Saturday, February 05, 2011
What, Me Worry?
Friday, February 04, 2011
How Many Workers are Illegal?
Explaining the Jobs Report
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Grrrrr
Still Want to Own
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Thing about Jobs
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Out of Date
Monday, January 31, 2011
Update on a Mystery
Friday, January 28, 2011
Few Egyptians in U.S.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Deeper in Debt
Bet You Didn't Know
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Retiring Too Soon
An Average Day: Thinking
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Mystery of the Young Homeowner
Tearing my Hair Out
Monday, January 24, 2011
Clinging to their Jobs
How Many Can't Shop at Walmart?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Married Couples Below 50 Percent
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Why the Stability in Household Spending?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Who Wants Gun Control?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
An Average Day: Work
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
It's the Internet Stupid, Part II
They keep trying to paste a smiley face on the numbers. "They" are the pundits, politicians, realtors, retailers, bankers, and everyone else whose livelihood depends on pretending that the Great Recession is just like all the others since World War II--a blip, a momentary pause, a temporary departure from the norm.
SMILEY FACE: New home sales were up 5.5 percent in November! REALITY: New home sales were 21 percent below their November 2009 level.
SMILEY FACE: The unemployment rate fell in December! REALITY: The job increase was well below expectations.
SMILEY FACE: Retail sales climbed 0.6 percent in December! REALITY: The biggest gains were in energy and food, and department store sales fell.
This is not a run of the mill recession, a blip, or temporary. This is a massive economic dislocation caused by the Internet. It is not over, it may get worse before it gets better, and it is not likely to get better for a generation. These numbers tell the story.
More than 1 million homes were foreclosed in 2010, a record. (RealtyTrac.com) The story begins with business. It is the nature of private enterprise to seek out and exploit every advantage in the marketplace. That is what business is supposed to do, and that is what it is doing. Those who were first to understand the Internet have used it to their advantage by globalizing their business, finding cheaper sources of labor and materials, and setting up systems that profit from instantaneous communication. Because of the Internet, the average stock is owned for only 22 seconds, according to economists. The speed of transactions creates an opportunity for entrepreneurs, but also opens the door to Internet savvy con men and crooks who can buy low and sell high in ways that our regulatory system has yet to comprehend. The Internet, and its crooks and con men, brought us the housing bubble and the foreclosure mess.
4.5 million Americans have been unemployed for a year or longer, a record. (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Never before have so many American workers been unemployed for so long. Labor markets are in turmoil because the Internet has eliminated time and distance as barriers to business. Those with digital skills are making a living. But most of us--our livelihoods dependent on pre-Internet business models--are only muddling through. A large segment of workers faces economic catastrophe. With unemployment above 9 percent and no sign that it will fall much for years, this is a structural realignment. Companies with pre-Internet profit models are either collapsing entirely or ridding themselves of workers who are not Internet savvy--usually the older workers. Among the unemployed, those aged 55 or older are having the hardest time finding a job. Forty-one percent have been unemployed for a year or longer.
Median household net worth fell 30 percent between 2007 and 2009. (Federal Reserve Board) Now on to the politicians, most of whom are standing idly by as the Internet's crooks and con men destroy the middle class. This is not a right versus left thing. This is not a Republican Party versus Democratic Party thing. This is an old versus young thing. The 111th Congress was one of the oldest in U.S. history. The 112th Congress is not much younger. The median age of the current House of Representatives is 57. The median age of the Senate is an even older 61. Few of our elected representatives are fluent in digital. The problem is not that many of our politicians must depend on their younger staff to help them turn on a computer, use a keyboard, surf the web, text, or twitter. The problem is that they cannot comprehend how the Internet is transforming our world. They are intellectually incapable of crafting policies that will help us cope with our new problems or take advantage of our new opportunities. It will take a generation of elections before politicians fluent in digital replace the elderly statesmen from the paper and ink era.
Meanwhile, we are sitting ducks.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Television Time Up 15 Minutes
Monday, January 17, 2011
Out of Work the Longest
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Slow Recovery
Monday, January 10, 2011
An Average Day: Shopping
Friday, January 07, 2011
Big Spenders on Health Care
On an Average Day: Grooming
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
We Knew That
An Average Day: Pets
Monday, January 03, 2011
An Average Day: Reading
Thursday, December 30, 2010
No Health Insurance for Most of the Unemployed
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Years of Healthy Life
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Many Do Not Have Access to Public Transportation
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
South Most Likely to be Wireless-Only
Wireless-Only Tops 50 Percent in 25-to-29 Age Group
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Could Births Dip Below 4 Million?
Is Nevada Growing?
The Nevada state demographer, Jeff Hardcastle, has estimated that Nevada lost 100,000 people in the past two years, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Yet the 2010 census results show Nevada's population growing 35 percent over the decade (to 2,700,551) and gaining 84,779 people in the last two years (a calculation made by comparing the 2010 census count with the Census Bureau’s estimate of Nevada’s population in 2008).
Who’s right? My guess is the state demographer. Nevada has been devastated by the Great Recession. It has the highest unemployment rate and the highest foreclosure rate in the country. Behind Nevada’s “growth” over the past few years is the Census Bureau’s probable underestimate of Nevada’s population in the intercensal years from 2001 through 2009. During those years, the state demographer’s estimates of Nevada’s population have consistently exceeded the Census Bureau’s. In 2008, the excess was 139,000. Given the hard times the state has experienced, the Census Bureau is likely to revise its estimate of Nevada’s intercensal population upward, revealing the recent loss.Census Count Matches Bureau Estimates
Monday, December 20, 2010
Arizona Sees Biggest Decline in Births
Fewer Marriages in 2009
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Biggest Decline in Births Since 1973
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Life Expectancy Declines
Thursday, December 16, 2010
It's the Internet Stupid!
Twenty years ago, when I was the editor of American Demographics magazine, we published an article entitled "The Fifth Medium," the purpose of which was to describe and name the Big Thing that was about to happen. Everyone who followed the trends could feel something coming, but no one knew quite what it would be.
"A new medium is emerging that may be more powerful than newspapers, magazines, and television put together," the American Demographics article announced. For want of a better word, we called it the "fifth medium" (the others were radio, television, newspapers, and magazines). We struggled to identify the fifth medium: "People call this new medium electronic publishing, on-line information, telecomputing, multimedia, or videotex. They are all evolutionary names for a beast that hasn't yet shown its full form."
Doesn't it make you want to scream, "It's the Internet, stupid!"
The identity of the beast is painfully obvious now, but it wasn't so back then. For proof, try a search of the New York Times archives by year for the number of articles that contain the word "Internet." Here's what you get:
- 1988: 3
- 1989: 7
- 1990: 17
- 1991: 9
- 1992: 12
- 1993: 89
- 1994: 375
- 1995: 1,241
- 1996: 2,218
- 1997: 2,779
- 1998: 4,057
- 1999: 7,737
- 2000: 10,134
On November 5, 1988, the word "Internet" appeared for the first time in the New York Times. The article was about Robert T. Morris, Jr., a Cornell University graduate student who unleashed a computer worm on what the Times calls "an international group of communication networks, the Internet." The other two articles of 1988 in which the word Internet appeared were also about the Morris worm, one of them noting that "many teenagers are treating Mr. Morris as a folk hero and are busy designing their own virus programs." (Mr. Morris is now Dr. Morris and a professor at MIT.)
For years, even as late as 1996, the Times felt the need to add explanatory descriptors whenever using the term Internet. In a 1990 article: "An international computer network known as Internet..." In a 1992 article: "a worldwide network called the Internet." In 1996: "the linkage of computers known as the Internet." By 1996, the word 'Internet' had become common public currency, says Wordiq.com. After that year the New York Times no longer felt the need to explain the Internet to its readers.
Although the public was familiar with the term Internet by the mid-1990s, most were not Internet users until more recently. In the early months of 2000, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, only 46 percent of Americans were online. The figure topped 50 percent later that year. Today, 79 percent are online.
With that kind of penetration, you might think the Internet revolution is behind us, but you would be wrong. The Internet revolution has been slow to unfold and is only now--right now, this year--fully on top of us. What took so long? The demographics. The effect of technological change on human history unfolds at the pace of generational replacement (henceforth known as the Russell Rule). The Internet has been part of the fabric of our daily lives for only one generation, which is why the full force of the Internet is only now being unleashed. Among today's young adults (18 to 29), 95 percent are online, according to Pew. The figure is 87 percent among 30-to-49-year-olds, 78 percent among 50-to-64-year-olds, and just 42 percent among people aged 65 or older. The older generations have resisted the Internet, but they are being replaced by younger generations who live in "the cloud." A growing percentage of the world's population has never known a world without the Internet.
Future generations will see clearly how the Internet revolution led to the dislocations that are causing our current economic woes. In contrast, most of the generations alive today--including all historians, pundits, politicians, and most business leaders--are not in a position to comprehend this cause and effect. Here is their position: They are standing barefoot on a shore, gazing out at the ocean, and seeing for the first time strange white clouds on the horizon. What could be coming their way? It's the Internet, stupid!
Underemployed at Record High Too
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
How the Great Recession Has Hurt Americans
For just $5 you can download the best study to date of the effects of the Great Recession on the average American. This National Bureau of Economic Research study (Effects of the Financial Crisis and Great Recession on American Households, by Michael D. Hurd and Susann Rohwedder) is based on the smart, new American Life Panel, an Internet survey run by RAND. With findings as recent as spring 2010, the analysis shows that 39 percent of households have been severely hurt by the recession--meaning they have experienced unemployment, have negative equity in their home, are arrears in their house payments, or have had a foreclosure. Monthly household spending is also analyzed, revealing deep cuts in restaurant meals and health care.
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 16407
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Should Poor People Own Cell Phones?
Forty-four million Americans live in poverty, according to the latest Census Bureau statistics, a substantial 14 percent of the population. Who are the poor? They are people whose incomes fall below the level needed to buy what was deemed to be a nutritionally adequate diet in 1955 multiplied by three and adjusted for inflation. Sounds crazy, no?
Crazy, but all too true. Mollie Orshansky, an employee of the Social Security Administration, was charged in the early 1960s with creating a poverty measure. She and her colleagues never meant for the methodology they devised to become permanently enshrined in American economic policy. But politics being what it is, that's what happened. Orshansky believed her calculations would be updated every few years to account for rising living standards and changing spending patterns. No update has ever occurred. The poverty measure she created, based on a 1955 food consumption survey, is simply adjusted for inflation each year. Today, a family of four, is deemed to be poor if their income falls below $21,954.
Officially, poverty in the United States is defined by this income measure alone. The poor may or may not receive benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, or Medicaid. In fact, most of the poor do not receive these government benefits. The poor may or may not own a house, a car, a television, a microwave, or even a cell phone. In fact, 97 percent of the poor have a television, 79 percent have air conditioning, and most own a cell phone. As Adam Smith once cautioned, poverty is relative. Begrudging the poor the necessities of the 21st century makes no more sense than begrudging them 20th century basics like running water and indoor plumbing.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Census Counts to be Released Next Week
Most Fail to Graduate from For-Profit Schools
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Lower Life Expectancy for the Less Educated
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Biggest Increase in Unemployment Rate: Men Aged 45 to 54
Friday, December 03, 2010
Bet You Didn't Know
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
More Prescriptions
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Doctor Will See You...Later
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Bye Bye White Pages
No more white pages. In the past few months, state regulators in New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania have ended the requirement that telecommunications companies publish residential phone books. Many older Americans will be dismayed. A doctoral student who is writing her dissertation on phone books described it, according to the Associated Press, as “sort of heartbreaking.”
"Sort of" is an understatement. Just ask the baby-boom generation. Boomers are caught between two worlds in a new kind of generational sandwich. The bottom slice is their children, who access the world through the Internet. The top slice is their parents, who access the world through print—newspapers, magazines, letters, and phone books. It is heartbreaking to see the bewilderment of the older generation as familiar icons disappear, one after the other.
Right now—literally right now—it is all coming together (or falling apart, depending on your point of view). The transition from the old world of print to the new world of the Internet is almost complete. In 2010, 79 percent of American households used the Internet, up from fewer than half of households in 2000, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The massive brick and mortar businesses built on the profits generated from putting ink on paper are collapsing.
Boomers are stuck in the middle. Among people aged 65 or older, only 42 percent are online. The older generation is increasingly dependent on boomers—their children—to help them navigate a strange new world.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Long-Term Unemployed at Record High
Almost 15 million Americans are unemployed, and 31 percent have been out of work for at least one year. Never before have so many people been out of work for so long. Among the unemployed aged 55 or older, an even larger 41 percent have been out of work for a year or longer.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Young Men: Bad Marriage Risks?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Households in the West Decline
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Ten U-Turns in Consumer Spending
Household spending peaked in 2006 at $51,688. In 2008, the average household spent $50,486, or $1,200 less after adjusting for inflation. On many categories of products and services, the average household reversed the direction of its spending in the 2006-08 time period compared with the 2000-06 time period. Here are the 10 most telling U-turns in consumer spending:
1. RESTAURANTS: +8 percent to -6 percent Average household spending on restaurants U-turned from an 8 percent gain in the 2000-06 time period to a 6 percent loss between 2006 and 2008, after adjusting for inflation. Because of the Great Recession, Americans are spending more on groceries. Even basic ingredients such as eggs, flour and milk are staging a comeback after years of decline. Don't write restaurants off, however. They still attract the 72 percent majority of households into the marketplace on a weekly basis.
2. MORTGAGE INTEREST: +21 percent to -5 percent Every age group has been hammered by the housing bubble. But no age group has been hit as hard as 35-to-44-year-olds. Because they were in the home buying lifestage when housing prices peaked, they paid top dollar for houses and are--by far--the biggest spenders on mortgage interest. With many losing their homes, average household spending on mortgage interest is declining.
3. STATIONERY AND GIFT WRAP: +15 percent to -11 percent Is there anything more discretionary than gift wrap? Spending on this item climbed significantly during the easy money years of the housing bubble. Since 2006, not so much.
4. DAY CARE: +16 percent to -8 percent As the unemployment rate climbed, spending on day care fell.
5. FURNITURE: +1 percent to -22 percent Houses were selling furiously during the housing boom, but spending on furniture was surprisingly lackluster. Since 2006, average household spending on furniture (and appliances) has collapsed.
6. HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES: +24 percent to -23 percent Towels, sheets, blankets, curtains--nothing is feeling the whiplash more than the household textile category.
7. BABY CLOTHES: 0 percent to -9 percent This category had been defying the long-term decline in apparel spending as births climbed to a record high of 4.3 million in 2007. When the recession set in, the number of births began to fall, and so did spending on baby clothes.
8. DRUGS: +6 percent to -12 percent Out-of-pocket spending by the average household on drugs is down despite the barrage of advertising, the growing proportion of pill poppers in the population, and the penny-pinching of insurance companies. Behind the decline is the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, which went into effect in 2006.
9. ADMISSIONS TO ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS: +1 percent to -5 percent During the downturn, households continued to spend on high-definition television sets. But they cut back on other entertainment categories. One loser was this category, which includes movie and amusement park tickets.
10. CASH CONTRIBUTIONS: +34 percent to -13 percent Donations to charities are plummeting, says the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The household numbers bear this out. Average household spending on contributions climbed strongly when Americans felt flush, then fell sharply as they tightened their belts.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Living with Mom and Dad
Who Lives the Longest?
Well, this is a surprise. Hispanics live longer than other U.S. residents despite the fact that they are the least educated, have the lowest incomes, and are most likely to be without health insurance. The National Center for Health Statistics recently estimated, for the first time, the life expectancy of the Hispanic population. To their astonishment, the calculations showed that Hispanics live longer than blacks or non-Hispanic whites. In 2006 (the latest data available), Hispanics had a life expectancy at birth of 80.6 years. This compares with a life expectancy of 78.1 years for non-Hispanic whites and 72.9 years for non-Hispanic blacks. The actuaries are mystified.
Why the surprise? For one, because education has a strong positive correlation with life expectancy. The more educated you are, the longer you live. Studies have shown that a high school diploma adds five or six years to life expectancy. But only 63 percent of Hispanic adults have a high school diploma, far below the 83 percent of blacks and 91 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Yet Hispanics live longer.
The second reason for the surprise: Hispanics have lower incomes than blacks or non-Hispanic whites, and higher incomes are strongly correlated with a longer life expectancy. Studies show that people in the highest income groups live 4 to 10 years longer than people in the lowest income groups. Yet Hispanics live longer.
The third reason for the shock waves reverberating in the nation's vital statistics corridors is that Hispanics are least likely to have health insurance coverage. Only 68 percent of Hispanics are insured compared with 79 percent of blacks and 88 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Yet Hispanics live longer.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
More People, Fewer Households
Fewer "Rooms Used for Business"
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Age of Marrying at Record High
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Blame it on the Internet
Friday, January 15, 2010
Recession Crowds Nest
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Bet You Didn't Know
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Fractures in the Middle Class
Friday, September 18, 2009
How Much Did You Spend Yesterday?
Why They Are Afraid
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Even Stranger
Monday, September 14, 2009
Another Surprise
The number of people aged 55 to 64 climbed by nearly 1 million between 2008 and 2009 (up by 987,000). At the same time, the number of households headed by 55-to-64-year-olds fell by 26,000.
Not a good sign.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Household Incomes Fell in 2008
Other interesting findings:
Average household size INCREASED between 2007 and 2008 (rising from 2.56 to 2.57 persons per household), despite the aging of the population. Behind the increase was a DECLINE in the number of people living alone as the recession forced people to double up in homes and apartments.
The number of households headed by people under age 25 FELL between 2007 and 2008 as young adults found it increasingly difficult to strike out on their own. This decline occurred despite the large Millennial generation in the age group.
The number of 45-to-64-year-olds without health insurance climbed by 571,000. The percentage who are uninsured in this most vulnerable age group rose to 14.4 percent.
There is no doubt that these numbers are just a preview of what is to come as the Great Recession unfolds.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Survey Will Capture Losses
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Cliff Diving and Curb Jumping
Last week the Census Bureau reported that only 11.9 percent of the population moved from one house to another between 2007 and 2008--the lowest proportion ever recorded in data that has been collected since the late 1940s. The number of people who moved--35 million--was the smallest since 1959-60.
Given the dire situation in the housing market, these numbers are not surprising. Homeowners are stuck and even renters aren't moving around as much as they once did. In 2007-08, only 5.4 percent of homeowners moved, down from 6.6 percent the year before and 7.4 percent in 2000-01. Among renters, 27.7 moved between 2007-08, down from 29.3 percent a year earlier and 30.3 percent in 2000-01.
State-to-state migration has been severely curtailed. The number of people moving from one state to another fell by 39 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08, shrinking by 3 million.
By age, the largest proportionate drop in mobility has occurred among people aged 60 to 61--an age group once filled with retirees. In 2007-08, only 4.7 percent of 60-to-61-year-olds moved, down from 7.6 percent in 2000-01.
If you really want to know how the priorities of Americans are changing, then take a look at their reasons for moving and how those have changed over the past few years.
- Not buying: The number of people who moved because they wanted to buy a home fell by 48 percent, from 3.9 million in 2000-01 to just 2.0 million in 2007-08--the largest decline among all reasons for moving. While there probably is some pent up demand for buying a home, it is possible that many Americans are reconsidering the importance of ownership now that they know the risks.
- Moving closer to work: The number of people who moved to shorten their commute increased by 80 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08, rising from 1.2 to 2.2 million--an 80 percent rise and the largest increase among all reasons for moving. This is bad news for the far-flung suburbs, which will be last in line for any economic recovery.
- Delaying retirement: The sharp drop in the mobility of 60-to-61-year-olds is reflected in the 38 percent decline in the percentage of people who moved because of retirement between 2000-01 and 2007-08. Retirement savings have been decimated and the age of retirement is rising, which is why state-to-state migration has plunged. This trend could gut destination retirement areas.
- Staying closer to home: The data show an ominous decline in the number of young adults who moved to attend or leave college, with the figure falling by 26 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08. This decline is occurring as a growing proportion of students opt for less-expensive in-state public schools and is yet another warning sign for the nation's overpriced private colleges.
- Downscaling expectations: The percentage of people who moved because they wanted cheaper housing climbed by 35 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08. At the same time, the percentage who moved because they wanted a better home or apartment fell by 29 percent.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Why Aren't More Upset about Shoddy Health Care Coverage?
Total population: 299 million
Medicaid: 40 million
Medicare: 41 million
Military health care: 11 million
Uninsured: 46 million
Children with private health insurance: 44 million
Elderly with private health insurance: 13 million
Subtract all those people as potential constituents for health insurance reform, and that leaves 105 million--or just 35 percent of the population--who are struggling. And the percentage is even smaller if you also subtract the few who have top-quality private health insurance--such as teachers, senators, and congressional representatives. Little known fact: each member of Congress receives health insurance for life after serving only five years in office. This goes a long way toward explaining their "What, me worry?" attitude.
So, only about one-third of Americans are experiencing the full force of the broken health insurance system. Good luck with that.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Retirement Confidence Plummets
Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2009 Retirement Confidence Survey
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The American Nightmare
The results of a 2009 MetLife survey reveal the grim consequences of that kind of magical thinking. The survey finds that many Americans have no safety net, so confident were they in a prosperous future. An astonishing 28 percent of currently employed workers say they would not be able to pay their bills after less than two weeks of unemployment. Within a month, half of American workers say they would be unable to meet their financial obligations.
This lack of a Plan B explains why the country is in such a panic. The 56 percent majority of the employed are concerned that they could lose their job in the next year, according to MetLife. Fifty-nine percent of the employed fear that if they lose their job, they might have to file for bankruptcy. An even larger 64 percent of employed homeowners are afraid that a spell of unemployment will mean the loss of their home. Overall, three out of four respondents admit that they lack an adequate safety net. Welcome to the American Nightmare.
Although the pundits often scold Americans for being too deeply in debt, in fact debt is not the problem. The average household owes a relatively modest amount, according to the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances. The problem is the precarious income stream that keeps so many families afloat--an income stream now threatened by the deepest recession in a generation. If the stream dries up, as it is for many, then debt becomes a problem because there is no backup plan.
Are we finally learning a lesson? Will we be humbled by the hard times? Not likely. The freewheeling cowboy culture is too deeply ingrained in the American psyche. To see it in all its glory, take a look at a new study from the Economic Mobility Project. This organization, which tracks the economic mobility of the American population, fielded a survey in late January and early February--a time when you might think the public would be chastened by events. But you would be wrong. Rather than rethinking the rules of the game, most Americans are still cheerleaders for the American Dream--even as it turns into a nightmare. When asked to define the Dream, the top three qualities mentioned by survey respondents were the freedom to accomplish anything (74 percent), the freedom to do what you want (68 percent), and children being better off financially than you (64 percent). Huh? Aren't those the same Anything Goes, Me First, and Bigger is Better ideals that got us into this mess?
Even now, Americans overwhelmingly credit success to individual characteristics rather than structural factors. Hard work and ambition are the top two factors behind success, say 89 to 92 percent of us. Fewer than half think people get ahead because they are born into the right family, know the right people, or are just plain lucky. And what about the poor wretches on whom hard times have fallen? They should not look to their fellow Americans for sympathy. The largest share of the public, including both conservatives and liberals, say the downward mobility so many are experiencing is due to "poor life choices." In other words, it's not the economy, stupid.
Another Baby Boom?
For one thing, the U.S. population has almost doubled since 1957, climbing from 152 million to 302 million--yet only now have American women managed to produce slightly more babies than they did half a century ago. The average woman of 1957 could expect to have 3.77 children in her lifetime. Today, the average woman will have only 2.12.
The fertility rate of 1957 was 122.9 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. Today the fertility rate is just 69.5. Granted, today's figure is higher than the all-time low of 63.6, which we hit in 1997, but the increase is due more to the changing demographic composition of American women than it is to a new baby boom.
Hispanics account for a growing proportion of women aged 15 to 44, and Hispanic fertility is far above average. In 2007, the Hispanic fertility rate was 102.1--not far below the average fertility rate of 1957. Among non-Hispanic whites, in contrast, the 2007 fertility rate was just 60.1. Hispanics account for one in four births in the United States today. Of the 52,000 additional babies that put us over the top in 2007, 44 percent were Hispanic, 27 percent were Asian, 19 percent were black, and 7 percent were non-Hispanic white.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Generational Change
sexual relations between two adults of the same sex, by age
18 to 29: 52%
30 to 39: 48%
40 to 49: 35%
50 to 64: 34%
65 or older: 18%
Source: 2008 General Social Survey
Friday, March 20, 2009
Internet 2, Newspapers 3
1. Television: 48 percent
2. Internet: 22 percent
3. Newspapers: 20 percent
Source: 2008 General Social Survey
Monday, March 09, 2009
Another Look at Who Is to Blame
But is the American Consumer guilty as charged? Just in time to shed some light on the matter, the Federal Reserve Board has released the long-awaited results of the triennial Survey of Consumer Finances. The latest survey, taken in 2007, reveals the economic status of the average American household at the peak of our supposed profligacy. The survey results turn out to be a friendly witness, presenting evidence not of our guilt, but of our innocence. Yes, the results show our 2007 net worth swollen by inflated housing prices and they reveal the rush of money into real estate. But as in previous years, the results disprove the notion that the average household is deeply in debt.
Let's hear the evidence.
Exhibit 1: For the average household, debt is modest. The median amount of outstanding debt for households with debt (77 percent of all households) stood at $67,300 in 2007. This figure includes mortgage debt.
Exhibit 2: Most debt is mortgage debt. Seventy-five percent of the debt owed by the average household is the mortgage on their primary residence. Even this debt is not overwhelming. The median ratio of mortgage debt to housing value stood at 53.3 percent in 2007. Only 1 percent of homeowners had mortgage debt greater than the value of their primary residence.
Exhibit 3: Home equity loans are not common. Only 18 percent of homeowners had a home equity line of credit, and an even smaller 12 percent had an outstanding balance on a home equity loan. This proportion has not changed since 2004.
Exhibit 4: Few gambled in the housing market. The percentage of households with debts for "other residential properties" (second homes, rental units, investment properties, etc.) climbed between 2004 and 2007, rising from 4.0 to 5.5 percent. According to the Federal Reserve Board, this was the largest increase in the prevalence of debt among all types of debt, evidence of the rush to real estate during the housing bubble. Yet 94.5 percent of households did not drink the Kool-Aid.
Exhibit 5: Credit card balances are modest. Only 46 percent of households carried a balance on a credit card in 2007--a figure that was unchanged from 2004. The median outstanding debt for those with a credit card balance was just $3,000. Among households with bank-type credit cards, 55 percent say they pay their balance in full each month. The average credit card bill last month? Just $250.
Exhibit 6: Only a handful are in trouble. Only 14.7 percent of debtors owed more than 40 percent of their income, up slightly from the 12.2 percent of 2004. Despite this increase, the percentage of debtor households that were 60 or more days late in making a payment fell from 8.9 to 7.1 percent between 2004 and 2007.
The evidence proves that the average American household was on solid financial footing as of 2007. Consumers did not cause the financial crisis. The widespread belief that overconsumption is responsible for the meltdown is rooted in several factors such as falling prices for clothes, electronics, and many other goods (allowing people to buy more with less) and the presence of the large baby-boom generation in the peak spending lifestage.
But the saga continues. Although the Survey of Consumer Finances was taken in 2007, the Federal Reserve Board's analysis examines the impact on households of the financial collapse through October 2008. Housing values took a hit. The home equity of homeowners with mortgages fell from $91,000 in 2007 to $71,600 as of October 2008. The median ratio of mortgage debt to housing equity among homeowners with mortgages climbed 5 percentage points to 58.5 percent. The median value of the stock held by households fell from $35,000 to $22,500 between 2007 and 2008. Net worth also fell. In 2007, median household net worth stood at $120,300. By October 2008, the figure was down to $99,000, according to Federal Reserve estimates.
The sky has not fallen--yet. Note that even after the decline, the net worth of the average household is still very much positive--higher, in fact, than it was in 1998 after adjusting for inflation. But if in its soul searching the American public fails to place the blame for the financial crisis squarely where it belongs--on the financial institutions and government regulators who did not do their job--then consumer confidence will continue to fall, the recession will deepen, more will lose their jobs, and household wealth will plummet. The sky will fall.
Is Homeownership Declining?
Homeownership fell in most age groups, but not by much. The biggest decline occurred among householders aged 30 to 34. Many were first-time homebuyers who bit off more than they could chew during the housing bubble and have been forced to give up the dream of homeownership for now.
The biggest lesson to be learned in the statistics on homeownership is the comforting stability of demographics, which offer a way to approach the future that is resistant to "black swans" (unanticipated radical change, a term popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book The Black Swan). In the absence of natural disasters such as Katrina, demographic trends offer a stability that is sorely needed as Americans confront a chaotic economy.