November 15, 2024

Economic Scene: America’s Sinking Middle Class

On Tuesday, however, the Census Bureau reminded me how for most Americans 1988 still looks a lot like yesterday: last year, the typical household made $51,017, roughly the same as the typical household made a quarter of a century ago.

The statistic is staggering — hardly what one would expect from one of the richest and most technologically advanced nations on the planet.

I have written several times before about how measures of social and economic well-being in the United States have slipped compared to other advanced countries. But it is even more poignant to recognize that, in many ways, America has been standing still for a full generation.

It made me wonder what happened to progress.

Consider: 36 years ago this month, when NASA launched the Voyager 1 probe into space, 11.6 percent of Americans were officially considered poor. The other day Voyager sailed clear out of the solar system into interstellar space — the first man-made object to do so — recording its environment on an 8-track deck.

Using the same official metric — which actually undercounts the poor compared to new methods used by the Census today — the poverty rate is 15 percent.

To be sure, we have made progress over the last 25 years. The nation’s gross domestic product per person has increased 40 percent since 1988. We’ve gained four years’ worth of life expectancy at birth. The infant mortality rate has plummeted by 50 percent. More women and more men are entering and graduating from college.

We also have access to far more sophisticated consumer goods, from the iPhone to cars packed with digital devices. And the cost of many basic staples, notably food, has fallen significantly.

Carl Shapiro, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley and an expert on technology and innovation who stepped down from President Obama’s Council on Economic Advisors last year, calls the progress in information technology and biotechnology over the last 25 years “breathtaking.”

“Most Americans partake in the benefits offered by these new technologies, from smartphones to better dental care,” Professor Shapiro said. Still, he acknowledged, “somehow this impressive progress has not translated into greater economic security for the American middle class.”

In key respects, in fact, the standard of living of most Americans has fallen decidedly behind. Just take the cost of medical services. Health care spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has roughly doubled since 1988, to about $8,500 — pushing up health insurance premiums and eating into workers’ wages.

The cost of going to college has been rising faster than inflation as well. About two-thirds of people with bachelor’s degrees relied on loans to get through college, up from 45 percent two decades ago. Average student debt in 2011 was $23,300.

In contrast to people in other developed nations, who have devoted more time to leisure as they have gotten richer, Americans work about as much as they did a quarter-century ago. Despite all this toil, the net worth of the typical American family in the middle of the income distribution fell to $66,000 in 2010 — 6 percent less than in 1989 after inflation.

Though the bursting of the housing bubble and ensuing great recession takes a big share of the blame for families’ weakening finances, it is nonetheless startling that a single financial event — only a hiccup on the road to prosperity of Americans on the top of the pile — could erase a generation worth of progress for those in the middle.

Though the statistics may be startling, the story they tell is, unfortunately, not surprising. It is the story of America’s new normal. In the new normal the share of the nation’s income channeled to corporate profits is higher than at any time since the 1920s, while workers’ share languishes at its lowest since 1965.

In the new normal, the real wages of workers on the factory floor are lower than they were in the early ’70s. And the richest 10 percent of Americans get over half of the income America produces.

“Almost all of the benefits of growth since the trough of the Great Recession have been going to those in the upper classes,” said Timothy Smeeding, who heads the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Madison-Wisconsin. “Middle- and lower-income families are getting a smaller slice of a smaller economic pie as labor markets have changed drastically during our recovery.”

This story is about three decades old.

In 2010, the Department of Commerce published a study about what it would take for different types of families to achieve the aspirations of the middle class — which it defined as a house, a car or two in the garage, a vacation now and then, decent health care and enough savings to retire and contribute to the children’s college education.

It concluded that the middle class has become a much more exclusive club. Even two-earner families making almost $81,000 in 2008 — substantially more than the family median of about $60,000 reported by the Census — would have a much tougher time acquiring the attributes of the middle class than in 1990.

The incomes of these types of families actually rose by a fifth between 1990 and 2008, according to the report. They were more educated and worked more hours, on average, and had children at a later age. Still, that was no match for the 56 percent jump in the cost of housing, the 155 percent leap in out-of-pocket spending on health care and the double-digit increase in the cost of college.

So either we define the middle class down a couple of notches or we acknowledge that the middle class isn’t in the middle anymore.

E-mail: eporter@nytimes.com;

Twitter: @portereduardo

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/americas-sinking-middle-class.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Strategies: Apple Stock Isn’t a Bellwether, Even if It’s Big

THE rise of Apple shares over the last few years was meteoric. Their fall over last few days has been traumatic. But these gyrations may not matter much to the overall stock market.

They will matter, of course, if you lost money as Apple dropped from $702 in September to $439.88 on Friday. And the company’s struggles may be of more than passing interest even if you never intend to own any of its shares.

Apple remains a colossus, even if Exxon Mobil surpassed it as the most valuable publicly traded company in the world on Friday, exactly one year after iPhone sales propelled Apple to the top spot. Still, all of those iPhones, iPads and other gadgets make Apple matter in many households.

But the company’s influence on the stock market is another question. Aside from the drag that Apple’s decline has imposed on indexes that include it, its recent travails haven’t affected other stocks very much, and they don’t provide much information about the market as a whole. That’s the view of Paul Hickey, co-founder of the Bespoke Investment Group, who has some statistics to support it.

“The company just isn’t the market bellwether,” he said.

In good times and bad, Apple has largely gone its own way, and the rest of the market hasn’t followed its lead. Apple isn’t nearly as influential as, say, I.B.M., which appears to be the true market bellwether, Mr. Hickey contends.

I.B.M. is the market leader — the stock that other stocks follow — based on Bespoke’s calculations, which are boiled down into one statistic. That is the likelihood that a stock’s return on the day after its quarterly earnings report matches the direction of the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index over the next five weeks.

Over the last decade, for example, the rise or fall of I.B.M. stock on the day after the company reports earnings has matched the S. P. 500’s direction 75 percent of the time. That’s the highest percentage for any stock in the index over that period. The comparable figure for Apple is only 37.5 percent.

If those tendencies continue — and that’s a big “if” — bulls have reason to cheer. Both companies issued earnings reports last week, and they received very different reactions in the market. After the close of trading on Tuesday, I.B.M. reported rising profits on a modest decline in revenue, and the market reaction was strikingly positive. I.B.M. shares rose 4.4 percent on Wednesday. If I.B.M. is the market bellwether, it implies that over the next five weeks, the overall market is likely to rise.

Apple, on the other hand, reported earnings after hours on Wednesday, and the market reaction was brutal. Apple’s guidance for 2013 disappointed analysts — its profit was flat although its revenue grew — and its shares fell more than 12 percent on Thursday. But Apple isn’t a bellwether, Mr. Hickey says. Its earnings reports and its returns the next day have not matched the market’s subsequent five-week direction with any regularity.

Looking at the short term, Apple shares have often moved quite independently of the rest of the market, too. On Thursday, for example, the S. P. 500 was flat for the day despite the steep drop of Apple, which accounts for more than 3 percent of the index. The Dow Jones industrial average, in which I.B.M. has the greatest weight, at more than 11 percent, doesn’t include Apple at all, and it rose slightly for the day. On Wednesday, by contrast, both indexes rose, along with I.B.M. and Apple shares.

Why should the market’s one-day reaction to I.B.M.’s earnings have anything to do with market returns over the next five weeks? Mr. Hickey speculates that I.B.M., which provides sophisticated, integrated digital solutions to business problems, now derives revenue from many of the world’s big companies and accurately reflects the prospects of corporate America. “When I.B.M. is doing well, a lot of the corporations in America are doing well,” he says.

But it’s quite possible that the apparent connection between I.B.M.’s earnings and the overall market direction is nothing more than an anomaly, and may not continue.

That’s the assessment of Burton G. Malkiel, the Princeton economist and author of “A Random Walk Down Wall Street,” the investment book now in its 10th edition. He has found that, for the most part, the stock market does not follow predictable patterns.

“If it did,” Professor Malkiel says, “money managers would be able to beat the market regularly, but the vast majority of them can’t.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/your-money/apple-stock-isnt-a-bellwether-even-if-its-big.html?partner=rss&emc=rss