this conclusion after comparing 2004 with 1991 GSS results. In both years, respondents were asked to identify the frequency and severity with which they encountered 66 different problems ranging from the death of a spouse to the loss of a job and the inability to pay for health insurance. The percentage of Americans experiencing at least one problem increased over the years from 89.1 to 91.5 percent. The average number of problems experienced grew from 4.03 to 4.34. Smith found significant increases in problems such as being unemployed, being pressured to pay bills, being unable to afford food, lacking medical insurance, and being hospitalized.
What factors might explain an erosion in the quality of life in the United States? One might be the aging of the population, which leads to more health problems. Another might be technological change and the consequent globalization of the workforce. The Pew survey shows how ambivalent Americans feel about these changes. Sixty-nine percent think email and other modern communication technologies have helped workers. But an even larger 77 percent think outsourcing—which is one consequence of the communications revolution—has hurt American workers.
Smith's study sheds some light on why things may be turning south, examining the demographic segments with the most and least troubles. The biggest change in the distribution of troubles was by education. In 1991, the lowest-educated group experienced 1.33 problems for every 1 problem experienced by the best-educated group. In 2004, the ratio had grown to 1.79 to 1. The growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in an increasingly competitive world may explain the Decade of Retreat.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Here Are the 2005 Numbers
At 10:00 this morning, the Census Bureau unveiled the much anticipated snapshot of our economic wellbeing, the results of the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Taken in March of each year, the supplement asks a large, nationally representative sample of Americans about their economic status in the previous year. Here are the numbers unveiled by the Census Bureau this morning.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME UP
Median household income rose 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, to $46,326. This is the first significant increase in median household income since 1999, according to the Census Bureau. But the 2005 figure is still well below the level of 2000, and the gains were limited to a few select demographic segments. By age, only householders aged 65 or older saw their median household income rise significantly between 2004 and 2005—up by 2.8 percent. Behind the gain is higher labor participation among the elderly. By income, changes were not significant at the 90 percent confidence interval, but it is interesting to note that all but the highest income quintile lost ground.
MEN'S EARNINGS DOWN
Among men working full-time, median earnings fell 1.8 percent between 2004 and 2005, to $41,386 after adjusting for inflation.
WOMEN'S EARNINGS DOWN
Among women working full-time, median earnings fell 1.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, to $31,858 after adjusting for inflation.
HEALTH INSURANCE DOWN
The percentage of people without health insurance climbed from 15.6 to 15.9 percent between 2004 and 2005. The number of uninsured grew to 47 million. The percentage of the population covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 59.8 to 59.5 percent.
POVERTY STABLE
The percentage of people living in poverty held steady at 12.6 percent in 2005, not significantly different from the 12.7 percent rate of 2004.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME UP
Median household income rose 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, to $46,326. This is the first significant increase in median household income since 1999, according to the Census Bureau. But the 2005 figure is still well below the level of 2000, and the gains were limited to a few select demographic segments. By age, only householders aged 65 or older saw their median household income rise significantly between 2004 and 2005—up by 2.8 percent. Behind the gain is higher labor participation among the elderly. By income, changes were not significant at the 90 percent confidence interval, but it is interesting to note that all but the highest income quintile lost ground.
MEN'S EARNINGS DOWN
Among men working full-time, median earnings fell 1.8 percent between 2004 and 2005, to $41,386 after adjusting for inflation.
WOMEN'S EARNINGS DOWN
Among women working full-time, median earnings fell 1.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, to $31,858 after adjusting for inflation.
HEALTH INSURANCE DOWN
The percentage of people without health insurance climbed from 15.6 to 15.9 percent between 2004 and 2005. The number of uninsured grew to 47 million. The percentage of the population covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 59.8 to 59.5 percent.
POVERTY STABLE
The percentage of people living in poverty held steady at 12.6 percent in 2005, not significantly different from the 12.7 percent rate of 2004.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Few Are Trapped in the Housing Bubble
The recent downturn in the housing market has everyone ringing the alarm bells in a frenzy of concern. Let's get real. The latest data from the 2005 American Housing Survey show that, in fact, few homeowners will be vulnerable to a pause or even a slip in housing prices. Here are the numbers on who will be hurt.
Homeowners without a fixed-rate mortgage: Of the nation's 46 million homeowners with a mortgage, 9 million (19 percent) do not have a fixed rate of interest. Instead, they have adjustable rate mortgates, balloon mortgages, or some combination. They will be hurt by rising interest rates.
Homeowners with little or no equity in their home: Of the nation's 46 million homeowners with a mortgage, 5 million (12 percent) owe 90 percent or more of the value of their home. They will be hurt by falling prices.
As the housing market finds a new level of stability, it is important to keep in mind that many homeowners (39 percent) have no mortgage at all, most homeowners with mortgages pay a fixed interest rate, and those with mortgages owe only 55 percent of the value of their home—in other words, they have enough equity to weather a substantial price drop.
Homeowners without a fixed-rate mortgage: Of the nation's 46 million homeowners with a mortgage, 9 million (19 percent) do not have a fixed rate of interest. Instead, they have adjustable rate mortgates, balloon mortgages, or some combination. They will be hurt by rising interest rates.
Homeowners with little or no equity in their home: Of the nation's 46 million homeowners with a mortgage, 5 million (12 percent) owe 90 percent or more of the value of their home. They will be hurt by falling prices.
As the housing market finds a new level of stability, it is important to keep in mind that many homeowners (39 percent) have no mortgage at all, most homeowners with mortgages pay a fixed interest rate, and those with mortgages owe only 55 percent of the value of their home—in other words, they have enough equity to weather a substantial price drop.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Who Will Get Hurt by Housing?
Yesterday the National Association of Realtors announced a decline in sales of previously owned homes for the month of July, and today the Census Bureau reports that new home sales also fell last month. Although the declines were expected by analysts, both exceeded predictions, heightening fears of trouble ahead for homeowners and the economy.
Who will be hurt by a downturn in the housing market? One vulnerable group is young adults. The homeownership rate of householders under age 25 has grown faster than that of any other age group over the past five years. In 2005, 26 percent of householders under age 25 owned their home, up from 22 percent in 2000. The homeownership rate of householders aged 25 to 29 ranked second in growth during those years, rising from 38 to 41 percent. Of the 3.3 million new homeowners in the U.S., more than one in five are under age 30.
In years past, these young adults would have been renting apartments and could have benefited from the transition to a buyer's market. But with housing prices rising fast and lenders marketing tempting interest-only loans, many took the plunge. Now they may have a hard time staying afloat.
Who will be hurt by a downturn in the housing market? One vulnerable group is young adults. The homeownership rate of householders under age 25 has grown faster than that of any other age group over the past five years. In 2005, 26 percent of householders under age 25 owned their home, up from 22 percent in 2000. The homeownership rate of householders aged 25 to 29 ranked second in growth during those years, rising from 38 to 41 percent. Of the 3.3 million new homeowners in the U.S., more than one in five are under age 30.
In years past, these young adults would have been renting apartments and could have benefited from the transition to a buyer's market. But with housing prices rising fast and lenders marketing tempting interest-only loans, many took the plunge. Now they may have a hard time staying afloat.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Back to School
A Census Bureau press release notes the following astonishing facts about the nation's elementary and high school students:
—41 percent are minorities.
—22 percent have at least one foreign-born parent.
Source: Bureau of the Census, Back to School, 2006-2007
—41 percent are minorities.
—22 percent have at least one foreign-born parent.
Source: Bureau of the Census, Back to School, 2006-2007
Saturday, August 12, 2006
How Much Elbow Room?
Later this year, the U.S. population will top 300 million people. The last time we passed a 100 million mark was in 1967. The United States is a big country, and we have a long way to go before we are as densely populated as most other countries of the world. In 2005, there were 80 people per square mile in the United States, according to the Population Reference Bureau. That's up from 57 people per square mile in 1967.
While it's getting more crowded around here, we still have a lot more elbow room than most other countries. Among the world's 200-plus nations, we rank around the 25th percentile in population density. China, the world's most populous country, has a population density of 353 people per square mile. India fits 869 people into each of its square miles. Japan has even more, with 876. Those countries seem empty in comparison to the most densely populated nation in the world, Bangladesh, with 2,594 people per square mile.
Americans have more space to themselves than do most Europeans. France has 285 people in each of its square miles. Germany is even more tightly packed with 598, and the United Kingdom tops it with 635. Some nations are emptier than we are, including Brazil (56) and Russia (22). The Canadians, with only 8 people per square mile, and the Australians with an even smaller 7, would feel downright claustrophobic in our crowds.
While it's getting more crowded around here, we still have a lot more elbow room than most other countries. Among the world's 200-plus nations, we rank around the 25th percentile in population density. China, the world's most populous country, has a population density of 353 people per square mile. India fits 869 people into each of its square miles. Japan has even more, with 876. Those countries seem empty in comparison to the most densely populated nation in the world, Bangladesh, with 2,594 people per square mile.
Americans have more space to themselves than do most Europeans. France has 285 people in each of its square miles. Germany is even more tightly packed with 598, and the United Kingdom tops it with 635. Some nations are emptier than we are, including Brazil (56) and Russia (22). The Canadians, with only 8 people per square mile, and the Australians with an even smaller 7, would feel downright claustrophobic in our crowds.
Bet You Didn't Know
Percentage of households owning dogs: 36
Percentage of households owning cats: 32
Number of dogs per household: 1.6
Number of cats per household: 2.1
Source: American Veterinary Medical Association, U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook, 2002, as reported in the Census Bureau's 2006 Statistical Abstract
Percentage of households owning cats: 32
Number of dogs per household: 1.6
Number of cats per household: 2.1
Source: American Veterinary Medical Association, U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook, 2002, as reported in the Census Bureau's 2006 Statistical Abstract
Saturday, July 29, 2006
A Father's Delight
It is sometimes surprising what the government asks Americans to reveal about themselves. And lucky for us demographers, Americans seem willing to tell all. The latest example: A survey taken by the National Center for Education Statistics asks fathers a series of questions to determine how much "delight" they get from their children. And the answer is—a lot.
Called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, the survey's purpose is to test the effects of family, school, community, and individual variables on children's development. Biological fathers living with children born in 2001 were asked about their feelings towards their child, creating indicators of "delight." The results show how involved today's fathers are in child care, both emotionally and physically.
Two-thirds of fathers think it's more fun to get their child something new than to get something for themselves. An equally large percentage of fathers carry pictures of their child with them wherever they go, and 69 percent talk a lot about their child to friends and family. Three out of four fathers always find themselves thinking about their child. Eighty-five percent of fathers think holding and cuddling their child is fun, and 84 percent strongly agree that fatherhood is a highly rewarding experience.
Most fathers strongly agree that they should be as heavily involved as the mother in the care of their child. Seventy-nine percent rate themselves as a "very good" or "better than average" father. Only 2 percent say they have "some trouble" being a father.
Called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, the survey's purpose is to test the effects of family, school, community, and individual variables on children's development. Biological fathers living with children born in 2001 were asked about their feelings towards their child, creating indicators of "delight." The results show how involved today's fathers are in child care, both emotionally and physically.
Two-thirds of fathers think it's more fun to get their child something new than to get something for themselves. An equally large percentage of fathers carry pictures of their child with them wherever they go, and 69 percent talk a lot about their child to friends and family. Three out of four fathers always find themselves thinking about their child. Eighty-five percent of fathers think holding and cuddling their child is fun, and 84 percent strongly agree that fatherhood is a highly rewarding experience.
Most fathers strongly agree that they should be as heavily involved as the mother in the care of their child. Seventy-nine percent rate themselves as a "very good" or "better than average" father. Only 2 percent say they have "some trouble" being a father.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Bet You Didn't Know
Percent of adults who read books every day: 32
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Adult Literacy
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Adult Literacy
Thursday, July 20, 2006
How Americans Get to Work
Drive alone: 79 percent
Carpool: 9 percent
Mass transit: 4 percent
Work at home: 3 percent
Walk: 2 percent
Source: 2005 American Housing Survey
Carpool: 9 percent
Mass transit: 4 percent
Work at home: 3 percent
Walk: 2 percent
Source: 2005 American Housing Survey
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
The Cost of College
Paying for college is more painful in some states than others. The Census Bureau's State and Metropolitan Area Data Book: 2006 shows just how much it hurts. One year of tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university ranges from a high of $15,109 in New Jersey to a low of $7,494 in Louisiana. In other words, it costs twice as much to go to college in New Jersey as it does in Louisiana. But household incomes are also much higher in New Jersey, reducing the burden on state residents.
Here's a better way to calculate the pain of paying for college—determine what proportion of median household income is required to pay for one year of in-state tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university. Nationally, the figure is 24.6 percent, with median household income at $43,564 in 2003 and one year of college at a public university costing $10,720. In many states the proportion is much higher, with Vermont (33.8 percent), Pennsylvania (33.2 percent), and South Carolina (33.0 percent) the most expensive. In five states, one year of college requires less than 20 percent of household income. Wyoming (19.6 percent), Colorado (19.3 percent), Alaska (19.3 percent), Hawaii (17.2 percent), and Utah (16.8 percent) have the lowest college costs relative to household income.
Here's a better way to calculate the pain of paying for college—determine what proportion of median household income is required to pay for one year of in-state tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university. Nationally, the figure is 24.6 percent, with median household income at $43,564 in 2003 and one year of college at a public university costing $10,720. In many states the proportion is much higher, with Vermont (33.8 percent), Pennsylvania (33.2 percent), and South Carolina (33.0 percent) the most expensive. In five states, one year of college requires less than 20 percent of household income. Wyoming (19.6 percent), Colorado (19.3 percent), Alaska (19.3 percent), Hawaii (17.2 percent), and Utah (16.8 percent) have the lowest college costs relative to household income.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Food for Thought
Asian American are much less likely than the average American to be overweight—only 31 percent of Asians are overweight, well below the 59 percent majority of all Americans who are overweight.
Here's why Asians may be better able to control their weight. An analysis of household spending published in the Monthly Labor Review reveals the top three items on which Asian households spend the most in the grocery store: fresh vegetables, seafood, and fresh fruit. A nutritionist's dream! In contrast, here are the top three grocery items on which everyone else spends the most: baked products, beef, and dairy.
Here's why Asians may be better able to control their weight. An analysis of household spending published in the Monthly Labor Review reveals the top three items on which Asian households spend the most in the grocery store: fresh vegetables, seafood, and fresh fruit. A nutritionist's dream! In contrast, here are the top three grocery items on which everyone else spends the most: baked products, beef, and dairy.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Bigger Houses
It's easy to keep up with housing trends if you know where to look. The Census Bureau keeps tabs on new housing and provides lots of historical data as well. Here are some recently released figures for new single-family houses sold in 2005, with comparisons to 1995.
Median square feet
2005: 2,235
1995: 1,880
Percentage with cental air conditioning
2005: 92
1995: 83
Percentage with three or more bathrooms
2005: 25
1995: 14
Percentage with four or more bedrooms
2005: 42
1995: 34
Median sales price
2005: $240,900
1995: $133,900
Median square feet
2005: 2,235
1995: 1,880
Percentage with cental air conditioning
2005: 92
1995: 83
Percentage with three or more bathrooms
2005: 25
1995: 14
Percentage with four or more bedrooms
2005: 42
1995: 34
Median sales price
2005: $240,900
1995: $133,900
Saturday, July 08, 2006
A Record: Births to Unmarried Women
The number of births to unmarried women climbed to an unprecedented 1,470,189 in 2004, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics. Of the 4,112,052 births in 2004, fully 35.8 percent were born to unmarried woman. The percentage of babies born to single women has grown steadily for decades. Here's a look at the trend:
Percent of births to unmarried women:
1950: 3.9
1960: 5.3
1970: 10.7
1980: 18.4
1990: 28.0
2000: 33.2
2004: 35.8
Percent of births to unmarried women:
1950: 3.9
1960: 5.3
1970: 10.7
1980: 18.4
1990: 28.0
2000: 33.2
2004: 35.8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)