Grab your hankies and prepare to weep. A National Endowment for the Arts report (To Read or Not to Read) warns of a decline in book reading over the past decade. The percentage of adults who have read a book for pleasure (not required for work or school) in the past year fell from 61 percent in 1992 to 57 percent in 2002--a 4 percentage point decline. Is this decline a cause for concern or, rather, a sign of the book's staying power? To get a better perspective, let's look at what has happened to two other traditional media outlets--the daily newspaper and the network evening news.
Between 1991 and 2002 (roughly the same time period is used for comparability; more recent data are available), the percentage of people who read a newspaper every day fell from 52 to 41 percent, according to the General Social Survey--a much larger decline than the one experienced by books. Even more telling, industry statistics show that since 1990 unit sales of trade books have increased, while weekday newspaper circulation has decreased.
Yes, average household spending on books has dropped. It fell by a painful 28 percent between 1991 and 2006 after adjusting for inflation, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey. But much of the decline in spending can be explained by the growing sales of used books and the deep discounts offered by Amazon.com and other Internet retailers. No such benign factors can explain why household spending on newspapers and magazines fell by a heartrending 60 percent during the same years.
Network evening news is also experiencing a precipitous decline. The average number of people who watch network evening news plummeted from 42 million to 30 million between 1992 and 2002 (the same time period is used for comparability; more recent data are available), according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Not only is the network news audience shrinking, it is also aging. The median age of the viewers of evening news is now 60.
The fact is, the percentage of people who read for pleasure has remained remarkably stable over the past decade considering the enormous expansion of television channels and the adoption of computers and the Internet. Even more important, the demographics of book readers are healthy. Young adults are almost as likely as older Americans to be regular book readers, according to a 2004 NEA report (Reading at Risk). Forty-three percent of busy 18-to-24-year-olds have read a work of fiction in the past year, not too far below the peak of 52 percent among 45-to-54-year-olds. Contrast that 9 percentage point gap with this one: only 18 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds regularly watch network evening news compared with the peak of 56 percent among people aged 65 or older--a gap of 38 percentage points. Or this one: only 16 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds read a newspaper every day compared with 66 percent of people aged 65 or older--a gap of 50 percentage points.
Newspapers and network evening news are being supplanted by more efficient ways of getting up-to-the-minute information. Some claim electronic devices such as Kindle will replace books. But hand-held electronic devices are no more likely to replace books read for pleasure than video screens have replaced original art, virtual tours have replaced travel, or pills have replaced food.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Last of the Big Spenders
"Consumers stopped buying pretty much everything," commented the Associated Press in a news story about the 0.6 percent decline in February's retail sales. This bit of hyperbole about the $380 billion Americans spent at retailers in February is yet another example of the abysmal quality of reporting on trends in the consumer marketplace.
To put it bluntly, reporters just do not get it. They err--out of confusion or laziness--when they explain macroeconomic trends as if those trends describe the behavior of you and your neighbors. It is called anthropomorphizing, and it can be a harmless way of putting a human face on dry statistics. Not in this case. By anthropomorphizing macroeconomic trends, reporters are misleading the public about the real dynamics of the consumer marketplace.
For years, the people who bring us the news have been telling us what big spenders we are, when all along we have been cautious consumers. Now they are telling us what scrooges we are, when we are the same cautious consumers we have always been. How did reporters get so far off track?
It all started decades ago with the rise in personal consumption expenditures (PCE), a macroeconomic indicator. PCE is one of those dry statistics-the sum of all spending on consumer products and services in the United States. Between 1984 and 2006, PCE more than doubled after adjusting for inflation. Rather than explain the real reasons for the rapid growth in PCE, reporters simply anthropomorphized the trend and called Americans big spenders. In fact, average household spending grew by only 14 percent between 1984 and 2006, after adjusting for inflation--less even than the gain in real median household income. And the spending of baby boomers (the ones usually accused of being the most profligate spenders) increased by an even smaller 4 percent, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey. This modest rise in spending is even more impressive when you consider the 59 percent increase in the price of a new single-family home during those years, the 100 percent increase in the cost of college, or the 101 percent increase in out-of-pocket health insurance expenses.
Clearly, the average American has been pinching pennies all along. What accounts, then, for the ballooning PCE? To answer the question, reporters needed to look under the hood of the macroeconomic trends and discover what drove the engine. If they had bothered to look, here is what they would have found:
The population is growing. The United States is one of the fastest growing developed countries in the world, so it is only natural that aggregate consumer spending will rise each year along with the population. This does not mean you and your neighbors are spending more, however.
Boomers filled the peak spending life stage. Over the past two decades the enormous baby-boom generation filled the 35-to-54 age group, the peak spending years. Consequently, the number of affluent households reached record levels, the housing market exploded, and the nation's aggregate spending soared--even as individual households held their spending in check.
The price of stuff plummeted. The average American home has multiple television sets, closets full of clothes, and a kitchen full of appliances. Americans have more stuff because stuff is cheap. Televisions, video recorders, microwaves, dishwashers, computers, cameras--if the product uses an electrical cord or a battery, chances are it costs a fraction of what it did two decades ago. Television sets, for example, cost 85 percent less than they did in the 1980s. Falling prices have affected more than electronics. Toys cost 32 percent less, and clothing is less expensive. Just because we have more does not mean we are spending more.
Credit card payments ballooned. Consumer borrowing has grown handily over the years, but not because the average American is drowning in debt. Consumers are paying with plastic as a convenience, not an easy-money scheme. According to a Pew Research Center survey, just 31 percent of consumers carry a balance on their credit card bill. Among those who carry a balance, the median amount owed is a modest $2,200, reports the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.
The real story behind consumer spending is this: Americans did not spend foolishly when times were good. And their skill at pinching pennies may help soften the landing in the bad times that lie ahead.
To put it bluntly, reporters just do not get it. They err--out of confusion or laziness--when they explain macroeconomic trends as if those trends describe the behavior of you and your neighbors. It is called anthropomorphizing, and it can be a harmless way of putting a human face on dry statistics. Not in this case. By anthropomorphizing macroeconomic trends, reporters are misleading the public about the real dynamics of the consumer marketplace.
For years, the people who bring us the news have been telling us what big spenders we are, when all along we have been cautious consumers. Now they are telling us what scrooges we are, when we are the same cautious consumers we have always been. How did reporters get so far off track?
It all started decades ago with the rise in personal consumption expenditures (PCE), a macroeconomic indicator. PCE is one of those dry statistics-the sum of all spending on consumer products and services in the United States. Between 1984 and 2006, PCE more than doubled after adjusting for inflation. Rather than explain the real reasons for the rapid growth in PCE, reporters simply anthropomorphized the trend and called Americans big spenders. In fact, average household spending grew by only 14 percent between 1984 and 2006, after adjusting for inflation--less even than the gain in real median household income. And the spending of baby boomers (the ones usually accused of being the most profligate spenders) increased by an even smaller 4 percent, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey. This modest rise in spending is even more impressive when you consider the 59 percent increase in the price of a new single-family home during those years, the 100 percent increase in the cost of college, or the 101 percent increase in out-of-pocket health insurance expenses.
Clearly, the average American has been pinching pennies all along. What accounts, then, for the ballooning PCE? To answer the question, reporters needed to look under the hood of the macroeconomic trends and discover what drove the engine. If they had bothered to look, here is what they would have found:
The population is growing. The United States is one of the fastest growing developed countries in the world, so it is only natural that aggregate consumer spending will rise each year along with the population. This does not mean you and your neighbors are spending more, however.
Boomers filled the peak spending life stage. Over the past two decades the enormous baby-boom generation filled the 35-to-54 age group, the peak spending years. Consequently, the number of affluent households reached record levels, the housing market exploded, and the nation's aggregate spending soared--even as individual households held their spending in check.
The price of stuff plummeted. The average American home has multiple television sets, closets full of clothes, and a kitchen full of appliances. Americans have more stuff because stuff is cheap. Televisions, video recorders, microwaves, dishwashers, computers, cameras--if the product uses an electrical cord or a battery, chances are it costs a fraction of what it did two decades ago. Television sets, for example, cost 85 percent less than they did in the 1980s. Falling prices have affected more than electronics. Toys cost 32 percent less, and clothing is less expensive. Just because we have more does not mean we are spending more.
Credit card payments ballooned. Consumer borrowing has grown handily over the years, but not because the average American is drowning in debt. Consumers are paying with plastic as a convenience, not an easy-money scheme. According to a Pew Research Center survey, just 31 percent of consumers carry a balance on their credit card bill. Among those who carry a balance, the median amount owed is a modest $2,200, reports the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.
The real story behind consumer spending is this: Americans did not spend foolishly when times were good. And their skill at pinching pennies may help soften the landing in the bad times that lie ahead.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bet You Didn't Know
Percentage of high school students aged 16 to 17 who have jobs
2007: 21
2000: 30
Source: "Youth enrollment and employment during the school year," Monthly Labor Review
2007: 21
2000: 30
Source: "Youth enrollment and employment during the school year," Monthly Labor Review
Monday, February 25, 2008
New Mothers at Work
Percent of mothers who are working within 12 months of giving birth
1961-65: 17
2000-02: 64
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Dropout Rate Lower than Ever
Percentage of people aged 16 to 24 who are high school dropouts
1960: 27.2
1970: 15.0
1980: 14.1
1990: 12.1
2000: 10.9
2005: 9.4
Note: Dropouts are defined as people aged 16-to-24 who are not currently enrolled in school and have not completed a high school program.
Source: Digest of Education Statistics
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Homeownership Rate Continues to Slide
The government's annual estimates of homeownership have just been released, and the Census Bureau reports another decline in the nation's homeownership rate. The rate fell from 68.8 percent of households in 2006 to 68.1 percent in 2007. This is well below the peak homeownership rate of 69.0 percent reached in 2004.
The homeownership rate fell in almost every age group between 2004 and 2007, with the biggest loss occurring among 30-to-34-year-olds—a 3 percentage point decline. Only one age group did not see homeownership become less common during those years. The homeownership rate of 25-to-29-year-olds increased by 0.4 percentage points between 2004 and 2007.
Here are the 2007 numbers by age:
Total households: 68.1
Under age 25: 24.8
Aged 25 to 29: 40.6
Aged 30 to 34: 54.4
Aged 35 to 39: 65.0
Aged 40 to 44: 70.4
Aged 45 to 49: 74.0
Aged 50 to 54: 76.9
Aged 55 to 59: 79.9
Aged 60 to 64: 81.5
Aged 65 to 69: 81.7
Aged 70 to 74: 82.4
Aged 75 or older: 78.7
Source: Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey
Friday, January 25, 2008
Millennials are Liberal
The nation's youngest adults are the most liberal Americans. The millennial generation (the oldest of whom turn 31 this year) is the only one in which liberals outnumber conservatives. Thirty-four percent of millennials say they are slightly to extremely liberal while a smaller 30 percent say they are slightly to extremely conservative. The remaining 36 percent are moderates.
The other generations also show remarkable stability in their political viewpoints over time. And each succeeding generation is more liberal than its predecessor.
Source: General Social Survey
You might think millennials are liberal only because they are young. Not true. Political viewpoints, in fact, are remarkably stable over a lifetime. Take the baby-boom generation, for example. Today, 25 percent of boomers say they are liberal. Twenty years ago, when boomers were in their twenties and thirties, almost the same proportion (27 percent) identified themselves as liberal. Today, 35 percent of boomers say they are conservative, nearly equal to the 36 percent who called themselves conservative two decades ago.
The other generations also show remarkable stability in their political viewpoints over time. And each succeeding generation is more liberal than its predecessor.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Fewer Self-Employed
So much for America's entrepreneurial spirit. Self-employment is disappearing in the United States as workers cry uncle in the health insurance wrestling match. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics' projections, the percentage of non-agricultural workers who are self-employed will fall even lower than its current miniscule level of 6.7 percent during the next ten years.
Interestingly, the BLS foresees this decline despite the baby-boom generation's entry into the prime age of self-employment: 65-plus. People aged 65 or older are more likely to be self-employed than younger adults because Medicare—the universal health insurance program for the nation's elderly—solves their health insurance problem.
The projected decline in self-employment despite the aging of boomers means only one thing: self-employment among younger Americans will drop to rock-bottom levels as Americans become contortionists in their hunt for affordable health care coverage.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Where the Jobs Are
Every two years the Bureau of Labor Statistics produces a new set of occupational projections, looking ten years into the future. The list of fastest-growing occupations says a lot about our demographics, economy, and culture. These are some of the 30 occupations projected to grow the fastest between 2006 and 2016:
Home health aides
Computer software engineers
Veterinarians
Personal financial advisors
Skin care specialists
Gaming surveillance officers
Marriage and family therapists
Environmental science technicians
Manicurists and pedicurists
Physical therapists
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Hispanic Births Surpass 1 Million
The number of births to Hispanics surpassed 1 million for the first time in 2006, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Of the 4,265,996 babies born in the United States last year, 1,039,051 were Hispanic.
Since 2000, the annual number of births to Hispanics has grown by more than 200,000. The Hispanic share of births has climbed from 20 to 24 percent.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Preliminary Data for 2006
More Use Cell Phones Only
Almost one-third of young adults aged 25 to 29 are cell phone only users, with no landline phone at home. The figure reached 31 percent this year--up from 10 percent just three years ago, according to a study by the National Center for Health Statistics. Among 20-to-24-year-olds, a substantial 28 percent have only cell phones.
Older Americans are less inclined to give up their landline phone. Only 13 percent of people aged 30 to 44 use cell phones only. The figure falls to 7 percent among 45-to-64-year-olds, and is a small 2 percent among people aged 65 or older. But change may be on the way. The latest spending statistics from the 2006 Consumer Expenditure Survey show both young and middle-aged householders spending more on cell phone than landline phone service. Only householders aged 55 or older still devote more of their dollars to landline phones.
The latest report shows 80 percent of American children and 76 percent of adults in households with at least one cell phone.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution, January--June 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Who Upholds the Constitution?
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, a shockingly small percentage of Americans uphold the rights granted to them by the Constitution. Only the nation's African Americans are unwilling to give the government free rein in the War on Terror.
More than one-third of African Americans have personally experienced an abuse of power by government authorities. Thirty-seven percent of blacks say they have been unfairly stopped by police, according to one survey. This might explain why blacks are more likely than whites to support the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Blacks are much less likely than whites to believe the government should have the right to randomly stop and search people on the street. More than two-thirds of blacks (68 percent) say the government probably or definitely should not have the right to do this, according to the 2006 General Social Survey. Among whites, a smaller 56 percent think authorities probably or definitely should not have the right to randomly stop and search people on the street.
Blacks are much more likely than whites to object to the government's tapping of people's telephone conversations, with 59 percent saying the government probably or definitely should not have the right to do this. In contrast, only 40 percent of whites think the government should be prohibited from tapping telephone lines.
Blacks, but not whites, also uphold the principal of habeas corpus. The 53 percent majority of blacks think the authorities should not have the right to detain people for as long as they want without a trial. Among whites, only 43 percent think the government should not be allowed to throw people in jail indefinitely.
More than one-third of African Americans have personally experienced an abuse of power by government authorities. Thirty-seven percent of blacks say they have been unfairly stopped by police, according to one survey. This might explain why blacks are more likely than whites to support the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Blacks are much less likely than whites to believe the government should have the right to randomly stop and search people on the street. More than two-thirds of blacks (68 percent) say the government probably or definitely should not have the right to do this, according to the 2006 General Social Survey. Among whites, a smaller 56 percent think authorities probably or definitely should not have the right to randomly stop and search people on the street.
Blacks are much more likely than whites to object to the government's tapping of people's telephone conversations, with 59 percent saying the government probably or definitely should not have the right to do this. In contrast, only 40 percent of whites think the government should be prohibited from tapping telephone lines.
Blacks, but not whites, also uphold the principal of habeas corpus. The 53 percent majority of blacks think the authorities should not have the right to detain people for as long as they want without a trial. Among whites, only 43 percent think the government should not be allowed to throw people in jail indefinitely.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Parents Are in a Frenzy
Test scores alone are no longer enough to get your kid into the top tier colleges. College admissions officials now demand extracurriculars on top of good grades and high test scores. What a boondoggle for the rich.
Affluent parents have lunged at the chance to improve their children's resumes by signing them up for sports, clubs, and lessons. According to the latest Census Bureau report on children's well-being, the percentage of teenagers from the highest income families (with annual incomes of $72,000 or more) who participate in extracurriculars has soared. The percentage in sports climbed from 54 to 59 percent between 2003 and 2004 (the latest data available). The percentage in clubs increased from 42 to 51 percent. The percentage taking lessons grew from 40 to 46 percent.
Left behind are the nation's poor. A shrinking share of teenagers from the lowest-income families (annual incomes below $18,000) participate in extracurriculars. Only 22 percent are in sports, 20 percent are in clubs, and 16 percent take lessons. What prevents poor children from participating? Money, for one. Poor families cannot afford the fees. Transportation is another factor. Many poor children do not have a car or driver available. Time is the third factor. Single parents head many poor families, and they have little free time to chauffeur their children from one activity to another.
Too bad for them. The gap between rich and poor is growing, aided and abetted by the nation's college admissions policies.
For more about the well-being of the nation's children see the Census Bureau report A Child's Day.
Affluent parents have lunged at the chance to improve their children's resumes by signing them up for sports, clubs, and lessons. According to the latest Census Bureau report on children's well-being, the percentage of teenagers from the highest income families (with annual incomes of $72,000 or more) who participate in extracurriculars has soared. The percentage in sports climbed from 54 to 59 percent between 2003 and 2004 (the latest data available). The percentage in clubs increased from 42 to 51 percent. The percentage taking lessons grew from 40 to 46 percent.
Left behind are the nation's poor. A shrinking share of teenagers from the lowest-income families (annual incomes below $18,000) participate in extracurriculars. Only 22 percent are in sports, 20 percent are in clubs, and 16 percent take lessons. What prevents poor children from participating? Money, for one. Poor families cannot afford the fees. Transportation is another factor. Many poor children do not have a car or driver available. Time is the third factor. Single parents head many poor families, and they have little free time to chauffeur their children from one activity to another.
Too bad for them. The gap between rich and poor is growing, aided and abetted by the nation's college admissions policies.
For more about the well-being of the nation's children see the Census Bureau report A Child's Day.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Homeowners Are Stuck
Paralysis in the housing market can be diagnosed in the latest statistics on geographic mobility. Fewer homeowners moved between 2005 and 2006 than in the previous 12-month period, according to the Census Bureau. The number who moved dropped by 888,000, and the percentage who moved fell from 7.5 to 7.1 percent.
Although the Census Bureau's latest mobility statistics show no statistically significant change in the nation's mobility rate since the previous report (with 14 percent of Americans moving during each 12-month period), the overall stability masks diverging trends in mobility rates by homeownership status. While the latest report finds homeowners less likely to move, the opposite is true for renters. The number of renters who moved between 2005 and 2006 climbed by 837,000 over the previous 12-month period, and the percentage who moved grew from 30.2 to 30.5 percent.
For more about the nation's movers, see the Census Bureau's latest geographic mobility report.
Although the Census Bureau's latest mobility statistics show no statistically significant change in the nation's mobility rate since the previous report (with 14 percent of Americans moving during each 12-month period), the overall stability masks diverging trends in mobility rates by homeownership status. While the latest report finds homeowners less likely to move, the opposite is true for renters. The number of renters who moved between 2005 and 2006 climbed by 837,000 over the previous 12-month period, and the percentage who moved grew from 30.2 to 30.5 percent.
For more about the nation's movers, see the Census Bureau's latest geographic mobility report.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Health Insurance Coverage Has Fallen
There is more bad news emerging from the 2007 Current Population Survey results. The percentage of people without health insurance climbed to 15.8 percent in 2006, up from 15.3 percent in 2005. The number of people without health insurance increased to 47 million, up by 2 million during the past year.
What explains the growing proportion of Americans without health insurance? Behind the increase is the loss of private, employment-based coverage, the foundation of our health insurance system. Only 59.7 percent of the population had employment-based health insurance in 2006, down from 64 percent a few years ago. Only 9 percent of Americans privately purchase health insurance, an all-time low. Medicaid (the government's health insurance program for the poor) covers 13 percent of the population, and Medicare (the government's health insurance program for the elderly) covers 14 percent.
The percentage of people without health insurance ranges from a low of 11 percent among non-Hispanic whites to a high of 34 percent among Hispanics. Among children under age 18, the percentage without health insurance climbed from 10.9 to 11.7 percent between 2005 and 2006. Perhaps most disturbing, the percentage of people aged 55 to 64 who do not have health insurance climbed to 12.7 percent in 2006. In this age group, health problems not only become more frequent, but also more costly.
The percentage of Americans without health insurance grew in every household income group, with middle-income households experiencing the biggest increase. Fourteen percent of Americans with household incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 do not have health insurance.
For more about health insurance coverage, see the Census Bureau report.
What explains the growing proportion of Americans without health insurance? Behind the increase is the loss of private, employment-based coverage, the foundation of our health insurance system. Only 59.7 percent of the population had employment-based health insurance in 2006, down from 64 percent a few years ago. Only 9 percent of Americans privately purchase health insurance, an all-time low. Medicaid (the government's health insurance program for the poor) covers 13 percent of the population, and Medicare (the government's health insurance program for the elderly) covers 14 percent.
The percentage of people without health insurance ranges from a low of 11 percent among non-Hispanic whites to a high of 34 percent among Hispanics. Among children under age 18, the percentage without health insurance climbed from 10.9 to 11.7 percent between 2005 and 2006. Perhaps most disturbing, the percentage of people aged 55 to 64 who do not have health insurance climbed to 12.7 percent in 2006. In this age group, health problems not only become more frequent, but also more costly.
The percentage of Americans without health insurance grew in every household income group, with middle-income households experiencing the biggest increase. Fourteen percent of Americans with household incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 do not have health insurance.
For more about health insurance coverage, see the Census Bureau report.
Earnings Are Down
This morning the Census Bureau released the latest report on the finances of American households—the results of the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Taken every March, the Census Bureau releases the survey's findings at this time each year, tracking income, health insurance, and poverty trends. The findings might not attract as much media attention as the stock market's ups and downs, but they are probably a more important indicator of the health of the economy.
And it is not looking good. This year's results are disturbing. To find the trouble spots, you have to look beyond the headlines. Here is my analysis of the numbers.
Median household income in 2006 stood at $48,201, a 0.7 percent increase since 2005 after adjusting for inflation. This sounds good until you consider the following: The 2006 median is still 2.1 percent below the peak reached in 1999, after adjusting for inflation.
The number of households with incomes of $100,000 or more is at a record high. The share of households with six-figure incomes reached 19.1 percent in 2006. This sounds promising, but here's the hitch: Workers are losing ground. Household incomes are growing only because more people are working full-time. In fact, earnings are falling for American workers. The $42,261 median earnings of men working full-time in 2006 were 1.1 percent less than in 2005, after adjusting for inflation. Men's earnings today are 5 percent below their peak, reached decades ago in 1978. Women with full-time jobs are also losing ground. Their median earnings of $32,515 in 2006 were also 1 percent less than in 2005, after adjusting for inflation.
How could household incomes grow as earnings fall? This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that the average household has more earners than ever before. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of households grew by 1.6 million, but the number of full-time workers expanded by nearly 3 million. Household incomes are rising because Americans are working harder to keep up with the rising cost of living.
For more about the latest income statistics, see the Census Bureau report.
And it is not looking good. This year's results are disturbing. To find the trouble spots, you have to look beyond the headlines. Here is my analysis of the numbers.
Median household income in 2006 stood at $48,201, a 0.7 percent increase since 2005 after adjusting for inflation. This sounds good until you consider the following: The 2006 median is still 2.1 percent below the peak reached in 1999, after adjusting for inflation.
The number of households with incomes of $100,000 or more is at a record high. The share of households with six-figure incomes reached 19.1 percent in 2006. This sounds promising, but here's the hitch: Workers are losing ground. Household incomes are growing only because more people are working full-time. In fact, earnings are falling for American workers. The $42,261 median earnings of men working full-time in 2006 were 1.1 percent less than in 2005, after adjusting for inflation. Men's earnings today are 5 percent below their peak, reached decades ago in 1978. Women with full-time jobs are also losing ground. Their median earnings of $32,515 in 2006 were also 1 percent less than in 2005, after adjusting for inflation.
How could household incomes grow as earnings fall? This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that the average household has more earners than ever before. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of households grew by 1.6 million, but the number of full-time workers expanded by nearly 3 million. Household incomes are rising because Americans are working harder to keep up with the rising cost of living.
For more about the latest income statistics, see the Census Bureau report.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Letters on the Decline
Number of first-class letters mailed in the United States...
1994: 55 billion
2006: 42 billion
Source: United States Postal Service, Revenues, Pieces, and Weights Report
1994: 55 billion
2006: 42 billion
Source: United States Postal Service, Revenues, Pieces, and Weights Report
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Maybe Schools Are Not So Bad
Percentage of Americans who give
the nation's public schools a grade of A or B: 21
Percentage of public school parents who give
the school their oldest child attends a grade of A or B: 64
Source: Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools
the nation's public schools a grade of A or B: 21
Percentage of public school parents who give
the school their oldest child attends a grade of A or B: 64
Source: Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools
How Does Your Salary Compare?
Now you can find out. Let's say you are a librarian in Chicago, and you are wondering how your pay stacks up against the wages of your colleagues in the metropolitan area. The answer is only a click away at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Wages by Area and Occupation web site. Click on "Metropolitan Area Wage Data for 375 Metropolitan Statistical Areas," scroll down to Illinois, then click on "Chicago-Naperville-Joliet IL-IN-WI." Once there, scroll down to "Librarians" in the occupation list (under Education, Training, and Library Occupations), and you will see you are one of 5,460 librarians in the Chicago metro area.
Librarians in Chicago earned an annual average of $57,560 as of May 2006. If you want to know where you might get paid more, click on the "Librarians" link, which will take you to a page revealing that librarians get paid the most in San Jose, California—an average of $69,360. (Of course, housing prices are higher there too.) Get fun facts like these for any occupation from this enormously entertaining site.
Librarians in Chicago earned an annual average of $57,560 as of May 2006. If you want to know where you might get paid more, click on the "Librarians" link, which will take you to a page revealing that librarians get paid the most in San Jose, California—an average of $69,360. (Of course, housing prices are higher there too.) Get fun facts like these for any occupation from this enormously entertaining site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)