Tuesday, March 08, 2011
What's So Special about Detroit?
Is Life Exciting?
18-29: 57%
39-39: 52
40-49: 53
50-59: 56
60 or older: 45
Source: General Social Survey
Trust: The Decline
Monday, March 07, 2011
Oh Happy Day!
Percentage of people aged 18 or older who agree with the statement, "The way things are in America, people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living..."
2010: 58%
2000: 77%
Source: General Social Survey, SDA, UC-Berkeley
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Who's Got Your Back?
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Steep Decline in Home Buying among Young
Friday, March 04, 2011
Trouble in Arizona
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Who Snores
New Sexual Behavior Study
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Fat Americans: The French Version
Bet You Didn't Know
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Not so Mobile
Better Times Ahead
Monday, February 28, 2011
Is Art in Decline?
Things that Cost Less
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Black and White
Underweight
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Table FG10
Kids These Days
Friday, February 25, 2011
An Average Day: Groceries
Minus 805,000
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Homeownership by Household Type
| 2010 | 2004 | ||
| Total | 66.9 | 69.0 | -2.1 |
| Married couple | 82.1 | 84.0 | -1.9 |
| Female family | 48.6 | 50.9 | -2.3 |
| Male family | 56.9 | 59.6 | -2.7 |
| Women alone | 58.6 | 59.9 | -1.3 |
| Men alone | 51.3 | 50.5 | 0.8 |
Homeownership by Race
| 2010 | 2004 | ||
| Total | 66.9 | 69.0 | -2.1 |
| American Indian | 52.3 | 55.6 | -3.3 |
| Asian | 58.9 | 59.8 | -0.9 |
| Black | 45.4 | 49.1 | -3.7 |
| Hispanic | 47.5 | 48.1 | -0.6 |
| Non-Hisp white | 74.4 | 76.0 | -1.6 |
2010 Homeownership Data
| 2010 | 2004 | ||
| Total | 66.9 | 69.0 | -2.1 |
| under 25 | 39.1 | 43.1 | -4.0 |
| 35 to 44 | 65.0 | 69.2 | -4.2 |
| 45 to 54 | 73.5 | 77.2 | -3.7 |
| 55 to 64 | 79.0 | 81.7 | -2.7 |
| 65+ | 80.5 | 81.1 | -0.6 |
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Detroit's Decline
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
No Heat
Monday, February 21, 2011
An Average Day: College Students
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Bet You Didn't Know
Saturday, February 19, 2011
How Do You Define Reading?
The American Time Use Survey, which is taken annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, asks Americans what they did minute by minute during the previous 24 hours. Their activities are classified into categories such as "reading for personal interest" and "computer use for leisure." Here's the question: How does the Time Use Survey classify reading a book on an iPad? Is it computer use or reading?
Not a problem, according to the time use experts at the BLS. Computers, they say, are tools for accomplishing other tasks. When respondents report using a computer, the interviewer then asks what they were doing on the computer. If they were reading a newspaper or book on their iPad, the activity is classified as reading, not computer use. Similarly, if they were using their computer to manage their money, the activity is classified as financial management rather than computer use. In fact, the category "computer use for leisure" is nothing more than a residual--what little remains after assigning all possible computer use to other activities.
This is good news because it means the time use survey category "reading for personal interest" is positioned to capture any changes in time spent reading due to e-readers. An increase in reading might be on the way, according to an analysis posted by Read It Later, an app that allows users to save articles on their computers and phones for later reading. The company's data show a spike in iPad reading between 8 and 10 pm--typically television time. Could e-reading compete with television as a prime-time activity? Maybe, but it is not happening yet. Between 2005 and 2009, the average person spent a lot more time watching TV and slightly less time reading. There is one exception, however. Teenagers aged 15 to 19 spent a bit more time reading and a bit less time watching TV. Is this a blip or a sign of things to come?
Friday, February 18, 2011
One Pill Makes You Larger
Thursday, February 17, 2011
We Love the Dawgs
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Score One for the Great Recession
How do you measure bad times? Specifically, how does the Great Recession compare with the Great Depression? Economists typically use GDP as the measuring stick. During the Great Depression, GDP fell by a stunning 27 percent. During the Great Recession, GDP fell only 4 percent. Using the GDP measure, then, the Great Recession was only 15 percent as severe as the Great Depression (4/27 x 100 = 15).
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Bet You Didn't Know
Source: Household Spending, 15th edition
Monday, February 14, 2011
Big Increase in Part-Timers
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Unemployed One or More Years
2010 Labor Force Participation
Among women aged 16 or older, labor force participation fell 1.3 percentage points to 58.6 percent.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
How Many Dogs?
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Mystery of the Missing Data
Gender Gap: Video Games
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Bet You Didn't Know
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Does Butter Cost Too Much?
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Losing Counties
Monday, February 07, 2011
College Enrollment Decline
True Love
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.