Showing posts with label Bureau of the Census. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bureau of the Census. Show all posts

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Illinois Lost 1 Resident Every 4.3 Minutes In 2017, Dropped To 6th Most Populous State

Illinois is drowning under a mountain of debt, unpaid bills and underfunded pension liabilities and it"s largest city, Chicago, is suffering from a staggering outbreak of violent crime not seen since gang wars engulfed major cities from LA to New York in the mid-90"s.  Here is just a small taste of some of our posts on Illinois" challenges:


Given that, it"s hardly surprising that the Prairie State lost a net 33,700 residents in fiscal year 2017, according to the Census Bureau.  Also not surprising is the fact that the mass exodus from Illinois was the largest of any state in the country with lower taxed, lower cost of living states like Texas and Florida posting the biggest gains. 



Of course, the net population loss masks the true gross outflow of Illinois residents as it doesn"t account for natural births/deaths. Assuming that Illinois has the same natural population growth as the U.S. as a whole (0.7%) implies that the state lost a staggering ~125,000 residents in aggregate, or roughly 1 man/woman/child every 4.3 minutes.


Meanwhile, adding insult to injury, the domestic migration out of Illinois was enough to push the state down one notch on the state population ranking tables to just below Pennsylvania. Per Illinois Policy:



Of course, this is all terrible news for Illinois retirees whose pension obligations continue to grow every year and currently stand at nearly $130 billion...


IL Pension


While we could be wrong, the last we checked folks were no longer on the hook to pay Illinois taxes after making the decision to move to another state.  Meanwhile, efforts to offset the lost tax revenue will only result in an acceleration of population declines in the future...


Conclusion: Sorry, Illinois, but your ponzi scheme is slowly coming unraveled.









Sunday, December 10, 2017

Here"s How Much Retirees Are Spending To Support Their Adult Kids

At one point in time in America, living at home with mom and dad after crossing out of your teenage years and into your 20s was embarrassing and something that was generally avoided at all costs.  And while hard times come and go, 20-somethings who were forced back into their parents" care worked their tails off until they could save up enough money to once again regain their freedom.


But, these days millennials seem to be embracing the free room and board provided by their parents.  According to a new study from the Census Bureau, roughly one-third of all millennials live at home with their parents and one-fourth of them can"t be bothered with enrolling in school or finding a job.


Of course, while living at home can help millennials cut down on costs, according to a new study from Nerd Wallet, it can also have a devastating impact on the retirement savings potential of their overly accommodating parental units...to the tune of a quarter million dollars.  Here are some of the key takeaways from Nerd Wallet"s survey:








  • Parents could miss out on almost a quarter-million dollars in retirement savings by paying their adult kids’ expenses: According to NerdWallet analysis, a parent’s retirement savings could be $227,000 higher if they chose to save the money that would otherwise go to their child’s living expenses and tuition.

 


  • Parents paying college costs could be missing out on almost $80,000 in retirement savings: More than a quarter of parents of children 18 and older (28%) are paying or have paid for their adult children’s tuition or student loans. The average parent takes out $21,000 in loans for their child’s college education, but the hit to retirement savings is almost quadruple that amount.

 


  • Most adult children are living with their parents for more than a year after they turn 18: Almost 3 in 5 parents with kids 18 and older (59%) have had adult children living with them for more than a year; over 1 in 5 (23%) have had adult children living with them for more than five years. On average, these parents say the longest period of time they have had their adult children living with them is 4.5 years.

 


  • Parents expect their kids to help them financially during retirement: Almost a quarter of parents saving for retirement (23%) expect their children to provide financial support for them after they retire. Millennial parents are most likely to say this (44% vs. 25% of Generation X parents and 5% of baby boomer parents), despite saving more than parents from other generations.


So where is the money going..








Many parents of children 18 and older are paying or have paid for their adult children’s basic living costs, including groceries (56%), health insurance (40%) and rent or housing outside the family home (21%). Some parents are also covering or have covered their adult child’s cell phone bill (39%) and car insurance (34%). But it’s important for parents — especially those who are behind in saving for retirement — to note that those same dollars could significantly grow their nest eggs over time.


 


In addition to these living costs, some parents of children 18 and older are paying or have paid for other expenses, such as clothing (32%), entertainment (20%), an allowance (10%) or a car loan (10%).




So, how long can your adult children be expected to interrupt your golden years? According to Nerd Wallet, 1 in 5 households surveyed said their adult children lived with them for more than half a decade.



Frankly, we continue to be shocked that all of those kids out there with $250,000 Art and Anthropology degrees are finding it difficult to land their dream jobs...










Thursday, November 23, 2017

Labor Market Conundrum: Number Of Millennials Living At Home With Mom Continues To Surge

Nary a day goes by that President Trump and/or the talking heads on CNBC fail to mention the following unemployment chart as evidence that "everything is awesome" with the U.S. economy...


Unemployment


...which might be true unless you"re among the 95 million-ish Americans who have been looking for a job for so long that you no longer even count as a human being to the Bureau of Labor Statistics...



...or if you"re a millennial.


Despite being the most educated generation ever to walk the face of the

planet, at least according to their tuition bills paid by mom and dad, a

staggering number of millennials still can"t seem to land a steady job.  Moreover, despite the steadily improving labor market, as the USA Today points out, the outlook for millennials continues to inexplicably deteriorate with 20% of 26-34 year olds currently living at home with mom versus only 17% back in 2012.








The share of older Millennials living with relatives is still rising, underscoring the lingering obstacles faced by Americans who entered the workforce during and after the Great Recession.


 


About 20% of adults age 26 to 34 are living with parents or other family members, a figure that has climbed steadily the past decade and is up from 17% in 2012, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by Trulia, a real estate research firm. The increase defies record job openings and a 4.1% unemployment rate, the lowest in 17 years.


 


Not surprisingly, a much larger portion of younger Millennials age 18 to 25 (59.8%) live with relatives, but that figure generally has fallen the past few years after peaking at 61.1% in 2012.



So why does the professional development of millennials continue to diverge from other generations?  While one can never be sure, perhaps the answer to that question lies in the personal experience of young Heidi Toth who decided to quit her job, after gaining just two years of experience, to join a church mission for nearly two years.  Then, after returning to work from her travels, Toth quit again in 2013 after a "series of layoffs modified her duties"...which we assume roughly translates to..."a bunch of people got fired which meant I had to work harder so I quit."








After graduating from Texas Tech University with a journalism major in 2005, Heidi Toth, now 35, got a job quickly at a Provo, Utah, newspaper. But in early 2007, she went on an 18-month church mission, landing her back in the job market in the depths of the recession in 2008. Unable to find work, she moved in with her mother in Roswell, New Mexico, for nine months while she hunted for work and took part-time, low-paying jobs.


 


She was rehired at the Provo paper in spring 2009 but left again in 2013 after a series of layoffs modified her duties. After months of fruitless job searching and traveling, she returned to her mother’s house for three months until she was hired at a Lubbock, Texas, paper.


 


Toth was grateful she could live rent-free during her periods of unemployment. But, she adds, “It wasn’t ideal, professionally or personally.”


 


Prospective employers in larger, distant cities didn’t think she would be readily available for interviews. And at home, “I felt like I was back in high school,” she says. “I felt like I had to ask permission to go out.”



Meanwhile, as the Pew Research Center recently noted, even the Millenials that manage to hold a job and establish their own residence aren"t much better off as they now head more households living below the poverty line than any other generation and, in aggregate, represent nearly one-third of all impoverished households in the United States. 








More Millennial households are in poverty than households headed by any other generation. In 2016, an estimated 5.3 million of the nearly 17 million U.S. households living in poverty were headed by a Millennial, compared with 4.2 million headed by a Gen Xer and 5.0 million headed by a Baby Boomer. The relatively high number of Millennial households in poverty partly reflects the fact that the poverty rate among households headed by a young adult has been rising over the past half century while dramatically declining among households headed by those 65 and older.




 


Of course, that"s all despite the fact that they only head just over 20% of all households...








Millennials are the largest living generation by population size (79.8 million in 2016), but they trail Baby Boomers and Generation Xers when it comes to the number of households they head. Many Millennials still live under their parents’ roof or are in a college dorm or some other shared living situation. As of 2016, Millennials (ages 18 to 35 in 2016) headed only 28 million households, many fewer than were headed by Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) or Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70).




 


Of course, those aren"t the only stats that prove just how much those anthropology degrees are paying off...Millennials are also winning at the "cohabiting-couple" game...presumably because it takes a village of millennials to cover one monthly rent bill.



Conclusion:










Monday, November 6, 2017

Matt Taibbi Exposes The Great College Loan Swindle

Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com,


How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America"s next financial black hole...



On a wind-swept, frigid night in February 2009, a 37-year-old schoolteacher named Scott Nailor parked his rusted "92 Toyota Tercel in the parking lot of a Fireside Inn in Auburn, Maine. He picked this spot to have a final reckoning with himself. He was going to end his life.


Beaten down after more than a decade of struggle with student debt, after years of taking false doors and slipping into various puddles of bureaucratic quicksand, he was giving up the fight. "This is it, I"m done," he remembers thinking. "I sat there and just sort of felt like I"m going to take my life. I"m going to find a way to park this car in the garage, with it running or whatever."


Nailor"s problems began at 19 years old, when he borrowed for tuition so that he could pursue a bachelor"s degree at the University of Southern Maine. He graduated summa cum laude four years later and immediately got a job in his field, as an English teacher.


But he graduated with $35,000 in debt, a big hill to climb on a part-time teacher"s $18,000 salary. He struggled with payments, and he and his wife then consolidated their student debt, which soon totaled more than $50,000. They declared bankruptcy and defaulted on the loans. From there he found himself in a loan "rehabilitation" program that added to his overall balance. "That"s when the noose began to tighten," he says.


The collectors called day and night, at work and at home. "In the middle of class too, while I was teaching," he says. He ended up in another rehabilitation program that put him on a road toward an essentially endless cycle of rising payments. Today, he pays $471 a month toward "rehabilitation," and, like countless other borrowers, he pays nothing at all toward his real debt, which he now calculates would cost more than $100,000 to extinguish. "Not one dollar of it goes to principal," says Nailor. "I will never be able to pay it off. My only hope to escape from this crushing debt is to die."


After repeated phone calls with lending agencies about his ever-rising interest payments, Nailor now believes things will only get worse with time. "At this rate, I may easily break $1 million in debt before I retire from teaching," he says.


Nailor had more than once reached the stage in his thoughts where he was thinking about how to physically pull off his suicide. "I"d been there before, that just was the worst of it," he says. "It scared me, bad."


He had a young son and a younger daughter, but Nailor had been so broken by the experience of financial failure that he managed to convince himself they would be better off without him. What saved him is that he called his wife to say goodbye. "I don"t know why I called my wife. I"m glad I did," he says. "I just wanted her or someone to tell me to pick it up, keep fighting, it"s going to be all right. And she did."


From that moment, Nailor managed to focus on his family. Still, the core problem – the spiraling debt that has taken over his life, as it has for millions of other Americans – remains.


Horror stories about student debt are nothing new. But this school year marks a considerable worsening of a tale that ought to have been a national emergency years ago. The government in charge of regulating this mess is now filled with predatory monsters who have extensive ties to the exploitative for-profit education industry – from Donald Trump himself to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who sets much of the federal loan policy, to Julian Schmoke, onetime dean of the infamous DeVry University, whom Trump appointed to police fraud in education.


Americans don"t understand the student-loan crisis because they"ve been trained to view the issue in terms of a series of separate, unrelated problems.


They will read in one place that as of the summer of 2017, a record 8.5 million Americans are in default on their student debt, with about $1.3 trillion in loans still outstanding.


In another place, voters will read that the cost of higher education is skyrocketing, soaring in a seemingly market-defying arc that for nearly a decade now has run almost double the rate of inflation. Tuition for a halfway decent school now frequently surpasses $50,000 a year. How, the average newsreader wonders, can any child not born in a yacht afford to go to school these days?


In a third place, that same reader will see some heartless monster, usually a Republican, threatening to cut federal student lending. The current bogeyman is Trump, who is threatening to slash the Pell Grant program by $3.9 billion, which would seem to put higher education even further out of reach for poor and middle-income families. This too seems appalling, and triggers a different kind of response, encouraging progressive voters to lobby for increased availability for educational lending.


But the separateness of these stories clouds the unifying issue underneath: The education industry as a whole is a con. In fact, since the mortgage business blew up in 2008, education and student debt is probably our reigning unexposed nation-wide scam.


It"s a multiparty affair, what shakedown artists call a "big store scheme," like in the movie The Sting: a complex deception requiring a big cast to string the mark along every step of the way. In higher education, every party you meet, from the moment you first set foot on campus, is in on the game.


America as a country has evolved in recent decades into a confederacy of widescale industrial scams. The biggest slices of our economic pie – sectors like health care, military production, banking, even commercial and residential real estate – have become crude income-redistribution schemes, often untethered from the market by subsidies or bailouts, with the richest companies benefiting from gamed or denuded regulatory systems that make profits almost as assured as taxes. Guaranteed-profit scams – that"s the last thing America makes with any level of consistent competence. In that light, Trump, among other things, the former head of a schlock diploma mill called Trump University, is a perfect president for these times. He"s the scammer-in-chief in the Great American Ripoff Age, a time in which fleecing students is one of our signature achievements.


It starts with the sales pitch colleges make to kids. The thrust of it is usually that people who go to college make lots more money than the unfortunate dunces who don"t. "A bachelor"s degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime" is how Georgetown University put it. The Census Bureau tells us similarly that a master"s degree is worth on average about $1.3 million more than a high school diploma.


But these stats say more about the increasing uselessness of a high school degree than they do about the value of a college diploma. Moreover, since virtually everyone at the very highest strata of society has a college degree, the stats are skewed by a handful of financial titans. A college degree has become a minimal status marker as much as anything else. "I"m sure people who take polo lessons or sailing lessons earn a lot more on average too," says Alan Collinge of Student Loan Justice, which advocates for debt forgiveness and other reforms. "Does that mean you should send your kids to sailing school?"


But the pitch works on everyone these days, especially since good jobs for Trump"s beloved "poorly educated" are scarce to nonexistent. Going to college doesn"t guarantee a good job, far from it, but the data show that not going dooms most young people to an increasingly shallow pool of the very crappiest, lowest-paying jobs. There"s a lot of stick, but not much carrot, in the education game.


It"s a vicious cycle. Since everyone feels obligated to go to college, most everyone who can go, does, creating a glut of graduates. And as that glut of degree recipients grows, the squeeze on the un-degreed grows tighter, increasing further that original negative incentive: Don"t go to college, and you"ll be standing on soup lines by age 25.


With that inducement in place, colleges can charge almost any amount, and kids will pay – so long as they can get the money. And here we run into problem number two: It"s too easy to find that money.


Parents, not wanting their kids to fall behind, will pay every dollar they have. But if they don"t have the cash, there is a virtually unlimited amount of credit available to young people. Proposed cuts to Pell Grants aside, the landscape is filled with public and private lending, and students gobble it up. Kids who walk into financial-aid offices are often not told what signing their names on the various aid forms will mean down the line. A lot of kids don"t even understand the concept of interest or amortization tables – they think if they"re borrowing $8,000, they"re paying back $8,000.


Nailor certainly was unaware of what he was getting into when he was 19. "I had no idea [about interest]," he says. "I just remember thinking, "I don"t have to worry about it right now. I want to go to school." " He pauses in disgust. "It"s unsettling to remember how it was like, "Here, just sign this and you"re all set." I wish I could take the time machine back and slap myself in the face."


The average amount of debt for a student leaving school is skyrocketing even faster than the rate of tuition increase.


In 2016, for instance, the average amount of debt for an exiting college graduate was a staggering $37,172. That"s a rise of six percent over just the previous year. With the average undergraduate interest rate at about 3.7 percent, the interest alone costs around $115 per month, meaning anyone who can"t afford to pay into the principal faces the prospect of $69,000 in payments over 50 years.


So here"s the con so far.


You must go to college because you"re screwed if you don"t.


 


Costs are outrageously high, but you pay them because you have to, and because the system makes it easy to borrow massive amounts of money.


 


The third part of the con is the worst: You can"t get out of the debt.



Since government lenders in particular have virtually unlimited power to collect on student debt – preying on everything from salary to income-tax returns – even running is not an option. And since most young people find themselves unable to make their full payments early on, they often find themselves perpetually paying down interest only, never touching the principal. Our billionaire president can declare bankruptcy four times, but students are the one class of citizen that may not do it even once.



October 2017 was supposed to represent the first glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. This month marks the 10th anniversary of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, one of the few avenues for wiping out student debt. The idea, launched by George W. Bush, was pretty simple: Students could pledge to work 10 years for the government or a nonprofit and have their debt forgiven. In order to qualify, borrowers had to make payments for 10 years using a complex formula. This month, then, was to start the first mass wipeouts of debt in the history of American student lending. But more than half of the 700,000 enrollees have already been expunged from the program for, among other things, failing to certify their incomes on time, one of many bureaucratic tricks employed to limit forgiveness eligibility. To date, fewer than 500 participants are scheduled to receive loan forgiveness in this first round.


Moreover, Trump has called for the program"s elimination by 2018, meaning that any relief that begins this month is likely only temporary. The only thing that is guaranteed to remain real for the immediate future are the massive profits being generated on the backs of young people, who before long become old people who, all too often, remain ensnared until their last days in one of the country"s most brilliant and devious moneymaking schemes.


Everybody wins in this madness, except students. Even though many of the loans are originated by the state, most of them are serviced by private or quasi-private companies like Navient – which until 2014 was the student-loan arm of Sallie Mae – or Nelnet, companies that reported a combined profit of around $1 billion last year (the U.S. government made a profit of $1.6 billion in 2016!). Debt-collector companies like Performant (which generated $141.4 million in revenues; the family of Betsy DeVos is a major investor), and most particularly the colleges and universities, get to prey on the desperation and terror of parents and young people, and in the process rake in vast sums virtually without fear of market consequence.


About that: Universities, especially public institutions, have successfully defended rising tuition in recent years by blaming the hikes on reduced support from states. But this explanation was blown to bits in large part due to a bizarre slip-up in the middle of a controversy over state support of the University of Wisconsin system a few years ago.


In that incident, UW raised tuition by 5.5 percent six years in a row after 2007. The school blamed stresses from the financial crisis and decreased state aid. But when pressed during a state committee hearing in 2013 about the university"s finances, UW system president Kevin Reilly admitted they held $648 million in reserve, including $414 million in tuition payments. This was excess hidey-hole cash the school was sitting on, separate and distinct from, say, an endowment fund.


After the university was showered with criticism for hoarding cash at a time when it was gouging students with huge price increases every year, the school responded by saying, essentially, it only did what all the other kids were doing. UW released data showing that other major state-school systems across the country were similarly stashing huge amounts of cash. While Wisconsin"s surplus was only 25 percent of its operating budget, for instance, Minnesota"s was 29 percent, and Illinois maintained a whopping 34 percent reserve.


When Collinge, of Student Loan Justice, looked into it, he found that the phenomenon wasn"t confined to state schools. Private schools, too, have been hoarding cash even as they plead poverty and jack up tuition fees. "They"re all doing it," he says.


While universities sit on their stockpiles of cash and the loan industry generates record profits, the pain of living in debilitating debt for many lasts into retirement. Take Veronica Martish. She"s a 68-year-old veteran, having served in the armed forces in the Vietnam era. She"s also a grandmother who"s never been in trouble and consid?ers herself a patriot. "The thing is, I tried to do everything right in my life," she says. "But this ruined my life."


This is an $8,000 student loan she took out in 1989, through Sallie Mae. She borrowed the money so she could take courses at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Connecticut. Five years later, after deaths in her family, she fell behind on her payments and entered a loan-rehabilitation program. "That"s when my nightmare began," she says.


In rehabilitation, Martish"s $8,000 loan, with fees and interest, ballooned into a $27,000 debt, which she has been carrying ever since. She says she"s paid more than $63,000 to date and is nowhere near discharging the principal. "By the time I die," she says, "I will probably pay more than $200,000 toward an $8,000 loan." She pauses. "It"s a scam, you see. Nothing ever comes off the loan. It"s all interest and fees. And they chase you until you"re old, like me. They never stop. Ever."


And that"s the other thing about lending to students: It"s the safest grift around.


There"s probably no better symbol of the bankruptcy of the education industry than Trump University. The half-literate president"s effort at higher learning drew in suckers with pathetic promises of great real-estate insights (for instance, that Trump "hand-picked" the instructors) and then charged them truckfuls of cash for get-rich-quick tutorials that students and faculty later described as "almost completely worthless" and a "total lie." That Trump got to settle a lawsuit on this matter for $25 million and still managed to be elected president is, ironically, a remarkable testament to the failure of our education system. About the only example that might be worse is DeVry University, which told students that 90 percent of graduates seeking jobs found them in their fields within six months of graduation. The FTC found those claims "false and unsubstantiated," and ordered $100 million in refunds and debt relief, but that was in 2016 – before Trump put DeVry chief Schmoke, of all people, in charge of rooting out education fraud. Like a lot of things connected to politics lately, it would be funny if it weren"t somehow actually happening.?"Yeah, it"s the fox guarding the henhouse," says Collinge. "You could probably find a worse analogy."


But the real problem with the student-loan story is that it"s so poorly understood by people not living the nightmare. There"s so much propaganda that blames the borrowers for taking on the debt in the first place that there"s often little sympathy for people in hopeless situations. To make matters worse, band-aid programs that supposedly offer help hypnotize the public into thinking there are ways out, when the "help" is usually just another trick to add to the balance.


"That"s part of the problem with the narrative," says Nailor, the schoolteacher. "People think that there"s help, so what are you complaining about? All you got to do is apply for help."


But the help, he says, coming from a for-profit predatory system, often just makes things worse. "It did for me," he says. "It does for a lot of people."









Tuesday, September 26, 2017

These Maps Explain Who Really Caused Hillary's Loss (Hint: It Wasn't Angry, Sexist, Xenophobic, White Men)

Ever since election day Hillary and her former minions have attempted to reinforce a narrative that some combination of Russian hackers, James Comey and angry, sexist, xenophobic, white men were the cause of here staggering defeat in November 2016.  That said, a new study highlighted by the Washington Post (of all places) today, confirms that it very well could have been black voters that ultimately crushed Hillary"s chances at the White House and not so much a sudden onset of racism.


Per the first chart below, precinct-level data gathered by Decision Desk HQ reveals that while Hillary lost ground with white voters compared to Obama"s performance in 2012, she also lost significant ground with black and hispanic voters as well. 





But there’s another factor that bears mentioning. One of the reasons that Trump is president and Clinton isn’t is because of how black Americans voted relative to 2012.



After the 2016 election, Ryne Rohla gathered precinct-level vote tallies from nearly every neighborhood in the United States for Decision Desk HQ. This data, which he also collected for the 2012 race, offers a uniquely specific overview of how Americans voted that we’ve used to analyze where Americans were most likely to live in bubbles of shared political thought and how the candidates fared in the places where they raised the most money.




But, where Hillary lost minority votes is perhaps even more important than how many votes she lost.  After analyzing precinct-level data for "majority-black" precincts across the country, Defense Desk HQ created the following maps showing areas where Clinton gained ground with black voters versus 2012 (blue circles) compared to where she lost ground (red circles).  Anyone notice a theme?



Meanwhile, and perhaps most importantly, Hillary lost ground with minority voters in almost every "majority-black" precinct in the four states that ultimately ended up determining the outcome of the election: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.



And, just to put some numbers behind maps, roughly 130 million people voted in the 2016 presidential election.  Of that, Wapo says that roughly 12%, or 15.6mm, of the people who cast their ballot were black.  Finally, Hillary"s loss of 7 points with black voters versus Obama"s results in 2012 equates to a total of about 1.1 million votes lost...which, needless to say, was more than enough to swing an election that was determined by a few thousand votes in a couple of key states.





But a small uptick in support for Trump vs. Romney combined with less support for Clinton means that Obama’s 87-point margin became an 80-point margin for Clinton. That mattered.



Notice, too, that exit polling suggests a decrease in how much of the electorate was black in 2016. The Census Bureau collects data on that, too, which the University of Florida’s Michael McDonald used to estimate turnout percentages and composition of the electorate for the past 30 years.



In 2016, the turnout rate for black Americans dropped about 8 points, McDonald estimates — meaning that 8 percent fewer black Americans who were registered to vote came out to cast a ballot. That’s a lower rate than in 2004. The percentage of white voters turning out increased slightly.




While we haven"t had a chance to read it yet, we"re gonna go out on a limb and bet that none of this actual data from Wapo made it into Hillary"s latest book.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The 30 US Metros With The Highest And Lowest Incomes

Authored by Wolf Richter via WolfStreet.com,


Breath-taking differences in a vast country.



The Census Bureau released another data trove this week for 2016, based on the American Community Survey. Among many other data points, the survey details median household incomes by geographic location, such as by metro area, county, or state. And they show just how enormous the income differences in the US are from city to city.


Of the 382 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) that the US government recognizes, the median income of $110,000 in Silicon Valley is over three times the median income of $35,600 in Laredo, TX.


These MSAs can be large. For example, the extended San Francisco Bay Area is divided in several metros including the two biggest:


  • San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, which is the southern portion of Silicon Valley and includes Palo Alto.

  • San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, which includes five counties (San Francisco, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, and San Mateo) that make up the northern part of Silicon Valley, San Francisco, parts of the East Bay, and a part of the North Bay.

These two are also the metros that had the highest median household incomes in the US in 2016, of $110,040 and $96,677 respectively.


“Household income” is income by all household members and from all sources of money, including “earnings” (wages, salaries, and the like) and investment income such as interest, dividends, and rents (#11-#13):


  1. Earnings

  2. Unemployment compensation

  3. Workers’ compensation

  4. Social security

  5. Supplemental security income

  6. Public assistance

  7. Veterans’ payments

  8. Survivor benefits

  9. Disability benefits

  10. Pension or retirement income

  11. Interest

  12. Dividends

  13. Rents, royalties, and estates and trusts

  14. Educational assistance

  15. Alimony

  16. Child support

  17. Financial assistance from outside of the household

  18. Other income

Below are the 30 metros in the US with the highest household incomes. Those in California are color-coded: bright red for the extended Bay Area, burgundy (sort of) for Southern California, and neon-pink for the Central Coast.


In total, nine of the 30 metros with the highest median incomes are in California. There are many up and down the East Coast and a number of them in the middle of the country. Hawaii has two metros on the list, as has Alaska. But even within the top 30, the median household income of Number One is 57% higher than that of Number 30:



Below here are the 30 of the 382 metros with the lowest median household incomes. Note these lists represent the extremes in the US. There are 322 MSAs in between the two lists, and their income levels cluster closely around the national median household income:



The comparison shows just how vast the income differences by geographical regions are in a vast country, and it also explains a host of other differences, such as home prices and rents, where $1.2 million, for example, buys a median condo in San Francisco (these are nothing special) or a palatial house in Laredo, TX.


But “median household income” is an aggregate number that hides as much as it reveals. Here are some details. Read…  The Chilling Fact “Record Median Household Income” is Hiding

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

One Analyst Throws Up On Today's Retail Sales Data: Here's Why

Two weeks ago we reported that July auto sales were a disaster: recall sales for bloated with inventory GM were down 15% YoY, Ford off 7% and Chrysler down 11% - despite record incentive spending - as overall auto sales declined and disappointed for yet another month. And yet, according to this morning"s retail sales report from the Census Bureau, sales for "motor vehicle & parts stores" rose much more robustly than anyone had anticipated, rising 1.2%, the fastest pace since December.



This number was so bizarre, and so out of context with recent sales data, that SouthBay Research threw up all over it in its morning note today. Here"s why:


  • Retail Sales m/m: 0.6%

  • Retail Sales ex Autos m/m: 0.45%

  • Retail Sales ex Autos & Amazon m/m: 0.3%




Consumer Retail Spending was Actually Mild, As Expected


  • Auto Sales growth unbelievable

  • Amazon Prime Day juiced the results

Don"t believe the auto sales data.  Per the BEA, unit sales were flat m/m (+90K).  Meanwhile, per JD Power, July average retail prices were $950 lower than June"s as auto dealers struggled to make sales and incentives averaged $3.9K, the highest on record and $100 higher than June.


  • Hmmm, no rise in auto sales per the real world and the BEA.  Coupled with a fall in net prices. But in fantasy land, the Census Bureau announces a $1.2B m/m jump in sales and a 7%+ y/y rise.

Amazon Prime Day Was Huge...and will Cut August Sales


  • Nonstore Retail Sales jumped $700M m/m.  That"s the Amazon Prime Day effect. I modeled it lower and that"s the source of my miss this month

Reasons for Caution: Government Data is Overstating Reality


  • The Retail strength does reinforce my view that macro data favors the US in 2H and that the dollar is oversold. But the Retail headline figure is wrong and analysts were correct: consumer spending as captured by Retail is sluggish.  The fact that reality is badly captured by the Retail figures is concerning insofar as it affects the Fed"s decision making. 

The opportunity is to recognize that consumer spending in the real world will pull back and it will also be missed by the official data.  With Consensus unprepared for the pull back, it will deliver a greater shock.



Meanwhile, here"s a quick look at SouthBay"s proprietary "Vice Index."


For those who are unfamiliar, the vice index tracks US consumer spending on alcohol, marijuana, prostitution and gambling, Vices are a special form of discretionary spending that is highly sensitive to near-term
economic conditions: i) Cash based: depends on free cash flow; ii) Luxury spending: wants not needs; iii) Significant dollar amount: not pricey but not cheap. Vice spending is broadly representative of the US consumer: i) Broad-based: Every socioeconomic and demographic group participates; ii) High-volume transactions: Over 100M discrete events per year.


The reason why this index is of particular interest, is because vices predict retail spending with a 4-month lead. Luxury spending is the 1st thing to be affected by changes in household finances.


This is what the index shows:


Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Visualizing How Americans Get Healthcare Coverage

With Obamacare firmly in the crosshairs of Republican lawmakers, the debate around U.S. healthcare is at a fever pitch.


While there is no shortage of opinions on the best route forward, Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins points out that the timeliness of the debate also gives us an interesting chance to dive into some of the numbers around healthcare – namely how people even get coverage in the first place.


HOW AMERICANS GET HEALTHCARE


The following infographic shows a breakdown of how Americans get healthcare coverage, based on information from Census Bureau’s surveys.



Put together by Axios, it shows the proportion of Americans getting coverage from employers, Medicaid, Medicare, non-group policies, and other public sources. The graphic also includes the 9% of the population that is uninsured, as well.


The following definitions for each category above come from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit that uses the Census Bureau’s data to put together comprehensive estimates on healthcare in the country:





Employer-Based: Includes those covered by employer-sponsored coverage either through their own job or as a dependent in the same household.



Medicaid: Includes those covered by Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and those who have both Medicaid and another type of coverage, such as dual eligibles who are also covered by Medicare.



Medicare: Includes those covered by Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and those who have Medicare and another type of non-Medicaid coverage where Medicare is the primary payer. Excludes those with Medicare Part A coverage only and those covered by Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligibles).



Other Public: Includes those covered under the military or Veterans Administration.



Non-Group: Includes individuals and families that purchased or are covered as a dependent by non-group insurance.



Uninsured: Includes those without health insurance and those who have coverage under the Indian Health Service only.



HEALTHCARE MIX BY STATE


Here’s another look at how Americans get healthcare coverage on a state-by-state basis.


This time the graphic comes from Overflow Data and it simply shows the percent of buyers in each state that receive health coverage from public sources:




What % of the population has public insurance in each state?




Oddly, the state that gets the highest proportion of public health coverage (New Mexico, 46.6%) is kitty-corner to the state with the lowest proportion of public health coverage (Utah, 21.3%).


WHY THE DEBATE IS PARAMOUNT


If you ask some people what is going on with U.S. healthcare, they will tell you that things are going “sideways” – that costs are going up, but care is not improving anywhere near the same pace.


Here’s a graphic we published last year from Max Roser that puts this sentiment in perspective:



It’s fair to say that care has been going sideways in the U.S. for some time, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.


So, what needs to be done to fix the problem?

Saturday, July 8, 2017

The US Is Not "One Nation" - And It Never Was

Patrick Buchanan is an informative and interesting writer. On foreign policy, especially, he"s long been one of the most reasonable voices among high-level American pundits.


When it comes to cultural matters, however, Buchanan has long held to a peculiar and empirically questionable version of American history in which the United States was once a mono-culture in which everyone was once happily united by "a common religion," a "common language," and a "common culture."


Now, he"s at it again with his most recent column in which he correctly points out that the United States is culturally fractured, and speculates as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson"s call to "dissolve political bands" in the Declaration of Independence might be sound advice today.


Buchanan is correct in noting that the US is culturally divided today.


But, he appears to have a selective view of history when he contends there was a time when this was not so. If there ever was such a period, it"s unclear as to when exactly it was. 


Buchanan can"t be referring to the mid-19th century when Northern states and Southern states were becoming increasingly hostile toward each other. Many of these differences flared up over slavery, but larger cultural differences were there too, exemplified by a divide between agrarian and industrialized culture, and the hierarchical South versus the more populist North. The result was a civil war that killed more than 2 percent of the population. It was a literal bloodbath. 


Was that version of the United States culturally united?


Nor can Buchanan possibly be referring to the US of the so-called Gilded Age. After all, during this period, the US was flooded with immigrants from a wide variety of backgrounds, 


Historian Jon Grinspan notes:





American life transformed more radically during the 19th century than it ever had before. Between the 1830s and 1900, America"s population quintupled ... at least 18 million immigrants arrived from Europe, more people than had lived in all of America in 1830.



This hardly led to a period of religious or linguistic unity. 


Certainly Catholics of the 19th century in the United States — who were commonly denounced as being non-Christians by the majority Protestants — would be at a loss if asked to describe the way the United States was united by a common religion. 


This alleged unity would be news to the Catholics whose schools were being closed by government edict — as happened in Oregon where the state government deliberately outlawed private schools in the hope of eradicating the Catholic education system. This unity was certainly absent for the Catholics who were victims in the Know-Nothing riots in Philadelphia in 1844. 


The Mormons may have fared even worse, and fled to the wilds of Utah. Even there they couldn"t avoid the iron fist of the federal government. When disagreements flared over polygamy and territorial representation, James Buchanan sent 2,500 troops to Utah in 1857 as part of a shooting war with Mormons to force them into better compliance with federal law. 


Nor were the foreign languages of immigrants immediately stamped out as many imagine in their nostalgia. Well into the 20th century, German continued to be a widely-spoken language, with Americans of German descent demanding their own German-language schools and government documents printed in German. Many Germans actively sought to avoid cultural integration with others by demanding more taxpayer-funded German-language-only schools.


According to historian Willi Paul Adams:





[S]ome states mandated English as the exclusive language of instruction in the public schools, while Pennsylvania and Ohio in 1839 were first in allowing German as an official alternative, even requiring it on parental demand. Some public and many private parochial schools taught exclusively in German throughout many decades, mostly in rural areas.



Nor was the German lobby confined to these two states. The original Colorado constitution, for example, mandates that all new laws be distributed in German, Spanish, and English, so as to cater to speakers the three most common languages in the area. 


According to the census bureau, there were more than two-million German-speaking foreign-born United States residents in 1920, which means more than 2 percent of the population was speaking German. If the same proportions held up today, there"d be more than six million foreign-born German speakers in the US. Moreover, Germans weren"t even the largest foreign language group at the time. There were even more foreign-born speakers of "Slavic languages" including Russian, Czech, and Polish. Taken all together — out of a population of 100 million — there were more than ten million foreign-born Americans with a "mother tongue" other than English in 1920. It is likely that many of these people also knew and spoke English — some of the time. But the reality hardly paints a picture of linguistic and cultural unity as imagined by Buchanan. 


And then, of course, there is the Spanish-speaking population. As noted above, the State of Colorado was tri-lingual from the day it became a state. And then there is New Mexico where Spanish speakers prior to statehood comprised at least half the state"s population. Not surprisingly, the New Mexico constitution has always stipulated that the Spanish language enjoys special status, and that no citizen of the state may be denied any state services or rights based on being only able to speak Spanish. 


Much of this linguistic diversity was a legacy of the Mexican War in which the US annexed vast territories that included many Spanish speakers. Generally forgotten today is the fact that the Mexican border was once located a mere 100 miles south of Denver along the Arkansas River. The special status granted Spanish in the 19th century in these regions was not a result of an influx of new immigrants. It was the result of a linguistic reality imposed on the population of the American Southwest by an American war of conquest.


We might also mention ongoing ethnic tensions caused by the war, such as those caused by the notorious Land Act of 1851 which robbed the Californios of their property. And then there were decades of anti-Mexican policies in southern Texas that disenfranchised the Spanish-speaking minority there. In some cases, this led to outright violent rebellion as with Juan Cortina and his guerrilla fighters.  


So, is the cultural disunity in the United States something novel and unprecedented as Buchanan imagines? It"s unlikely. 


Any theory about unity in American history that just breezes over the American Civil War is questionable at best, and English is likely more widespread today than at any point in the last 150 years thanks to the dominance of American popular culture. 


Nevertheless, Buchanan has a point. 


There are very real divides in the US today, especially between the religious and the anti-religious, between the urban residents and suburbanites, and between leftists and conservatives. Recent data even suggests that communities are now segregating themselves along ideological lines.


So what is the answer? 


As is so often the case, the answer simply lies in decentralization. As Buchanan seems to suggest, now may be the time to "dissolve the political bands which have connected" Californians with Texans and Vermonters with Indianans. 


After all, as Buchanan notes, if unity were put up to a vote, would the confederation we call "the United States" even survive? 





Could the Constitution, as currently interpreted, win the approval of two-thirds of our citizens and three-fourth of our states, if it were not already the supreme law of the land? How would a national referendum on the Constitution turn out, when many Americans are already seeking a new constitutional convention?



The answers to these questions are not obviously "yes." 


Buchanan also correctly points out that the US does not qualify as "a nation" - at least not according to the romantic definition he uses. Buchanan quotes the Frenchman Ernest Renan who identifies at least two criteria for status as a nation: "One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received."


Buchanan suggests this description no longer applies to the US. He"s half right. It doesn"t apply to the US today. But unless we studiously ignore and gloss over the enduring religious, linguistic, cultural, and ideological differences that have always existed, we must admit it never really applied to the United States at all. 

Friday, June 23, 2017

Whites Are The Slowest Growing US Group; Will Lose Majority Around 2040

The median age in most areas of the US is rising, while the population is growing more diverse, according to Census Bureau data released Thursday. America’s median age - the age where half of the population is half younger and half older - rose from 35.3 years on April 1, 2000, to 37.9 years on July 1, 2016, according to the data. Meanwhile, the population of White Americans is growing at a much slower rate than most minority groups: The number of whites living in the US increased by 0.5% last year to 256 million. By comparison, the Asian population grew 3% to 21.4 million, the black or African American population grew by 1.2% to 46.8 million and the Hispanic population grew 2% to 57.5 million.


The US isn’t the only country struggling with an aging population. With average marriage ages rising, and economic circumstances making it more difficult for couples in developed economies like the US, Japan and Europe to afford children, many countries are facing a demographic crunch in social welfare programs. But nowhere is this more of an immediate problem than China, where – thanks to its decades-long one-child policy – the working-age population will soon fall off a cliff.


The Nation


[Source: U.S. Census Bureau]


In the US, the baby-boom generation is largely responsible for this trend, according to Peter Borsella, a demographer in the Census Bureau’s Population Division. “Baby boomers began turning 65 in 2011 and will continue to do so for many years to come.”


Indeed, the number of US residents aged 65 and over grew from 35 million in 2000, to 49.2 million in 2016, accounting for 12.4 percent and 15.2 percent of the total population, respectively.


With growth rates for white Americans expected to remain subdued, the Associated Press says they will cease being the majority ethnic group some time after 2040, though they will remain a plurality of the population.


The youngest cohort of America"s population is also one of its fastest-growing: The Census report showed that children in the US born from 2001 through 2016 were the nation"s fastest-growing age group, with a 6.8 percent jump in the year beginning July 1, 2015.


Putting its own spin on the census data, The New York Times compared each of the US’s 3,000 counties with the national population at different points in America"s history - as well as its future. The Times found that counties with populations that are about 75 percent white tend to reflect the America of the 1970s and 1980s. Those where the population is half white and more diverse tend to reflect the (projected) America of the 2040s and 2050s.



For example, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is 84% White, resembles America in 1989. Meanwhile, Tooele County, in Northwestern Utah, more closely resembles America from 1971, when the population was both less diverse and younger. Seminole County, near Orlando, Fla., most closely matches the nation’s current mix, followed by Richmond County, aka Staten Island, in New York City.


Urban counties, which tend to be more diverse than suburban or exurban areas, more closely resemble the America of the future. Cook County, Ill., closely resembles what demographers believe the US will be like in 2047. Maricopa County, Ariz., resembles the demographics of the nation in 2020.

Americans Are Dying With An Average Of $61,500 In Debt

According to a recent study, the average total household debt in America is just over $132,500, broken down as per the chart below...



... and thanks to the Fed"s recent and ongoing rate increases, the repayment of said debt will become increasingly more difficult. So difficult, in fact, that most Americans will be saddled with a sizable chunk of it at the time of their death.


Actually, most already are.


According to December 2016 data from credit bureau Experian provided to credit.com, 73% of American consumers had outstanding debt when they were reported as dead. Those consumers carried an average total balance of $61,554, including mortgage debt. Without home loans, the average balance was $12,875.


As credit.com reports, the data is based on Experian’s FileOne database, which includes 220 million consumers. (There are about 242 million adults in the U.S., according to 2015 estimates from the Census Bureau.) To determine the average debt people have when they die, Experian looked at consumers who, as of October 2016, were not deceased, but then showed as deceased as of December 2016.


Among the 73% of consumers who had debt when they died, about 68% had credit card balances. The next most common kind of debt was mortgage debt (37%), followed by auto loans (25%), personal loans (12%) and student loans (6%).


The breakdown of unpaid balances was as follows: credit cards, $4,531; auto loans, $17,111; personal loans, $14,793; and student loans, $25,391. And, as a reminder, debt doesn’t just disappear when someone dies.



What happens to that debt when you die, aside from it continuing to accrue interest until someone remembers to inform the creditors?


“Debt belongs to the deceased person or that person’s estate,” said Darra L. Rayndon, an estate planning attorney with Clark Hill in Scottsdale, Arizona. If someone has enough assets to cover their debts, the creditors get paid, and beneficiaries receive whatever remains. But if there aren’t enough assets to satisfy debts, creditors lose out (they may get some, but not all, of what they’re owed). Family members do not then become responsible for the debt, as some people worry they might.


That’s the general idea, but things are not always that straightforward. The type of debt you have, where you live and the value of your estate significantly affects the complexity of the situation. For example, federal student loan debt is eligible for cancellation upon a borrower’s death, but private student loan companies tend not to offer the same benefit. They can go after the borrower’s estate for payment.


To be sure, things can get messy. If your only asset is a home other people live in, that asset must be used to satisfy debts, whether it’s the mortgage on that home or a lot of credit card debt, meaning the people who live there may have to take over the mortgage, or your family may need to sell the home in order to pay creditors. Accounts with co-signers or co-applicants can also result in the debt falling on someone else’s shoulders. Community property states, where spouses share ownership of property, also handle debts acquired during a marriage a little differently.


“It’s one thing if the beneficiaries are relatives that don’t need your money, but if your beneficiaries are a surviving spouse, minor children — people like that who depend on you for their welfare, then life insurance is a great way to provide additional money in the estate to pay debts,” Rayndon said.


The best option, of course, is just to pay it all off while one is alive, however in a nation with over $15 trillion in household debt, that is increasingly unlikely. And, if the Fed normalizes rates as it promises, which for some odd reason means interest on savings accounts doesn"t budge even as the interest due on debt ticks up with ever move of the Fed Funds rate, it means that the only possible debt discharge for tens of millions of Americans, will increasingly be the most terminal one too.


It remains unclear if debt incurred in this life carries over into the next one.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Schaeuble Warns US Pullback Could "End Our Liberal World Order"

Less than a month after German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that “Europe must take its fate into its own hands,” Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble implored US President Donald Trump to reconsider his “America First” policy, claiming that a pullback by the US would risk the destruction of “our liberal world order” by ceding influence to the Chinese and the Russians.


Trump’s hostility toward his European partners has strained relations between the US and its Continental allies. Since taking office, Trump has insulted fellow G-7 and NATO leaders, pulled out of the Paris Accord and attempted to ban travelers and refugees from six Muslim majority countries. Though Trump has treated at least one NATO leader with respect: Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, whom he honored with a Rose Garden press conference.



Bloomberg described Schaeuble’s comments as “one of the strongest expressions of concern among European policy makers that President Donald Trump’s administration is disengaging the US from its global roles on trade, climate change and security.”





“I doubt whether the United States truly believes that the world order would be equally sound if China or Russia were to fill the gaps left by the US, and if China and Russia were simply given a free hand to dominate the spheres of influence that they have defined for themselves,” Schaeuble, 74, said in a speech at the American Academy in Berlin, a think tank that promotes U.S.-German ties. “That would be the end of our liberal world order.”



Schaeuble also claimed that maintaining global security is in the best interest of the US.





“It is surely in the United States’ own interest to ensure security and economic stability in its markets, both in Europe and around the world…[t]his is a basic precondition if the US wants to increase its exports and cut its trade deficit.”



Schauble was speaking to an audience at the American Academy of Berlin that included Henry Kissinger and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. In three weeks, Merkel will host Trump, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and host of other world leaders at a G-20 summit in Hamburg.


As Bloomberg reported, Merkel pushed back against some of Trump"s comments regarding the US-German trade relationship on Wednesday during an event in Berlin marking the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. She defended free trade, claiming that protectionism and isolationism “impede innovation, and in the long run this is disadvantageous for everybody.”



Trump has attacked Germany’s trade surplus as “very bad” and said he would stop German car companies from selling “millions of cars” in the US. Data form the Census Bureau show the United States had a $65 billion trade deficit in goods with Germany in 2016, the third-largest negative balance after a $69 billion shortfall with Japan and a $347 billion deficit with China.


However, there’s an element of hypocrisy in Schauble and Merkel’s warnings about China. Germany has done nothing to stymie China"s rise. It has only helped elevate China’s standing on the global stage by embracing it as an ally in the fight against climate change and as a partner in trade. To wit: China was Germany’s largest trading partner last year. eclipsing the US.


Merkel also said that she’s open to discussing proposals for a joint “euro-area budget” with French President Emmanuel Macron – stealing a policy position from her political rival, Social Democrat leader Martin Schultz. A federal budget would help benefit the euro-area’s weakest economies, like Greece, Portugal and Italy, but it would also offset some of the immense advantages that Germany reaps as part of the monetary union. German citizens would effectively subsidize their European neighbors, though Germany would still benefit from a weaker currency.


According to Bloomberg, Merkel’s comments come at a time of “special significance.” Merkel is seeking a fourth term in office in September, when Germany is holding a national election. But she’s been losing ground in the polls to Schultz and his social democrats. Worried about her standing, it seems Merkel has hit upon a new campaign strategy: Distract Germans from their domestic woes by bashing the US.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Record "Wealth" In America? 72% Of US Businesses Are Not Profitable

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,



The Federal Reserve in the United States just released a new report showing that “Total Household Wealth” in the United States has reached a record $94.8 trillion.


That’s an impressive figure.


Even more impressive is that Total Household Wealth has increased by $40 trillion since the lows of the Great Recession in 2009.


No doubt there’s probably a multitude of central bankers and bureaucrats toasting their success in having engineered such magnificent prosperity.


And it’s certainly an achievement worth celebrating. As long as you don’t look too closely at the data.


Total Household Wealth is exactly what it sounds like– the total net worth of every person in the United States, from Bill Gates down to the youngest newborn baby.


So when you add up all the 330+ million folks in the Land of the Free and tally up their combined net worth, the total is $94 trillion.


The thing is that the VAST majority of that wealth, especially the incredible growth over the last 8 years, has been from increases in just two asset classes: real estate and the stock market.


In fact, stocks and real estate alone account for roughly 2/3 of the wealth increase since 2009.


I’ll come back to that in a moment.


Now, simultaneously, we see plenty of other interesting data, also published by the Federal Reserve and US federal government.


Both the Fed and Census Bureau, for example, tell us that over 80% of businesses in the US are “nonemployer” companies, i.e. businesses which only employ one person (the owner), and often provide his/her primary source of income.


Yet according to the Federal Reserve, only 35% of these small businesses are profitable. Most are operating at a loss.


In other words, only 35% of the companies which make up 80% of American businesses are profitable.


You’re probably already doing the arithmetic– this means that a whopping 72% of all US businesses are NOT profitable.


That hardly sounds like record wealth to me.


Shifting gears, there’s the little factoid that an astounding 40% of young Americans are living with their parents– the highest percentage in the last 75 years.


And who can blame them considering student debt in the Land of the Free also hit a record $1.4 trillion three months ago, more than double the amount since the Great Recession.


Speaking of record debt, US credit card debt passed a record $1 trillion, and total US consumer credit hit a record $3.8 trillion last month.


Again, all of this hardly seems like ‘wealth’ to me.


Then there’s the issue of wages, which have remained essentially flat since the 2009 Great Recession if you adjust for inflation.


According to the US Department of Labor, inflation-adjusted wages, aka “real hourly compensation” in the US fell an annualized 0.9% last quarter, and fell a dismal 5.6% in the previous quarter.


Adjusted for inflation, the average American isn’t making any more money.


Once again, this is a pitiful excuse for ‘wealth.’


American businesses aren’t more productive either.


The same Labor Department report shows that productivity in the Land of the Free was flat in the first quarter of this year.


And productivity actually declined in 2016– something that hasn’t happened in at least the last 50 years.


Not to mention total economic growth in the Land of the Free has been pretty pitiful, logging a pathetic 1.6% last year.


And GDP growth in the first quarter of 2017 was just 1.2% on an annualized basis.


The US economy has exceed hasn’t surpassed 3% growth in more than 10-years, and it’s only happen two times so far in this millennium.


Seriously? This is “wealth”?


Look, I get it. Houses are ‘worth’ more than they used to be, and the stock market is much higher.


But these effects are heavily influenced by the trillions of dollars that was conjured out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.


ExxonMobil may be the most telling example.


In early September 2008, just prior to the financial crisis, Exxon had recently reported revenues of $72 billion, with $11.1 billion in net operating cashflow.


For the first quarter of 2017 the company reported revenues of $61 billion and net operating cashflow of $8 billion.


Plus, ExxonMobil managed to add nearly $20 billion in debt to its balance sheet over that same period.


So over 8-years, Exxon is making less money and has more debt. Yet its stock price is actually HIGHER.


More broadly, 66% of the largest companies in the US that have given estimates of their earnings for next quarter have issued “negative guidance”.


Companies expect to make less money. But stocks are near all-time highs.


Does this make any sense? Is that also wealth?


No.


This is nothing more than the result of paper money that has been created by central bankers, allocated to a tiny financial elite, and dumped into the stock market.


It’s the same with real estate. Sure, prices are higher. But it’s not because of fundamentals.


In terms of population, there’s only been a 7% increase in the number of households in the United States since 2009.


There’s been a commensurate increase in the supply of homes as well.


So in terms of supply/demand fundamentals, the average price nationwide shouldn’t be that much higher.


But take a look at this chart, courtesy of the Federal Reserve.



The red line shows interest rates, which have been generally falling since 1990. The blue line shows home prices, which have been rising like crazy since 2012.


It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to spot the correlation: record low interest rates mean higher home prices.


This isn’t wealth.


It’s just phony paper.


And as the Great Recession showed in late 2008, phony paper wealth can go ‘poof’ in an instant.


With that in mind, it may be time to consider taking some of that paper wealth off the table and setting it aside for a rainy day.


Do you have a Plan B?

Monday, June 5, 2017

Will Millennials Ever Become A Generation Of Homeowners: BofA Has A Troubling Answer

America"s biggest as of 2016 generation, the Millennials, has a heavy burden on its collective 150 million shoulders: its task is to not only step in as a buyer of stocks once the baby boomers begin selling in bulk, but to also provide the much needed support pillar for the recovery of the US housing market. In fact, there have been countless "bullish" housing market theories built upon the premise that sooner or later tens of millions of young American adults will emerge from their parents" basements, start a household, and buy a house.


So far that theory has not been validated. One simple reason is that Millennials simply can"t afford to buy a house. As we reported last week, a study from Apartment List showed that nearly 70% of young American adults, those aged 18 to 34 years old, said they have saved less than $1,000 for a down payment. This is similar to what a recent GoBanking Survey found last year, according to which 72% of "young millennials"- those between 18 and 24 years old - had $1,000 in their savings accounts and 31% have $0; a sliver (8%) have over $10,000 saved. Of the "older millennials", those between 25 and 34, 67% had less than $1,000 in their savings accounts, 33% have nothing at all, and 15% had over $10,000.


So does that mean that Millennials can simply be written off as a potential generation of homeowners, and if so, what are the implications for the broader housing market?


That"s the question BofA economist Michelle Meyer asked on Friday, although she phrased it in the proper context: "Is it [still] cool to buy a home."


To our surprise, Meyer found that while the homeownership rate among young adults has plunged to a record low, helping to explain the slow recovery in single family homebuilding, and confirming empirical observations that Millennials have largely been a "renter" generation, by Bank of America"s calculations, the Millennial generation can afford to buy a home - at least in terms of making the monthly payments. While we - and many others would dispute that - BofA does make some other interesting observations, namely that lifestyle changes, including delayed marriage and childrearing, have led to fewer homeowners and a tendency to live close to city centers. Well, if it"s not money it"s clearly something else. Let"s dig in.


First, here is BofA on a rather trivial, if critical topic: "the importance of the youth"


In order to understand the future of the housing stock, it helps to get a grasp on the growth in population, which is a function of immigration and the rate of births/deaths. The Census Bureau is projecting population growth of 0.8% annually over the next decade and 0.7%, on average, through 2036, showing continued slowing from the 0.9% average last decade. Perhaps even more important, however, is the age composition, with a particular focus on young adults who are the drivers of household formation. There are currently 75 million individuals considered to be Millennials, making up the largest generation. The average age is 27.5, implying that there is a large cohort of young adults coming to age (Chart 1). In theory, this should underpin growth in homeownership. But, it is complicated - we have to understand the ability of Millennials to afford housing and the desire to become homeowners vs. renters.



Can they afford to buy?


The first question to ask is whether the younger generation can afford to buy a home. We turn to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) affordability index which is a ratio between median family income and the qualifying income for a mortgage as a function of median existing single-family home prices and mortgage rates. According to this measure, homeownership is still very affordable relative to history. What about for young adults? Following the NAR"s methodology, we compute an affordability measure for the 25-34 year old age cohort using median household income data from the Census Bureau. Our computed index only goes to 2015 given data limitations, but we extrapolate forward (Chart 2). We find that housing is still affordable for young adults, although not to the extent it is for the overall population. The gap in affordability between the overall population and young adults has widened over the years. That said, the affordability index for young adults is still above the historical average for the aggregate, implying that housing is generally affordable.


So what seems to be the problem? One obstacle is being able to make the downpayment. The NAR measure assumes a 20% down payment, which is a high hurdle for young adults- remember that the bulk of the current 25-34 year old cohort started their careers during the financial crisis and early stages of the recovery, when the economy and labor market were fragile. Plugging in a lower down payment of 10% and the situation looks worse due to increased principal and interest payments. With a 10% downpayment, the index would be at 125.2 in 2015, which is 11% lower than the standard 25-34 year old index and 25% lower than the broad NAR index.


Another challenge is the ability to take on a mortgage loan given high student debt. According to the NY Fed"s credit panel, total outstanding student debt has reached $1.3 trillion, a substantial increase from the $260bn level in 2004. According to the NAR"s Generational Report, nearly 50% of homebuyers under the age of 36 noted that student debt delayed their home purchase, making it harder to afford the downpayment. And, of course, there is the challenge from tighter credit standards which has made it more difficult to achieve homeownership.


But do they want to buy?


Addressing whether Millennials can afford to buy is only one part of the story. We need to understand if they actually want to buy. The homeownership rate has tumbled at a faster rate for 25-34 year olds than for other generations which we do not think can be explained by affordability metrics (Chart 3). We think it also owes to lifestyle changes. Maybe there is something to the stories about Millennials preferring to spend money on avocado toast instead of their home?



The shopping cart of young adults


Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we can look at the evolution of the consumer basket over time for those aged 24-35 (Table 1). Relative to the peak of the housing bubble in 2004, there has been a decline in the share of dollars spent on owned shelter and an increase in spending on renting. It also seems that this age group is spending more on healthcare and household operations, which include services paid to keep their household running efficiently (think cleaning). This has come at the expense of spending on apparel, transportation and groceries. The young adult in 2004 has a difference shopping cart than one today.


The single life


The change in spending patterns could reflect the fact that young adults are not only less likely to be homeowners, but they are less likely to be married or even live independently. Instead, this age group is living with parents or other relatives more than in the past (Chart 4). This adjustment in living arrangements has been ongoing for years but the Great Recession seemed to have speed up the trend. Today only 55% of those aged 25-34 live with a spouse/partner compared to over 80% in 1967. Life events such as getting married or having children are typical triggers to buying a home. The longer this age group lives with parents or independently, the more homeownership will be delayed.



City slickers


We have also seen a shift toward urban centers and away from rural areas over the years. This goes hand-in-hand with a decline in homeownership for young adults. Interestingly the share of young adults living in the suburbs has been fairly steady at around 41% (Chart 5). Moreover, it appears that there is a flocking toward the major cities, specifically in the city centers which are close to transit, workplaces and restaurants. City centers typically have more rental properties than the suburbs. But we also see greater home sales close to city centers than in the past. According to BuildZoom, new home sales within 5 miles of the centers of the 10 most densely cities have exceeded 2000 levels but if you go another 10 miles out, sales are about 50% below 2000 levels.


There are both cyclical and secular forces behind the drop in the homeownership rate for young adults. While young adults can generally afford housing, there are other constraints including the ability to make a large enough downpayment and tighter credit standards. Lifestyle changes are partly to blame.


BofA" troubling conclusion: "These dynamics won"t change in the medium-term which should translate to a lower equilibrium pace for single family housing starts."