The New Population Projections

The most interesting thing about the Census Bureau's new population projections, released today, is the huge increase in the projected Hispanic population compared with the numbers produced by the bureau just four years ago. The bureau foresees a total population of 439 million in 2050, up from 420 million in the earlier projection series. A larger Hispanic population accounts for the difference.

The Census Bureau now expects the Hispanic population to expand to 133 million by 2050, up from 103 million Hispanics projected for 2050 in the earlier series. Hispanics should account for 30 percent of Americans in 2050, according to the new projections, up from the 24 percent projected in the old series and double the 15 percent share of today.

The non-Hispanic white population, in contrast, will not grow as much as previously projected. The 210 million non-Hispanic whites which the bureau had projected for 2050 (50.1 percent of the population) has been reduced to 203 million in the new projections (46.3 percent of the population).

In the year 2050, 40 percent of babies born in the United States will be Hispanic, and only 37 percent will be non-Hispanic white.

Source: Census Bureau, 2008 National Population Projections

A New Look at Families

The percentage of children living with two parents leaped upwards between 2006 and 2007, rising from 67.4 to 70.7 percent. But this increase was not due to improving relationships between husbands and wives. Instead, for the first time, the Census Bureau is including unmarried couples in the two-parent count. Among the nation's 74 million children under age 18, slightly more than 2 million live with two unmarried parents. These children were formerly categorized as living with only one parent.

Here is the percentage of children living with:

Two married parents, 67.8
Two unmarried parents, 2.9
Mother only, 22.6
Father only, 3.2
No parent, 3.5

Overall, 95 percent of children live with at least one biological parent, 6 percent live with a step-parent, and 2 percent live with an adoptive parent.

Source: Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements, 2007

Peak Time of Day

The American Time Use Survey continues to amaze as it lays bare the details of our daily lives. Here are calculations based on time use data collected from 2003 through 2007. Shown below are the times at which the largest percentage of Americans aged 15 or older participate in the following primary (main) activities on an average day:

sleeping, 3 am, 94 percent
working, 11 am, 31 percent
eating and drinking, noon, 18 percent
shopping, 2 pm, 4 percent
food preparation and cleanup, 6 pm, 8 percent
socializing and communicating, 7 pm, 7 percent
watching television, 9 pm, 34 percent

Source: American Time Use Survey

The End of Early Retirement

Early retirement is no longer the norm. The proportion of workers who collect retired-worker benefits from Social Security beginning at age 62 has fallen sharply, according to a Center for Retirement Research cohort analysis.

Among men, the percentage who start collecting Social Security benefits at age 62 fell from 51 percent in 1985 to 43 percent in 2006. Among women, the figure fell from 62 to 48 percent during those years.

Source: Are People Claiming Social Security Benefits Later? Dan Muldoon and Richard W. Kopcke, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College

How Many Use Public Transportation?

Billions and billions. Public transit ridership reached an all-time high of 10.3 billion trips in 2007, according to the American Public Transportation Association. This is the highest level in 50 years, brags the APTA. Not to rain on their parade, but the U.S. population is also larger than ever, so it is only natural that the use of public transportation should be up. A more promising APTA statistic is this: the use of public transportation has grown 32 percent since 1995, more than double the 15 percent gain in population.

Still, the percentage of Americans who use public transportation is pitifully small. Overall, only 5 percent of the nation's workers use public transit to get to work, according to the 2006 American Community Survey. There is a good reason for this lack of use. Only 54 percent of households in the United States have public transportation available in their area, according to the American Community Survey. Narrow the focus to homeowners, and the numbers are even smaller. Only 47 percent of homeowners have access to public transportation. The figure is a higher 69 percent for renters, who are more likely to live in urban areas.

These numbers were collected a few years ago and are undoubtedly higher today. But not much higher. It takes years to get public transportation systems up and running. And we have another problem. The United States is the third largest country in the world. To make public transportation work here will require an enormous financial commitment at a time when the economy is already severely stressed. The way gasoline prices are rising, however, we may have no other choice.

Trapped in Gasoline Ghettos

OK, this is bad. The rapid rise in the price of gas is turning the nation's far-flung rural and suburban areas into gasoline ghettos, locking millions of Americans into houses they cannot sell, far from their jobs, with little hope of escape.

Even before prices soared, gasoline consumed a large portion of the household budget. In 2006--the most recent year for which there is household spending data--gasoline ranked sixth among items on which the average household spends the most. Back then, the average price of a gallon of gas was less than $3.00. Those were the good old days. With gasoline now above $4.00 a gallon, it is likely the fourth most costly item in the household budget, behind only Social Security deductions, mortgage interest (or rent), and car payments.

This is worse than ouch. Gasoline is the blood supply of the sprawling American lifestyle. Here are the facts: most of us drive to work, and three out of four workers drive to work alone. The average commuter spends 25 minutes getting to his job. Many are in the car much longer. Twenty-one percent of workers live 20 or more miles from their place of work. Among the unlucky workers who live in newer homes (built in the past four years), an even larger 29 percent live at least 20 miles from their work, according to the American Housing Survey.

Those newer homes are the epicenter of the housing crisis because of their distance from jobs. According to an analysis (pdf download) by David Stiff, chief economist for Fiserv Lending Solutions, single-family home prices are falling the most in areas farthest from employment centers. "Because of sharp increases in gasoline prices, living closer to work has become an even more important consideration in the location decisions of homebuyers," says Stiff. He maps housing price changes from the price peak through the first half of 2007 in two metropolitan areas, showing how prices in Los Angeles and Boston have fallen the most in the outer rings. The future doesn't look bright either. "When combined with large inventories of unsold housing on the edges of urban areas, this shift in preferences will mean that prices for homes in outlying neighborhoods will continue their more rapid decline and will be slower to rebound when housing markets finally start to recover."

On top of this bad news, most of the millions living in gasoline ghettos have no alternative but to drive. Only 54 percent of households in the United States have access to public transportation, according to the American Housing Survey. Among homeowners, the figure is a smaller 47 percent. Among homeowners in newer houses--the houses in exurban rings--just 27 percent have public transportation in their area.

If we are lucky, the spike in gasoline prices is only a bubble, which will deflate once speculators withdraw from the market, or the summer driving season ends, or a new administration is in the White House. The bursting of an oil price bubble will give us time to prepare for the permanent era of expensive gasoline. We will have time to build more efficient vehicles, encourage people to live closer to job centers, and invest in public transportation. If we are not lucky, then we have run out of time, and we are about to feel the fury of all those trapped many miles from stores, schools, and jobs.

How Green Are We?

Are you kidding? Americans have a long way to go before they show the slightest hint of green. The first results from the federal government's Residential Energy Consumption Survey released a few weeks ago reveal how much energy households use--and waste. The survey, taken every five years, asks households about their heating and cooling practices, electronics ownership, and appliance use. The latest results are from the 2005 survey--admittedly a bit dated, but the U.S. housing stock is so massive that these numbers change slowly. Here is the bad news.

AIR CONDITIONING

• Only 16 percent of American households are not air-conditioned. Fifty-nine percent have central air conditioning, and another 26 percent have window or wall units.
  
• Sixty-one percent of households with central air-conditioning run the system all summer.
  
• Only 48 percent of homes with central air-conditioning have large trees that shade their house.
  

HEATING

• Twenty-four percent of homes have high ceilings, which require more energy to heat.
  
• Only 19 percent of all homes use a programmable thermostat to reduce temperature settings at night.
  
• Forty percent say their home is drafty in the winter.
  

APPLIANCES

• Fifty-eight percent of households have a dishwasher, 79 percent have a clothes dryer, 83 percent have a clothes washer, and everyone has a refrigerator.
  
• Twenty-two percent of homes have two or more refrigerators.
  

TELEVISION

• Virtually every household (99 percent) has at least one color television set. Seventy-eight percent have at least two sets, and 43 percent have three or more.
  
• Half of households have their television turned on most or all of the time.
  

Ten All-American Traits

In the run-up to the November election, we are engaged--once again--in ritual self-analysis. Who are the American people? What do we believe? How will our national identity play out in the election?

For the answers, let's peer into the statistical mirror--the General Social Survey. The GSS has been reflecting the American identity for more than 30 years. The most recent results from the 2006 survey reveal the good, the bad, and the ugly of the American identity. Take a look.

1. We are tough. Among the world's nations, the United States ranks number one in prisoners per capita, yet

68 percent of Americans still think the courts
are not harsh enough on criminals.

And our toughness extends well beyond law enforcement.

72 percent agree that it is sometimes necessary
to discipline a child with a "good, hard spanking."


2. We want it both ways. Fully 63 percent of the public wants to cut the government's purse strings. Only 13 percent oppose spending cuts. But when asked what we should cut, our enthusiasm wanes. These are the percentages of Americans who want to cut spending by specific program area:

education: 4
health care: 6
retirement benefits: 7
law enforcement: 8
environment: 13
natural disasters: 14
military: 26
arts: 30


3. We are careless. Americans are forever thumping their chests with pride, and the one thing we boast about the most is our freedom. Yet the majority of Americans are willing to give up that freedom without much of a fight:

56 percent think the government probably or definitely
should have the right to jail people without a trial.


4. We are religious. Among the world's developed countries, the United States stands alone in its religiosity.

59 percent pray at least once a day.
Only 50 percent believe in evolution.


5. We are hard working. In fact, we are workaholics. This may explain why American workers have so little vacation time compared to their European counterparts and why we do not demand more time off:

70 percent would continue to work even if rich.


6. We are diverse. The Census Bureau continually tells us how diverse we are, but does it matter much anymore? GSS results suggest that the racial divide is not so big after all:

74 percent of blacks have trusted white friends.
52 percent of whites have trusted black friends.

54 percent of blacks have white family members.
20 percent of whites have black family members.


7. We are alienated. Americans do not have warm and fuzzy feelings toward public officials or their fellow citizens:

Only 35 percent say politicians are interested
in the problems of the average person.

Only 32 percent believe most people can be trusted.

80 percent believe others will take advantage of you
if you are not careful.


8. We are uptight. Americans have a well-deserved reputation for being prudish about sex:

Only 46 percent believe premarital sex is not wrong at all.
Only 32 percent believe homosexuality is not wrong at all.

But we are also practical:

89 percent support sex education in the public schools.
54 percent think teens should have access to birth control.


9. We like to stay put. Americans live in the third largest country in the world, but they restrict themselves to a very small portion of it.

38 percent still live in the same city they lived in at age 16.
62 percent live in the same state they lived in at age 16.


10. We still dream. Perhaps the single defining characteristic of Americans in both good times and bad is our steadfast belief in the American Dream:

69 percent say hard work, rather than luck or connections,
determines success.

70 percent say the United States gives people like them
the opportunity to improve their standard of living.

Census Bureau Eliminates Income Table

If you want to know how family income affects college enrollment, the Census Bureau no longer has the answers. The bureau eliminated table 14, showing the college enrollment status of 18-to-24-year-olds by family income, from its school enrollment tabulations.

Year after year, this table has tracked the disparities in college enrollment by family income. Now we just have to guess.

Source: Bureau of the Census, School Enrollment

Only 16 Percent Exercise

Here is the latest nugget from the American Time Use Survey: only 16 percent of Americans exercise on an average day.

The time use survey, which started in 2003, records the minute-by-minute activities of a representative sample of Americans on an average day. Now that the survey has collected four years worth of data, analysts at the Bureau of Labor Statistics are combining years and coming up with a large enough sample size to reliably examine activities in which few Americans engage. Unfortunately, exercise is one of those infrequent activities. Here are a few of the highlights from the Sports and Exercise study, which examines data from 2003 through 2006.

• Among the 25 activities included in the time use survey, walking is most popular among exercisers (30 percent), followed by weightlifting (13 percent), using cardiovascular equipment (13 percent), swimming (8 percent), and running (7 percent).

• Women account for 57 percent of walkers, 42 percent of runners.

• People under age 25 account for 7 percent of walkers and 31 percent of runners.

• More than half of those exercising (52 percent) did so alone.

Source: Spotlight on Statistics: Sports and Exercise

Golf Course Fatalities

If you have ever wondered where your tax dollars go, you can rest assured that at least a few cents go toward collecting and analyzing information about every death in the United States. No death is unworthy of the government's attention, including the 106 workers who died at a golf course between 2001 and 2006. During the six years of data analyzed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual number of workers dying at a golf course ranged from 11 to 24. The largest share of fatalities (33) were nonhighway vehicle accidents—9 of them overturned lawnmowers. Other causes of death included falling, trench collapse, getting struck by a falling object (a golf ball perhaps?), and even airplane accidents. The report notes that any deaths occurring at miniature golf courses were not included in the analysis. Nearly half (51) of those killed in golf-course related incidents worked in landscaping. One-third were Hispanic. Source: Fatal Occupational Injuries Associated with Golf Courses and Country Clubs, 2001-2006

Why We Are Bitter

Americans are bummed out--some might even call us bitter. When asked whether the country is on the right track, a record 81 percent of the public says it has veered off course, according to a recent New York Times survey. The Reuters/University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment for April finds consumer confidence at the lowest level since 1982. The percentage of Americans who tell the Gallup daily tracking poll that economic conditions in the country are getting worse, at 85 percent in mid-April, is close to an all-time high.

The roots of our bitterness run much deeper than the housing slump or credit crisis. The roots lie in the circumstances of the nation's primary breadwinners--men. Men's earnings are not keeping pace with inflation. This problem started more than two decades ago, but until recently American families have been singing and dancing up the yellow brick road as they made their way to the Emerald City--the American Dream.

Among men working year-round, full-time, median earnings stood at $42,261 in 2006 (the latest data available). But here is the problem: The average man earns less today than he did in 1986, when his median earnings were $44,303 (in 2006 dollars). Between 1986 and 2006, then, the median earnings of the average man with a full-time job fell by more than $2,000, a 5 percent decline. Blue-collar workers are not the only ones who have felt the pinch, either. After years of steadily rising wages, the median earnings of college-educated men peaked in 2002. Their earnings have fallen 3 percent since then.

Until recently, Americans have been largely unaware of these worrisome trends because women's growing incomes hid the decline in men's earnings. Between 1986 and 2006, the median earnings of women who work full-time grew 14 percent, after adjusting for inflation. That earnings growth not only masked the decline in men's earnings, it also boosted household incomes to record highs. Women were proud of their jobs. Men were proud of their family's rising standard of living.

Now we have reached the end of the road. We are at the Emerald City, but something is not right. Women's median earnings peaked in 2002 and have fallen 4 percent since then. Just when we thought we had achieved the American Dream, the curtain has fallen away from the Wizard and revealed him to be nothing more than our own ever-harder work. Our standard of living has been rising all these years not because workers are earning more, but because households are sending more workers into the labor force. There is nobody left to earn an additional paycheck unless we put our children to work. Median household income peaked in 1999, but costs continue to rise. In a world where globalization and technological change are rewriting the rules, Americans have finally noticed that they are not in Kansas anymore.

Voting Clout

Which generation will have the most clout in the 2008 presidential election? Although younger voters are becoming more important, the baby-boom generation will still cast the largest share of votes. Here is how the votes will stack up in November:

Millennial: 19 percent
Gen X: 20 percent
Boomer: 38 percent
Older: 23 percent

Millennial and gen X voters will be outnumbered by both boomers and the older generation. Together, however, the political clout of the two younger generations will exceed even that of the baby-boom generation itself.

Source: Numbers based on voting rates by age in 2004 and projections of the population for 2008, Census Bureau

Most Homeowners Are Not in Trouble

"Tapped-Out Consumers" was the recent headline in a Business Week article about the unfolding housing crisis. The New York Times chimed in with the sweeping claim that "Everyone from first-time homebuyers to Wall Street chief executives made bets they did not fully understand, and then spent money as if those bets couldn't go bad."

Everyone made bets? Time out. Let's check those breathless reports from the front lines of the housing crisis.

In fact, the unfolding housing crisis is hurting only a tiny percentage of homeowners. To get a realistic perspective, you have to look beyond the numerator--the people in trouble. You must also consider the denominator--the total number of homeowners. The denominator is HUGE. Last year there were 75 million homeowners in the United States. Few of them are in trouble.

Here's why: nearly one-third of the nation's homeowners--24 million--own their home free and clear, according to the latest statistics from the American Community Survey. That means they have no mortgage, no home equity loans, and are in no danger of foreclosure. While the decline in housing values may make them uncomfortable, it will not affect their bottom line unless, for some reason, they have to sell their house before housing prices resume their historically slow upward climb.

Things are not all that bad for the 51 million homeowners with a mortgage either. Most have managed their asset wisely. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the nation's financial institutions, which is the reason our economy is on the brink of recession. Let's look at the facts.

1. Most homeowners with a mortgage have a traditional loan. Fully 81 percent of homeowners with a mortgage have a fixed-rate loan, and their median interest rate is just 6 percent according to the American Housing Survey.

2. Most homeowners have a substantial cushion of equity in their home, a cushion that will protect them from all but the most catastrophic price drops. Homeowners with a mortgage owe, on average, only 55 percent of their home's value--leaving room for a substantial price decline before they are in hot water.

3. Most homeowners have NOT used their home as an ATM machine. Only 13 percent of the nation's 75 million homeowners even have a home equity loan, according to the American Community Survey. This fact bears repeating because the media narrative has "everyone" spending down their housing equity on granite countertops and large-screen TVs. To repeat, more than 85 percent of the nation's homeowners do NOT have a home equity loan.

Of course, in a housing market as large as ours, even a small percentage in trouble means millions are drowning. The American Housing Survey reveals that only 3 percent of homeowners owe more than their house is worth, for example, but that 3 percent amounts to 2.5 million homeowners. Even so, these numbers are a far cry from "everyone." Everyone did not make foolish bets, but the unfolding crisis shows that everyone will be hurt by the few homeowners and the many financial institutions that did.

What's Wrong with Young People?

By now everyone has heard that teenagers and young adults do not know much about history, cannot locate Ohio on a map, and spend way too much time texting when they should be doing more important things--like listening to their elders lecture them about their many shortcomings.

Who can blame them for not listening? For some reason, it is always the young--not the old--who are being told of their failings. The old have been complaining about the young since time immemorial. But turnabout is fair play, so let's explore for a moment whether older Americans are as wise and industrious as they pretend to be. Here are three stories about old folks that could be in the news:

Glued to the Tube: Why Can't the Elderly Find Something Better to Do?
Results from a national survey reveal that older Americans have a serious addiction to television. The latest American Time Use Survey shows that people aged 65 or older spend one-fourth of their waking hours watching television as their primary activity, far more than any other age group. People aged 65 to 74 spend 3.83 hours a day watching TV. For those aged 75 or older, the figure is an even larger 4.18 hours--twice as much time as young adults spend watching TV. For expert advice on what is behind this potentially harmful addiction to television, we turn to--

Technophobes: Irrational Fear Grips Older Americans as Times Change
Health experts have detected a new syndrome infecting Americans aged 55 and older. The syndrome manifests itself as a fear of pushing buttons and prevents millions from adopting modern conveniences such as cell phones, computers, and the Internet. With nearly every young adult online and using a cell phone, the young are increasingly frustrated and alarmed at the unwillingness of the older generations to communicate with them. "What's up?" ask young people. Only 37 percent of people aged 65 or older are online, according to Pew Internet & American Life Project. Cell phone ownership is also abysmally low in the age group. Psychologists have so far been unable to explain--

Whoa! Say Older Adults--Why They Impede Scientific Progress
A new study reveals that older Americans are wary of science. According to results of the 2006 General Social Survey, most people aged 60 or older agree with the statement, "Science makes our way of life change too fast." A much smaller 40 percent of young adults agree. What is behind the attitude gap? Some say education, since young adults are much better educated than older Americans. Most young adults have been to college, while few older Americans have any college experience. Yet, because of their high voting rate, older generations determine science funding in the United States. The only way to resolve this conflict--

These stories are just as newsworthy as the ones detailing the failures of young adults, but you won't see them in the news anytime soon. Why? Because older generations, not young adults, decide what makes the news.

What's in Store for Books?

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.

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.

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

New Mothers at Work

Percent of mothers who are working within 12 months of giving birth

1961-65: 17

2000-02: 64

Source: Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns, 1961-2003

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

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

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.

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. 

Source: General Social Survey

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

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

For more on the gainers and losers, see the November issue of the Monthly Labor Review. 

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

Strange Questions

Percentage of Americans who know someone named Kevin: 67.

Source: 2006 General Social Survey

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Wanted: Spouse with Health Insurance

Eighty-five percent of Americans have health insurance, and 60 percent are covered by an employer-provided health insurance plan, according to the Census Bureau. These figures are well known and somewhat reassuring.

What is not so well known is how few of us are covered by our own employer's plan. Only 32 percent of Americans have health insurance through their own employer. Everyone else is piggybacking, getting coverage through a spouse or parent and just a divorce or birthday away from having no coverage at all.

Source: Bureau of the Census, Health Insurance Tables

National Pride

Percentage of Americans who "strongly agree" that America is a better country than most other countries...

Aged 18 to 29: 25
Aged 65 or older: 52

Source: General Social Survey

Cell Phone Bias

Sometimes the most interesting bits of information come from the most unlikely places. The latest update on cell phone use is contained in recently released estimates from the federal government's National Health Interview Survey. The stunning finding: As of the last six months of 2006, fully 29 percent of adults aged 25 to 29 are cell-phone-only users and have no landline phone. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, the proportion is 25 percent.

The abandonment of landline phones by young adults has occurred with alarming speed. The percentage of 25-to-29-year-olds with cell phones only more than tripled in the past three years, rising from just 8 percent in 2003. Survey researchers are worried. The rise of cell-phone-only households will skew results of random-digit-dial telephone surveys, they fear. "Coverage bias may exist if there are differences between persons with and without landline telephones," the report concludes.

How's this for potential bias:
(percentage of people aged 18 or older with cell phones only, by age, 2006)

Aged 18 to 24: 25
Aged 25 to 29: 29
Aged 30 to 44: 12
Aged 45 to 64: 6
Aged 65-or-older: 2

For Some, College Is the Biggest Worry

When it comes to money, what worries you the most? When Gallup asked Americans this question, retirement ranked number one. Fifty-six percent of the public is "very" or "moderately" worried about not having enough money for retirement.

Financial concerns vary by lifestage, however. The number-one financial concern of parents with children under age 18 is not having enough money to pay for their children's college expenses. Fully 68 percent of parents say they are very or moderately worried about college costs. Unlike every other financial concern, the percentage who worry about college costs does not decline as household income rises.

Avoiding the Dentist

Working-age Americans are going to the dentist less frequently. The percentage of people aged 20 to 64 who have been to a dentist in the past year fell from 66 percent in 1988-94 to a smaller 60 percent in 1999-04, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

What explains the decline in dental care? One factor is the increasingly exhorbitant cost of a dental visit. Many Americans do not have dental insurance. Those with insurance are often dismayed to discover that it pays only pittance, leaving dental patients footing most of the bill out-of-pocket.

Perhaps because they are less likely to see a dentist, the percentage of adults who say their teeth are in excellent or very good condition fell from 30 to 26 percent during the years of the study.

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of households with access to
public transportation in their neighborhood

American: 54
German: 85

Source: Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Housing Survey and GESIS (German Social Sciences Infrastructure Services)

The Big Three

According to estimates by the United Nations, 175 million people (2.9 percent of the world's population) live outside their country of birth. The three nations with the most immigrants are

United States: 35 million
Russia: 13 million
Germany: 7 million

Source: People Flows in Globalization, Richard B. Freeman, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 12315

The Meaning of Gifted

Who populates the gifted classes, honors programs, and advanced placement courses in the nation's middle and high schools? The nation's elite of course.

Among children aged 12 to 17, those from high-income families and those with the most highly-educated parents are most likely to be in gifted classes, including honors and advanced placement courses. Among children in families with monthly incomes below $1,500 ($18,000 per year), only 15 percent are in gifted classes. The figure is 32 percent among children in families with monthly incomes of $6,000 or more ($72,000 per year).

The education gap is even more pronounced. Only 10 percent of children whose parents did not graduate from high school are in gifted classes. Among those whose parents have graduate-level degrees, the figure is 45 percent.

Source: Census Bureau, A Child's Day: 2003, Survey of Income and Program Participation

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of parents who say they never
feel angry at their children: 46.

Source: Census Bureau, A Child's Day: 2003, Survey of Income and Program Participation

In the Laundry Room

Now that most women are in the labor force, men are doing more around the house. But women still shoulder most of the burden for a variety of household chores. Which chores are most likely to be done by women rather than men?

Number one is the laundry. On an average day, 27 percent of women do at least one load of laundry compared with a much smaller 6 percent of men, according to the American Time Use Survey. Other chores predominantly shouldered by women are kitchen clean-up after a meal and housecleaning.

Some household chores are more likely to be tackled by men, such as lawn care, exterior home maintenance, and vehicle care. And of course men are still more likely to work at a paying job. Fifty percent of men and 38 percent of women go to work on an average day.

Homeownership Rate Falls Again

The homeownership rate fell for the second year in a row, dropping to 68.8 percent of households in 2006. This is down from the record high rate of 69.0 percent reached in 2004. But homeownership rates were higher in 2006 than in 2000 overall and in every age group except one. Among householders aged 45 to 54, the homeownership rate fell between 2000 and 2006.

What is behind the declining homeownership rate? The combination of high housing prices, rising interest rates, and the economic squeeze on the middle class.

Source: Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership, Annual Statistics 2006

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of Americans who describe themselves as "dog persons": 70.

Source: The Gallup Poll

Where Are Teen Workers?

The number of workers aged 16 to 19 fell by a jaw dropping 1 million between 2000 and 2005 (from 8.3 million to 7.2 million). According to projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we ain't seen nothing yet. The number of workers in the age group will continue to decline until 2020, when the count will be only 6.0 million.

What is behind the disappearance of teens in the work force? A growing proportion are in school. Consequently, their labor force participation rate has plummeted from 52 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2005. The rate is expected to continue falling, reaching 36 percent in 2020.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review

What the World Thinks

Does the United States have a mainly positive
or negative influence in the world?

Percent answering "positive"...
Americans: 57 percent
Everyone else: 32 percent

Source: BBC survey of 26,381 people in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States, WorldPublicOpinion.org

The Oldest Congress Ever

How do the demographics of Congress compare with those of the average American? This Congressional Research Service report (pdf) can tell you. It examines the age, occupations, education, religion, sex, race, Hispanic origin, nativity status, and military service of House and Senate members.

The Senate has never been older, with an average age of 60. House members are aged 55, on average, which also may be a record high (data on the age of House members has been collected only since 1907). The 109th Congress has a record number of women (85), blacks (43), and Hispanics (30), but the minority and female share is still far from representative of the U.S. population as a whole. There are 218 lawyers in Congress, as well as 13 medical doctors, 6 ministers, 2 FBI agents, and one television talk show host. Ten members of Congress were born outside the United States. This Congress has 139 veterans, 13 fewer than in the 108th Congress.

Evolution at Work

The 51 percent majority of Americans believe in evolution. A smaller 42 percent adhere to the notion of creationism, according to the Pew Research Center. In the years ahead, belief in evolution should strengthen as better educated younger generations replace older, less educated adults. Here is a look at who believes in evolution by age:

aged 18 to 25: 63%
aged 26 to 40: 57%
aged 41 to 60: 47%
aged 61 or older: 42%

Source: Pew Research Center

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of 18-to-25-year-olds who think
their generation is unique: 68.

Source: Pew Research Center

Global Warming?

Percentage of Americans who think home air conditioning
is a necessity, not a luxury they could do without:

1996: 51%
2006: 70%

Source: Pew Research Center

Demographic Trend of the Year Award

Move over Academy Awards, Grammies, Emmys, Tony Awards, Nobel Prizes, and Time Magazine Man of the Year. Make room for the Demographic Trend of the Year Award, given in recognition of the demographic trend that has caused the most consternation during the past twelve months (proving once and for all that demography is not dull). Not wanting to keep anyone in suspense, we are announcing herewith the winner of the 2006 award: The Hispanic Population.

The Hispanic Population consists of the 43 million residents of the United States whose country of birth or ancestry is one of the Spanish-speaking nations of the world. The Hispanic Population has official Washington in a fence-building furor, and its impact on Lou Dobbs's ratings has been nothing short of phenomenal. The relatively traditional lifestyle of Hispanics is confusing the pundits and has set off another round of debate about whether women are returning to the home. Even small town America is jumping into the fray, sparring with the constitution by enacting laws that make life even more difficult for undocumented immigrants—most of whom are Hispanic.

The Hispanic Population wins the Demographic Trend of the Year Award after sweeping all five Demographic Melodrama categories. Here is a run-down of the results:

1. Fastest Growing Demographic Segment
Between 2000 and 2005, The Hispanic Population grew by an enormous 21 percent. At the same time, the number of non-Hispanic whites increased by a miniscule 1 percent.

2. Demographic Segment Getting the Biggest Bang for the Buck
The Hispanic Population accounts for only 14 percent of the total U.S. population. Because of its strategic location, however, its influence is far greater than a 14 percent share. In California and Texas, the two most-populous states, Hispanics are fully 35 percent of the population, which amplifies their influence.

3. Demographic Segment with the Greatest Reach
The age structure of The Hispanic Population makes it a powerhouse in the all-important youth market. The median age of The Hispanic Population is just 27 compared with a median age of 40 for non-Hispanic whites. Because of their relative youth, Hispanics account for a disproportionate share of newborns (nearly one in four), public elementary schoolchildren (one in five), and workers in many entry-level jobs. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's construction laborers are Hispanic.

4. Demographic Segment Confusing the Most Pundits
The talking heads who yearn for a return to the traditional family are touting signs of its comeback, but they are being fooled by the statistical impact of The Hispanic Population on the nation's demographic trends. Example: Between 2000 and 2005, the number of newborns who were third- or higher-order births increased by more than 50,000. Hispanics, with their large families, account for the entire increase. Similarly, the small decline in the labor force participation rate of young women over the past few years does not herald a return of the stay-at-home mom but is a consequence of the relatively low labor force participation rate of Hispanic women. Among women aged 20 to 24, only 63 percent of Hispanics work compared with 72 percent of non-Hispanic whites. As Hispanics constitute an ever-growing share of young adults, the labor force participation rate of young women is slipping.

5. Demographic Segment Enraging the Most Politicians
Yes, the political battle is over immigrants, not The Hispanic Population. But with Hispanics accounting for 51 percent of immigrants and an even larger share of the undocumented, they have become the political target du jour. The consequence is not just fence building along our border with Mexico, but an effort to make English the official language (Arizona became the 28th state to do so in the November election), federally mandated limits on Medicaid coverage for newborns (who are automatically U.S. citizens) until their immigrant parents file an application to "prove" their child's citizenship status, and laws enacted by communities across the country to penalize landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants or employers who hire them.

After sweeping all five Demographic Melodrama categories, The Hispanic Population is the hands-down winner of The Demographic Trend of the Year Award. For all the 2006 runners-up—The Gays, The Single Mothers, Boomers Who Refuse to Save for Retirement, and Young Adults Who Spend Too Much Time Texting Their Friends, mark your calendar for the 2007 awards competition, and better luck next time.

Know Your Data

Back in the old days, when I was just a kid pretending to be a demographer (the fire ant Census was particularly difficult, by the way), the Census Bureau issued its data in an old-fashioned but remarkably useful medium known as paper. This meant page after page of eyesight-challenging numbers. At the time it seemed like a huge amount of data. How naive we were!

But paper, youngsters, is a more limiting medium than cyberspace. The data released by the Census Bureau had to fit into the paper volumes they published and mailed out to eager data miners. These limitations still shape much of what the Census Bureau publishes on the Internet, since users often want to be able to see trends over time, and maintaining the same data sets (and presentation formats) makes it easier to do this.

But some data, such as population statistics, is now available in basically raw form. This means that rather than five-year age groups, you can get monthly population estimates by single year of age. This provides data users with the opportunity to create their own age groups, such as 18-to-49 year olds, but it also means that if you want five-year age groups, you will have to add them up yourself. (Or—shameless plug alert—get them from New Strategist Publications. Motto: “Be Glad We Can Add.”)

As the amount and level of data detail swells, it also becomes a bit trickier to navigate through all the different data sets and sources. You might not know, for example, that a particular data set on the Census website was discontinued years ago and is now obsolete. (Household projections.) Or you might be confused about which set of population estimates to use since they are now available monthly.(Use the July 1 estimates.)

As yet another service to all eight of our loyal readers, we are instituting a new feature: Know Your Data. This series will answer your burning questions (ACS or CPS??) as well as questions you never thought to ask (Who created the original poverty threshold?). Feel free to email questions you would like us to address. And stay tuned for our first fact-filled offering in the series, appearing on this blog just as soon as the boss stops looking over this way.

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of U.S. households with no
adults who speak fluent English: 3

Source: Census Bureau

TV's "Coveted" Demographic

For the life of me, I will never understand why television advertisers are so fixated on the 18-to-49 demographic. This morning, as I perused various online news sources, I came across an article on MSNBC headlined Baby boomers upset TV isn't all about them.

Although the headline suggests this is just more whining from spoiled Boomers, it is clear from the article that the television industry (and I would argue the entertainment industry in general) suffers from myopia when it comes to "older" viewers. Advertisers are charged higher rates for television programming that attracts viewers under age 50, and in particular those under age 40. This means that when Boomers get home from a hard day at the office, turning on the television may not be the relaxing experience they desire. Rather, it may be an exercise in frustration as they wade through program after program aimed at a much younger audience.

The theory seems to be that capturing young adults as customers will create a cadre of loyal buyers for life. But this is ridiculous in the 21st century when "brand loyalty" is an oxymoron. Rather, marketers need to look at who has the inclination and the bucks to buy their products. More often than not, this means the 40-plus age group. Not that I really expect the entertainment industry to suddenly change its focus. But eventually, advertisers may change their minds for them as they become more conscious of the need to appeal to older customers.

Smack Dab in the Middle

If you draw two lines—one running North-South, the other East-West—so that each divides the population in half, the point of intersection is known as the "median center," or put more plainly, Smack Dab in the Middle. Located in what East and West Coasters like to call Fly-Over Country, the precise location of Smack Dab has been shifting since the nation's early days when most folks lived east of the Mississippi River. For a long time it was located in Ohio, but since 1950 it has moved steadily southwest. As of the last Census in 2000, Smack Dab had relocated to Daviess County, Indiana.

Curious about the real Smack Dab, I googled Daviess County, Indiana. It might be the center of the U.S. in a very strict sense, but it seems it could hardly be further from the center of U.S. culture. This is Amish Country. Its Visitor's Bureau promotes a tour of an Amish Village and a visit to the Black Buggy Amish Restaurant and Bakery. You can shop at country stores and take home a handsewn quilt.

While this gives you a quite charming picture of the of nation's median center, if you are seeking more prosaic enlightenment, you will want to turn to the Census Bureau, a treasure trove (or impenetrable jungle, depending on your viewpoint) of information. There is a QuickFacts site, for example, where you get a U.S. map, ripe for the clicking. Click on Indiana and up pops an informative data table. If you need information on a more specific location within Indiana, there are buttons at the top of the page that allow you to select a specific city or county. The Daviess County data table doesn't tell you that it is “Amish Country,” but it does reveal that there are 30,466 inhabitants residing in 10,894 households. More than two-thirds own their homes and the county's median household income is $35,967. The table includes statistics for all of Indiana for comparison.

Or you could just turn to Wikipedia, where you would discover that in April 2006 Daviess County switched time-zone allegiance. But then, it does seem more fitting that the center of the U.S. population would set its clocks to Central Time rather than Eastern Time.

Generation Gap

Median age of the U.S. population by race and Hispanic origin:
(the median is the age at which half are older and half are younger)

White non-Hispanic 40.4
Asian 35.1
Black 31.3
Hispanic 27.2

Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey

Rankings: Born in State

Take a guess: Among the 50 states, which one ranks first in the proportion of (native-born) residents who were born in the state? The surprising answer is New York. According to the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey rankings, 82.3 percent of New York's residents were born in-state. Other states with populations staying close to home are Louisiana (82.0 percent), Michigan (80.5 percent), Pennsylvania (80.1 percent), and Ohio (77.9 percent).

The national average is 67.5 percent. In other words, two-thirds of Americans born in the United States live in the state in which they were born. The state with the fewest residents born in-state is Nevada, with only 26 percent of residents born there. Also close to the bottom are Florida (40.9 percent), Arizona (41.1 percent), Alaska (42.7 percent), and Wyoming (43.1 percent).

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of people aged 18 to 65 who have not been to a doctor or other health care professional in the past year, by health insurance status:

With health insurance: 15 percent
Without health insurance: 46 percent

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2005

Feeling Worse

Why don't Americans feel as good as they once did? The percentage of adults aged 18 or older who say they are in "excellent" or "very good" health fell from 59 to 54 percent between 1995 and 2005, according to the government's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The aging of the population explains some of the decline, since older Americans are less likely to report being in tip-top shape. But an examination of the data by age group reveals young adults to be the ones with the biggest decline in health status. The percentage of 25-to-34-year-olds who say they are in excellent or very good health fell by nearly 8 percentage points between 1995 and 2005—from 70 to 62 percent. In contrast, among people aged 65 or older, the percentage reporting excellent or very good health fell by less than 1 percentage point, declining from 37.2 to 36.5 percent during those years.

Every demographic segment was less likely to report being in excellent or very good health in 2005 than in 1995, but some recorded bigger declines than others. By race and Hispanic origin, Hispanics experienced the sharpest drop in health status—down an eyebrow raising 17 percentage points. By income group, those in the middle saw the biggest decline in health status. The percentage reporting excellent or very good health fell by 11 to 12 percentage points for those with household incomes ranging from $15,000 to $49,999. By education, high school graduates and those with only some college experienced a larger decline in health status than those without a high school diploma or a college degree.

One possible explanation for our worsening health status is the decline in health insurance coverage. The groups experiencing the biggest losses in health insurance coverage are also the groups with the biggest declines in health status. The percentage of people aged 25 to 34 without health insurance grew from 23 to 26 percent between 1995 and 2005—the biggest increase among age groups, according to the Census Bureau. This is also the age group reporting the biggest decline in health status. The only age group with universal health insurance coverage—people aged 65 or older—experienced the smallest change in health status during those years. Likewise Hispanics, the group most likely to be without health insurance, saw the biggest decline in health status. Middle-income groups—with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid (the government's health insurance program for the poor) and too poor to afford employer-provided or private health insurance—also experienced the biggest declines in self-reported health status.

If the lack of health insurance is behind Americans' growing unease about their health, then we're likely to feel even worse in the years ahead as health insurance costs climb and coverage falls.

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of children in 4th through 8th grade who take part in organized activities (not including after-school programs) by family income level:

incomes below poverty level: 30 percent
incomes 200% or more above poverty level: 66 percent

Source: America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2006

Married Couples a Minority

The New York Times reports today that married couples are now a minority of households. The Times' analysis of the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) shows that married couples account for 49.7 percent of households, down from 51.7 percent in 2000. The Census Bureau's other trend-tracking survey still puts married couples in the majority, however. The 2006 Current Population Survey (CPS), taken in March, estimates that married couples accounted for 50.9 percent of households. The difference in the two figures is most likely due to the inherent variation in estimates based on population samples.

It does not matter whether married couples are a slight majority or a bare minority of households. The fact is, living arrangements in the U.S. are very different from what they once were and will change even more as the baby-boom generation ages into the empty-nest years and beyond. Here's how living arrangements rank today, from most to least popular according to both surveys:

1. Married couples without children under age 18 living at home (most are empty-nesters)
ACS 28.0%
CPS 27.1%

2. People living alone (most are women and many are widowed)
ACS 27.1%
CPS 26.6%

3. Married couples with children under age 18 at home
ACS 21.7%
CPS 23.8%

4. Female-headed families (about two-thirds include children)
ACS 12.6%
CPS 12.3%

5. People living with nonrelatives (many are cohabiting couples)
ACS 6.0%
CPS 5.7%

6. Male-headed families (only half include children)
ACS 4.6%
CPS 4.5%

As boomers age and many become widowed, living alone is destined to become the most common lifestyle in the U.S.

Bet You Didn't Know

Percentage of homeowners with no public transportation available in their area: 50 percent.

Source: Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Housing Survey

How Many Illegals are in the U.S.?

According to a government report, 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the U.S. in 2005, up from 8.5 million in 2000—a 24 percent increase. Fifty-seven percent are from Mexico, followed by much smaller numbers from El Salvador (4 percent), Guatemala (4 percent), India (3 percent), China (2 percent), and other countries.

These figures come from the Department of Homeland Security. They were calculated using the "residual method" of population estimation. Researchers in the Office of Immigration Statistics subtracted the number of legal foreign-born residents (based on administrative data at the Department of Homeland Security) from the total number of foreign-born (based on estimates from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey), and the difference—or residual—is the number of illegals in the U.S.

The number of unauthorized immigrants is growing by 408,000 per year, according to the report.

Not surprisingly, California is home to the largest number of unauthorized immigrants—2.8 million or 26 percent of the total in 2005. Other states in the top five are Texas (1.4 million), Florida (850,000), New York (560,000), and Illinois (520,000). But the number of illegals is growing the fastest in Georgia, where it has more than doubled between 2000 and 2005—climbing from 220,000 to 470,000 between 2000 and 2005.

Bet You Didn't Know

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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