<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>DemoMemo</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/</link><description>Demographic Trends with Attitude</description><language>en</language><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</managingEditor><lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:26:05 PDT</lastBuildDate><generator>Blogger http://www.blogger.com</generator><openSearch:totalResults xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/">168</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/">1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/">25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/demomemo" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Survey Will Capture Losses</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/06/survey-will-capture-losses.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:26:05 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-8652131626415726088</guid><description>Very interesting news from the &lt;a href="http://www.norc.org/projects/Survey+of+Consumer+Finances+-SCF.htm"&gt;National Opinion Research Center&lt;/a&gt;, which fields the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). NORC reports that--for the first time ever--it will retake the survey this summer, interviewing the same households that were included in the last round in 2007. &lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;The 2007 results were released only a few months ago, revealing the financial status of households on the brink of the most severe economic downturn in at least a generation. Because the &lt;a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html"&gt;SCF&lt;/a&gt; is taken only every three years, the next survey would not be fielded until 2010 and the results released in 2012. In an effort to provide timely data on the rapidly changing financial status of American households (the SCF is the only nationally representative source of information on household wealth), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve has deemed this downturn of such historic importance that they want to capture its effects.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Kudos to a government data collection system that is nimble enough to respond to once-in-a-lifetime catastrophic events. The Census Bureau did a similar maneuver when Hurricane Katrina swept through New Orleans and the gulf coast, capturing through the Current Population Survey's monthly data collection system the before and after. Those results are available &lt;a href="http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/gulf_coast/index.htm"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-8652131626415726088?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-06-02T12:26:05.065-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Cliff Diving and Curb Jumping</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/04/cliff-diving-and-curb-jumping.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:44:56 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-6941047535403068846</guid><description>Take a look at any economic indicator lately, and you're likely to swoon as the trend line veers into a vertical plunge. This is called cliff diving. It is a common sport in economics, but rare in demographics. Demographic change is slow and steady. Demographic trends rarely dive off cliffs, but they occasionally jump off curbs. Case in point: the latest geographic mobility statistics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week the Census Bureau reported that only 11.9 percent of the population moved from one house to another between 2007 and 2008--the lowest proportion ever recorded in data that has been collected since the late 1940s. The number of people who moved--35 million--was the smallest since 1959-60.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Given the dire situation in the housing market, these numbers are not surprising. Homeowners are stuck and even renters aren't moving around as much as they once did. In 2007-08, only 5.4 percent of homeowners moved, down from 6.6 percent the year before and 7.4 percent in 2000-01. Among renters, 27.7 moved between 2007-08, down from 29.3 percent a year earlier and 30.3 percent in 2000-01.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;State-to-state migration has been severely curtailed. The number of people moving from one state to another fell by 39 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08, shrinking by 3 million.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By age, the largest proportionate drop in mobility has occurred among people aged 60 to 61--an age group once filled with retirees. In 2007-08, only 4.7 percent of 60-to-61-year-olds moved, down from 7.6 percent in 2000-01.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you really want to know how the priorities of Americans are changing, then take a look at their reasons for moving and how those have changed over the past few years.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Not buying&lt;/b&gt;: The number of people who moved because they wanted to buy a home fell by 48 percent, from 3.9 million in 2000-01 to just 2.0 million in 2007-08--the largest decline among all reasons for moving. While there probably is some pent up demand for buying a home, it is possible that many Americans are reconsidering the importance of ownership now that they know the risks.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Moving closer to work&lt;/b&gt;: The number of people who moved to shorten their commute increased by 80 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08, rising from 1.2 to 2.2 million--an 80 percent rise and the largest increase among all reasons for moving. This is bad news for the far-flung suburbs, which will be last in line for any economic recovery.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Delaying retirement&lt;/b&gt;: The sharp drop in the mobility of 60-to-61-year-olds is reflected in the 38 percent decline in the percentage of people who moved because of retirement between 2000-01 and 2007-08. Retirement savings have been decimated and the age of retirement is rising, which is why state-to-state migration has plunged. This trend could gut destination retirement areas.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Staying closer to home&lt;/b&gt;: The data show an ominous decline in the number of young adults who moved to attend or leave college, with the figure falling by 26 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08. This decline is occurring as a growing proportion of students opt for less-expensive in-state public schools and is yet another warning sign for the nation's overpriced private colleges. &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;b&gt;Downscaling expectations&lt;/b&gt;: The percentage of people who moved because they wanted cheaper housing climbed by 35 percent between 2000-01 and 2007-08. At the same time, the percentage who moved because they wanted a better home or apartment fell by 29 percent. &lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;Americans are dropping out of the housing market, delaying retirement, and downscaling their expectations for college and home. These trends may be temporary, but the best way to survive them is to assume they are permanent.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-6941047535403068846?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-04-28T22:44:56.144-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Why Aren't More Upset about Shoddy Health Care Coverage?</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-arent-more-upset-about-shoddy.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:09:09 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-117495168683351019</guid><description>Where are the pitchforks? Where are the "tea parties" to protest our broken health insurance system? A look at the demographics of health insurance coverage reveals the answer: The percentage of adults who must make do with the ludicrously expensive and inadequate private health insurance system is relatively small. Here is the breakdown for 2007, the latest data available:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Total population: 299 million&lt;br /&gt;Medicaid: 40 million&lt;br /&gt;Medicare: 41 million&lt;br /&gt;Military health care: 11 million&lt;br /&gt;Uninsured: 46 million&lt;br /&gt;Children with private health insurance: 44 million&lt;br /&gt;Elderly with private health insurance: 13 million&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Subtract all those people as potential constituents for health insurance reform, and that leaves 105 million--or just 35 percent of the population--who are struggling. And the percentage is even smaller  if you also subtract the few who have top-quality private health insurance--such as teachers, senators, and congressional representatives. Little known fact: each member of Congress receives health insurance for life after serving only five years in office. This goes a long way toward explaining their "What, me worry?" attitude.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, only about one-third of Americans are experiencing the full force of the broken health insurance system. Good luck with that.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-117495168683351019?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-04-21T11:09:09.713-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Retirement Confidence Plummets</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/04/retirement-confidence-plummets.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:03:08 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-4601494218424054563</guid><description>Percentage of American workers who are "very confident" they will have enough money to live comfortably in retirement: 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute, &lt;a href="http://www.ebri.org/surveys/rcs/2009/"&gt;2009 Retirement Confidence Survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-4601494218424054563?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-04-16T17:03:08.856-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>The American Nightmare</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/03/american-nightmare.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:38:07 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-4897087286260640210</guid><description>Millions of Americans cannot believe what is happening to them, and with good reason. Most of the nation's working-aged population (anyone under age 45) has never experienced a recession this bad, including many of the business executives who have steered their companies into bankruptcy. The last severe economic downturn--at least equivalent to what we are experiencing today--occurred in the early 1980s. Consequently, too many Americans thought the good times would just keep on rolling: the value of their home would only increase, the stock market would be a safe place to park their college and retirement savings, and there was little chance they would lose their job. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The results of a 2009 &lt;a href="http://www.metlife.com/dream"&gt;MetLife survey&lt;/a&gt; reveal the grim consequences of that kind of magical thinking. The survey finds that many Americans have no safety net, so confident were they in a prosperous future. An astonishing 28 percent of currently employed workers say they would not be able to pay their bills after less than two weeks of unemployment. Within a month, half of American workers say they would be unable to meet their financial obligations. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This lack of a Plan B explains why the country is in such a panic. The 56 percent majority of the employed are concerned that they could lose their job in the next year, according to MetLife. Fifty-nine percent of the employed fear that if they lose their job, they might have to file for bankruptcy. An even larger 64 percent of employed homeowners are afraid that a spell of unemployment will mean the loss of their home. Overall, three out of four respondents admit that they lack an adequate safety net. Welcome to the American Nightmare.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Although the pundits often scold Americans for being too deeply in debt, in fact debt is not the problem. The average household owes a relatively modest amount, according to the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances. The problem is the precarious income stream that keeps so many families afloat--an income stream now threatened by the deepest recession in a generation. If the stream dries up, as it is for many, then debt becomes a problem because there is no backup plan. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Are we finally learning a lesson? Will we be humbled by the hard times? Not likely. The freewheeling cowboy culture is too deeply ingrained in the American psyche. To see it in all its glory, take a look at a new study from the &lt;a href="http://www.economicmobility.org/reports_and_research/poll2009"&gt;Economic Mobility Project&lt;/a&gt;. This organization, which tracks the economic mobility of the American population, fielded a survey in late January and early February--a time when you might think the public would be chastened by events. But you would be wrong. Rather than rethinking the rules of the game, most Americans are still cheerleaders for the American Dream--even as it turns into a nightmare. When asked to define the Dream, the top three qualities mentioned by survey respondents were the freedom to accomplish anything (74 percent), the freedom to do what you want (68 percent), and children being better off financially than you (64 percent). Huh? Aren't those the same Anything Goes, Me First, and Bigger is Better ideals that got us into this mess? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even now, Americans overwhelmingly credit success to individual characteristics rather than structural factors. Hard work and ambition are the top two factors behind success, say 89 to 92 percent of us. Fewer than half think people get ahead because they are born into the right family, know the right people, or are just plain lucky. And what about the poor wretches on whom hard times have fallen? They should not look to their fellow Americans for sympathy. The largest share of the public, including both conservatives and liberals, say the downward mobility so many are experiencing is due to "poor life choices." In other words, it's not the economy, stupid.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-4897087286260640210?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-03-29T12:38:07.921-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Another Baby Boom?</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-baby-boom.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:37:05 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-7028186163559652089</guid><description>In 2007, a record 4,317,000 babies were born in the United States. It took exactly 50 years to break the old record of 4,308,000 established in 1957. So the answer is no, we are not in the midst of another baby boom. Here's why.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For one thing, the U.S. population has almost doubled since 1957, climbing from 152 million to 302 million--yet only now have American women managed to produce slightly more babies than they did half a century ago. The average woman of 1957 could expect to have 3.77 children in her lifetime. Today, the average woman will have only 2.12. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The fertility rate of 1957 was 122.9 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. Today the fertility rate is just 69.5. Granted, today's figure is higher than the all-time low of 63.6, which we hit in 1997, but the increase is due more to the changing demographic composition of American women than it is to a new baby boom. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hispanics account for a growing proportion of women aged 15 to 44, and Hispanic fertility is far above average. In 2007, the Hispanic fertility rate was 102.1--not far below the average fertility rate of 1957. Among non-Hispanic whites, in contrast, the 2007 fertility rate was just 60.1. Hispanics account for one in four births in the United States today. Of the 52,000 additional babies that put us over the top in 2007, 44 percent were Hispanic, 27 percent were Asian, 19 percent were black, and 7 percent were non-Hispanic white.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-7028186163559652089?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-03-29T12:37:05.191-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Generational Change</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/03/generational-change.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:37:55 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-6722817799209764534</guid><description>Percentage of Americans who say there is nothing wrong with &lt;br /&gt;sexual relations between two adults of the same sex, by age&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;18 to 29:  52%&lt;br /&gt;30 to 39:  48%&lt;br /&gt;40 to 49:  35%&lt;br /&gt;50 to 64:  34%&lt;br /&gt;65 or older: 18%&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: &lt;a href="http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin32/hsda?harcsda+gss08"&gt;2008 General Social Survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-6722817799209764534?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-03-24T17:37:55.843-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Internet 2, Newspapers 3</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/03/internet-2-newspapers-3.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:35:11 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-2124409701667219317</guid><description>Percentage of people who get most of their news from&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1. Television:  48 percent&lt;br /&gt;2. Internet: 22 percent&lt;br /&gt;3. Newspapers: 20 percent&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: &lt;a href="http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin32/hsda?harcsda+gss08"&gt;2008 General Social Survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-2124409701667219317?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-03-20T13:35:11.324-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Another Look at Who Is to Blame</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-look-at-who-is-to-blame.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:05:11 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-2170100021616925031</guid><description>In a recent online poll, &lt;span style="font-style:italic;"&gt;Time&lt;/span&gt; magazine asked its readers who was most to blame for the current economic crisis. Readers rated the guilt of 25 different people on a scale of 1 (innocent) to 10 (guilty). On that scale, the American Consumer rated an 8--even guiltier, according to the public, than George W. Bush or Alan Greenspan. "We've been borrowing, borrowing, borrowing," explained Time, "living off and believing in the wealth effect, first in stocks, which ended badly, then in real estate, which has ended even worse."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But is the American Consumer guilty as charged? Just in time to shed some light on the matter, the Federal Reserve Board has released the long-awaited results of the triennial Survey of Consumer Finances. The latest survey, taken in 2007, reveals the economic status of the average American household at the peak of our supposed profligacy. The survey results turn out to be a friendly witness, presenting evidence not of our guilt, but of our innocence. Yes, the results show our 2007 net worth swollen by inflated housing prices and they reveal the rush of money into real estate. But as in previous years, the results disprove the notion that the average household is deeply in debt.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Let's hear the evidence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;E&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;xhibit 1: For the average household, debt is modest.&lt;/span&gt; The median amount of outstanding debt for households with debt (77 percent of all households) stood at $67,300 in 2007. This figure includes mortgage debt.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;Exhibit 2: Most debt is mortgage debt.&lt;/span&gt; Seventy-five percent of the debt owed by the average household is the mortgage on their primary residence. Even this debt is not overwhelming. The median ratio of mortgage debt to housing value stood at 53.3 percent in 2007. Only 1 percent of homeowners had mortgage debt greater than the value of their primary residence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;Exhibit 3: Home equity loans are not common.&lt;/span&gt; Only 18 percent of homeowners had a home equity line of credit, and an even smaller 12 percent had an outstanding balance on a home equity loan. This proportion has not changed since 2004.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;Exhibit 4: Few gambled in the housing market.&lt;/span&gt; The percentage of households with debts for "other residential properties" (second homes, rental units, investment properties, etc.) climbed between 2004 and 2007, rising from 4.0 to 5.5 percent. According to the Federal Reserve Board, this was the largest increase in the prevalence of debt among all types of debt, evidence of the rush to real estate during the housing bubble. Yet 94.5 percent of households did not drink the Kool-Aid.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;Exhibit 5: Credit card balances are modest.&lt;/span&gt; Only 46 percent of households carried a balance on a credit card in 2007--a figure that was unchanged from 2004. The median outstanding debt for those with a credit card balance was just $3,000. Among households with bank-type credit cards, 55 percent say they pay their balance in full each month. The average credit card bill last month? Just $250. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;Exhibit 6: Only a handful are in trouble.&lt;/span&gt; Only 14.7 percent of debtors owed more than 40 percent of their income, up slightly from the 12.2 percent of 2004. Despite this increase, the percentage of debtor households that were 60 or more days late in making a payment fell from 8.9 to 7.1 percent between 2004 and 2007.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The evidence proves that the average American household was on solid financial footing as of 2007. Consumers did not cause the financial crisis. The widespread belief that overconsumption is responsible for the meltdown is rooted in several factors such as falling prices for clothes, electronics, and many other goods (allowing people to buy more with less) and the presence of the large baby-boom generation in the peak spending lifestage. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the saga continues. Although the Survey of Consumer Finances was taken in 2007, the Federal Reserve Board's analysis examines the impact on households of the financial collapse through October 2008. Housing values took a hit. The home equity of homeowners with mortgages fell from $91,000 in 2007 to $71,600 as of October 2008. The median ratio of mortgage debt to housing equity among homeowners with mortgages climbed 5 percentage points to 58.5 percent. The median value of the stock held by households fell from $35,000 to $22,500 between 2007 and 2008. Net worth also fell. In 2007, median household net worth stood at $120,300. By October 2008, the figure was down to $99,000, according to Federal Reserve estimates. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sky has not fallen--yet. Note that even after the decline, the net worth of the average household is still very much positive--higher, in fact, than it was in 1998 after adjusting for inflation. But if in its soul searching the American public fails to place the blame for the financial crisis squarely where it belongs--on the financial institutions and government regulators who did not do their job--then consumer confidence will continue to fall, the recession will deepen, more will lose their jobs, and household wealth will plummet. The sky will fall.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-2170100021616925031?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-03-09T21:05:11.199-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Is Homeownership Declining?</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-homeownership-declining.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:03:22 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-5441352713192652474</guid><description>Yes, the homeownership rate is down. According to the the latest numbers from the Census Bureau, 67.8 percent of households owned a home in 2008, down from 68.1 percent in 2007--a small decline, considering all the ink that has been spilled over the housing crisis. The 2008 homeownership rate remains close to the record high of 69.0 percent reached in 2004 and still exceeds the 67.4 percent of 2000.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Homeownership fell in most age groups, but not by much. The biggest decline occurred among householders aged 30 to 34. Many were first-time homebuyers who bit off more than they could chew during the housing bubble and have been forced to give up the dream of homeownership for now.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The biggest lesson to be learned in the statistics on homeownership is the comforting stability of demographics, which offer a way to approach the future that is resistant to "black swans" (unanticipated radical change, a term popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book The Black Swan). In the absence of natural disasters such as Katrina, demographic trends offer a stability that is sorely needed as Americans confront a chaotic economy.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-5441352713192652474?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-03-09T21:03:22.197-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>The Tchotchke Index</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/02/tchotchke-index.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:31:13 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-934147795012887487</guid><description>Between 2000 and 2007, the Tchotchke Index fell 33 percent, after adjusting for inflation. What is the Tchotchke Index? It is the amount of money spent by the average household on "decorative items for the home," one of the detailed categories of household expenditures examined by the government's Consumer Expenditure Survey.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Tchotchke Index, it turns out, is an excellent gauge of the economic wellbeing of American households. Spending on tchotchkes--a.k.a. trinkets, junk, yard sale detritus, and the raison d'etre of the self-storage industry--rises when Americans are feeling flush and falls when they are feeling pinched. Spending on tchotchkes tracks the economy's ups and downs with the precision of other, better-known measures such as the the Consumer Confidence Index, the unemployment rate, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If only more of the experts--especially those in the financial services industry--had been paying attention to the Tchotchke Index, then they would have known to run for cover three years ago. The index has been falling since 2005.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Tchotchke Index peaked in 2000, along with the dotcom boom. In that year, the average household spent $230 (in 2007 dollars) on decorative items for the home. Spending on tchotchkes fell to a low of $147 in 2003 following the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the trauma of 9/11. It clawed its way back up to $207 by 2005--coincident with the housing boom. Now that the housing bubble has burst, spending on tchotchkes is down again. By 2007, average household spending on decorative items for the home had fallen to $155--a 25 percent loss in just two years, after adjusting for inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Tchotchke Index is a measure of the fluff in America's household budgets. It is pure impulse spending, and the first item cut when times get tough.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-934147795012887487?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-02-13T11:31:13.999-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Lunch Time</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/01/lunch-time.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:03:19 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-8027710857696073775</guid><description>&lt;a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2TCVV2Am8Y/SX4kqxuXonI/AAAAAAAAABg/x0IBF2hGvFE/s1600-h/Chart1_Page_2.jpg"&gt;&lt;img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 309px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2TCVV2Am8Y/SX4kqxuXonI/AAAAAAAAABg/x0IBF2hGvFE/s400/Chart1_Page_2.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5295710529155211890" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The chart above shows the percentage of construction and food service workers on the job during each hour of the day, based on 2003-07 data from the American Time Use Survey. Note how the percentage of food service workers on the job (blue line) peaks at noon, just when the percentage of construction workers on the job (red line) plunges as they break for lunch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics &lt;a href="http://www.bls.gov/tus/"&gt;American Time Use Survey&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-8027710857696073775?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-01-26T16:03:19.036-05:00</app:edited><media:thumbnail xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2TCVV2Am8Y/SX4kqxuXonI/AAAAAAAAABg/x0IBF2hGvFE/s72-c/Chart1_Page_2.jpg" height="72" width="72" /><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Avoiding the Doctor</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2009/01/avoiding-doctor.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:17:30 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-7758745974302154040</guid><description>Percentage of people aged 18 or older who have not visited the doctor in the past year, by health insurance coverage status, 2007...&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Private health insurance: 17&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;No health insurance: 46&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Source: National Center for Health Statistics, &lt;a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm"&gt;Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2007&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-7758745974302154040?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2009-01-10T18:17:30.915-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Two Million Artists</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-million-artists.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:01:10 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-2642752408523260416</guid><description>Two million Americans are trying to make a living as artists, according to a new report by the National Endowment for the Arts. Every decade or so the NEA updates its profile of people whose primary employment is in the arts. The latest report, &lt;a href="http://www.nea.gov/research/researchreports_chrono.html"&gt;Artists in the Workforce, 1990-2005,&lt;/a&gt; finds 2 million workers who identify their primary occupation as actor, announcer, architect, fine artist, art director, animator, dancer, choreographer, designer, entertainer, musician, singer, photographer, producer, director, writer, or author. The 2 million figure excludes another 300,000 workers whose secondary employment is in the arts.  &lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Artists have a median age of 40. Most are college graduates. Among those who work full-time, median personal income was $45,200 in 2005--below the $52,500 median income of all professional workers. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Architects have the highest median income ($63,500 among full-time workers), and actors have the lowest ($31,500). One in three artists is self-employed. Not surprisingly, women artists make less than their male counterparts. Another NEA report, &lt;a href="http://www.nea.gov/research/ResearchNotes_chrono.html"&gt;Women Artists: 1990 to 2005 &lt;/a&gt;details the differences. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-2642752408523260416?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-12-29T17:01:10.917-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Many Renters Use Only Cell Phones</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/many-renters-use-only-cell-phones.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:14:13 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-8459486621171746118</guid><description>Conveniently, every six months the federal government updates the nation on how many households use cell phones only. The latest survey, taken January to June 2008, finds that 16 percent of Americans aged 18 or older use only cell phones. &lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Age is the most important factor in determining cell phone only use, with young adults most likely to spurn landlines. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 31 percent use only cell phones. Among 25-to-29-year-olds, the figure is an even larger 36 percent. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;The demographic segments dominated by young adults are also the ones most likely to use only cell phones. A hefty 34 percent of renters, for example, are cell phone only users (compared with a paltry 9 percent of homeowners). Among Hispanics, 22 percent use only cell phones (versus a smaller 15 percent of non-Hispanic whites). Among unrelated adults who live together (many of them cohabiting couples), the 63 percent majority are cell phone only. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Source: National Center for Health Statistics, &lt;a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhis/releases.htm#wireless200812"&gt;Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2008&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-8459486621171746118?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-12-19T12:14:13.139-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>They Should Have Seen It Coming</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/they-should-have-seen-it-coming.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:16:10 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-5851936238868184518</guid><description>The empty cash registers finally got their attention. Businesses large and small are in a panic, wondering where their customers went. Last week the Census Bureau reported that November 2008 retail sales were 7.4 percent below November 2007 sales--a record decline. More than a few captains of industry are expressing surprise at the severity of the downturn. But anyone with an Internet connection, a calculator, and a modicum of curiosity could have seen this coming. Middle Americans are in trouble and so are the businesses that have long ignored them.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Easy money. Entitlement. Short-term thinking. All go a long way toward explaining why businesses are hurting. During the credit expansion of the bubble years, companies grew complacent and lost touch with Middle America. Even as conditions worsened for the average American, there was money to be made by selling bigger houses, bigger cars, and bigger televisions to the small fraction of the population that was living large. A handful of businesses did not abandon their roots, such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Their focus on Middle America never wavered. That explains why November sales were higher than expected at Wal-Mart (same-store sales up 3.4 percent) and McDonalds (up 4.5 percent) while almost everyone else reported sharp declines. Now businesses are playing catch-up. They must reacquaint themselves with Middle America, and fast.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;American Business, meet Middle America:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where men's earnings have been declining for more than two decades. The median earnings of men who work year-round, full-time peaked in 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where household incomes are shrinking. Median household income fell 1 percent between 2000 and 2007, after adjusting for inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where, between 2000 and 2006, the average household had already cut its spending on restaurant meals, clothes, new cars, kitchen appliances, outdoor furniture, toys, newspapers and magazines, and a long list of other items.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where the average home was worth a modest median of $191,000 in 2007, according to the American Housing Survey--and it is worth even less today.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where, the percentage of people who moved fell to an all-time low of 13 percent in 2006-07 as the housing market seized up.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where the much vaunted American entrepreneurial spirit is all but dead. The percentage of workers who are self employed fell to an all-time low of 7.1 percent in 2007.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where the American dream of a college education is fading. The number of students enrolled full-time in four-year colleges fell 4 percent between 2005 and 2006 (the latest data available), according to the Census Bureau.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where the return on a college degree is shrinking. The median earnings of men and women with bachelor's degrees who work full-time peaked in 2002 and has fallen by 3 to 4 percent since then, after adjusting for inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where the out-of-pocket cost of health insurance has climbed 27 percent since 2000, after adjusting for inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where people are scrimping on health care. The number of physician visits fell 6 percent between 2005 and 2006 (the latest data available), according to the National Center for Health Statistics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where 60 percent of workers do not have a 401(k) or an IRA, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Where a growing proportion of older workers cannot afford to retire. The labor force participation rate of men aged 65 or older climbed 3 percentage points between 2000 and 2007.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;Falling incomes. Rising costs. Spending cuts. Long before the 2008 economic meltdown, Middle America had assumed crash positions. If businesses had been paying attention to their customers rather than their cash registers, they could have positioned themselves for the crash as well. Now all they can do is pick up the pieces.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-5851936238868184518?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-12-18T15:16:10.843-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Cell Phone Spending Tops Landline</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/cell-phone-spending-tops-landline.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:15:01 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-2095902338746974634</guid><description>Recently released statistics from the 2007 Consumer Expenditure Survey show that average household spending on cell phone service has surged well above spending on residential phone service. Here are the numbers: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Average household spending in 2007&lt;br /&gt;Cell phone service $608&lt;br /&gt;Residential phone service $482&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, spending on residential phone service ($542) was slightly greater than spending on cell service ($524).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: Unpublished tables from the 2007 Consumer Expenditure Survey&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-2095902338746974634?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-12-10T11:15:01.658-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>The Great American Shopping List</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/11/great-american-shopping-list.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:37:52 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-5986202782986202707</guid><description>Oh, American consumer, how we miss you! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Consumer spending is falling at a 3.1 percent annual rate, according to the latest statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Many of the nation's retailers reported double-digit declines in October sales, with the New York Times calling it a "collapse" in spending. Since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of our economy, the belt tightening hurts all of us. To weather what looks like a prolonged economic downturn, businesses large and small need to brush up on consumer spending patterns. There is no better place to start than with The Great American Shopping List.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You can learn most of what you need to know about consumer spending by taking a look at the list--the inventory of every product and service purchased by American households, ranked by how much the average household spends on each item. The federal government collects the information by surveying thousands of households each month, asking them how much they spend on everything from cookies and crackers to video games and recreational vehicles. The Consumer Expenditure Survey data are used to create the all-important Consumer Price Index. Although the list is long, with more than 350 products and services, just 10 items consume more than half of the $50,000 spent by the average household each year. Here they are. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;1. Social Security payroll taxes&lt;/span&gt; The bad news is that Social Security is our single biggest expense. The average household paid $3,811 into the Social Security trust fund, according to the 2006 Consumer Expenditure Survey. The good news is that this flow of funds reverses direction when you retire. If you don't believe it, join the crowd--only 31 percent of today's workers think Social Security will be their most important source of income in retirement, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The rest will be surprised. The fact is, most American workers do not have a 401(k) or an IRA. Those who do have managed to save very little--and that was before the stock market crash. You don't have to be a number cruncher to realize that Social Security will be even more important tomorrow than it is today. Among people aged 65 or older, 68 percent receive at least half their income from Social Security. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;2. Mortgage payments&lt;/span&gt; Hyperbole is the word that best describes the media narrative about the dire financial straits of the nation's homeowners. In fact, most homeowners have a manageable, fixed-rate mortgage. Most owe far less on their mortgage than their home is worth. Although there are plans afoot to help homeowners renegotiate their mortgage payment, few will need to take advantage of these efforts. Nevertheless, because mortgage payments are the second largest expense for the average household--an expense that is pretty much non-negotiable--household budget cutting will target items further down the list. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;3. Car payments&lt;/span&gt; U.S. auto sales are plummeting, down 32 percent in October. Further declines are likely as households cut costs. The automotive industry is caught in a perfect storm--a severe recession, a paradigm shift in what consumers want (hint: better gas mileage), and a demographic transition as SUV-loving baby boomers morph into downsizing empty-nesters. The car payment is one item on which the average household can and is cutting back, forcing car manufacturers to beg the federal government for handouts to stay afloat. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;4. Groceries&lt;/span&gt; Food prices have been rising at a pace not seen for decades, and forecasters say costs will continue to climb. Americans do not like paying higher prices for food, but they have little choice unless they want to plow up the backyard. Groceries are the fourth largest item in the Great American Shopping List. For grocery stores, the cutback in consumer spending could be good news, since a growing proportion of budget-minded shoppers are likely to head to a grocery store rather than a restaurant. In the grocery aisles, private labels will flourish, as will fresh prepared food--the grocery store's answer to the demand for fast-food convenience. Fresh prepared food is already the single biggest item on America's grocery list. Average household spending on fresh prepared food from the supermarket deli climbed an enormous 53 percent between 2000 and 2006, after adjusting for inflation. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;5. Restaurant meals&lt;/span&gt; Eating out is a necessity, not a luxury, for busy two-earner and single-parent families with children. Convenience drives them to restaurants and price steers them to fast-food. This is why fast-food restaurants will weather the downturn far better than full-service establishments. At McDonald's, same-store sales were up 8 percent in October. Meanwhile, full-service restaurants such as Bennigan's are filing for bankruptcy. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;6. Gasoline&lt;/span&gt; Even before prices soared, gasoline was one of the biggest household expenses. Now that Americans are desperately seeking savings, gasoline is an obvious target. Memo to Detroit: Fuel efficiency will be the number-one priority for American car buyers from now on, regardless of the price of a gallon of gas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;7. Federal taxes&lt;/span&gt; Taxes are a perennial political issue because they are one of the biggest household expenses. Middle class tax cuts may be on the way, but do not expect this line item to fall much lower in the list.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;8. Property taxes&lt;/span&gt; With home values declining and local governments strapped for cash, property taxes will become one of the most contentious local issues of the economic downturn.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;9. Health insurance&lt;/span&gt; The average household devoted $1,465 out-of-pocket to health insurance in 2006, 27 percent more than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation. Most Americans will do just about anything to avoid losing their health insurance, which guarantees budget cutting elsewhere as the cost of health insurance rises. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;10. Electricity&lt;/span&gt; The average household spent $1,266 on electricity in 2006, placing it 10th on the Great American Shopping List. Consumers are eager for ways to reduce this major expense. This desire will fuel green businesses that can help them save them money.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Every item at the top of The Great American Shopping List is a necessary expense. This is not good news for the hundreds of items further down the list--such as women's clothes in 16th place, television sets in 69th place, ice cream in 123rd place, whiskey in 285th place, or dating services in 359th place. With jobs disappearing, incomes falling, and consumers cutting back, necessities will command a growing share of household spending, leaving less for everything else.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-5986202782986202707?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-12-17T16:37:52.077-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">4</thr:total></item><item><title>College Enrollment Is Declining</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/college-enrollment-is-declining.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:15:30 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-3937279079952929544</guid><description>An article in today's &lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?hp"&gt;New York Times&lt;/a&gt; on the rising cost of college includes the following sentence: "Although college enrollment has continued to rise in recent years...it is not clear how long that can continue."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have &lt;a href="http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/08/middle-class-just-blinked.html"&gt;posted&lt;/a&gt; on this topic before, and I will say it again: college enrollment is &lt;span style="font-weight:bold;"&gt;already&lt;/span&gt; declining. Traditional college enrollment--meaning undergraduates attending four-year schools full-time--fell 4 percent between 2005 and 2006 (the latest data available).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This dramatic reversal of the long-term trend is being masked by an enrollment surge at community colleges. All this was underway BEFORE the current economic collapse. The next few years are going to be very tough indeed for high-priced private four-year colleges.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-3937279079952929544?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-12-03T15:15:30.623-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Women Aged 50 to 59 Weigh the Most</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/11/women-aged-50-to-59-weigh-most.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:05:33 PST</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-863589291114642302</guid><description>The average American woman weighs 164.7 pounds, according to the latest government measurements.  Since she is only 5 feet 4 inches tall, the average woman has a body mass index of 28.4 (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). This is decidedly overweight. Here is what the scales report, by age: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Women's weight by age (in pounds)&lt;br /&gt;aged 20 to 29: 155.9&lt;br /&gt;aged 30 to 39: 164.7&lt;br /&gt;aged 40 to 49: 171.3&lt;br /&gt;aged 50 to 59: 172.1&lt;br /&gt;aged 60 to 69: 170.5&lt;br /&gt;aged 70 to 79: 155.6&lt;br /&gt;aged 80-plus: 142.2&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: National Center for Health Statistics, &lt;a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/nhsr/nhsr.htm#nhsr010"&gt;Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults, 2003-2006&lt;/a&gt; For men's weight, see table 6.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-863589291114642302?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-11-02T11:05:33.515-05:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Who Needs Social Security?</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-needs-social-security.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:01:59 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-6538142362387799718</guid><description>Percentage of people aged 65 or older who receive at least half their income from Social Security: 68.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: Congressional Research Service, &lt;a href="http://opencrs.com/document/RL32697"&gt;Income and Poverty Among Older Americans in 2007&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-6538142362387799718?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-10-29T13:01:59.346-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Eating Our Young</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/10/eating-our-young.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:53:04 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-979535612905231780</guid><description>Percent change in median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, 2000 to 2007 (in 2007 dollars)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Men aged 20 to 24:  -15.9&lt;br /&gt;Men aged 25 to 34:  -12.5&lt;br /&gt;Men aged 35 to 44:  -5.7&lt;br /&gt;Men aged 45 to 54:  +1.1 &lt;br /&gt;Men aged 55 to 64:  +12.4&lt;br /&gt;Men aged 65 or older:  +17.9&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, &lt;a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#women"&gt;Highlights of Women's Earnings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-979535612905231780?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-10-29T12:53:04.090-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Physician Visits Decline</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/10/physician-visits-decline.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:28:11 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-247091540668679643</guid><description>This is news: The number of times Americans went to the doctor fell in 2006, a surprising reversal of a long-term trend--especially considering the aging of the population. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, physician visits fell from 964 million in 2005 to 902 million in 2006 (the latest data available)--a 6 percent decline.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The physician visit rate, or the number of visits per 100 persons per year, fell by an even larger 7 percent between 2005 and 2006--from 331.0 to 306.6.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Because of the decline in physician visits, doctors wrote fewer prescriptions--1.9 billion in 2006, down from 2.0 billion in 2005. The percentage of visits in which the doctor provided a prescription did not change, at 71 percent.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Americans are tightening their belts, and doctors and pharmaceutical companies are feeling the pinch.   &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source: &lt;a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/ahcd/adata.htm"&gt;National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 Summary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-247091540668679643?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-10-22T10:28:11.931-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>Don't Blame Main Street</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/10/dont-blame-main-street.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:13:24 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-4544058386722998334</guid><description>Americans are standing with their mouths agape as the stock market lurches. They lie awake at night worrying about what the future holds for their jobs, their families, and their communities. Who is to blame for this unfolding financial crisis? The finger of blame is pointing in many directions, but one place that does not deserve the blame is Main Street.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just in time to provide some perspective, the Census Bureau has released the latest &lt;a href="http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/housing/012760.html"&gt;American Housing Survey&lt;/a&gt;, with data collected only a few months ago in 2007. You can't get much more current than that. And what do the 2007 numbers tell us? They tell us that the average American has been betrayed by financial institutions that should have known better.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No doubt you have heard many a pundit exclaim--in print and on TV--that Americans did this to themselves. We bought houses we could not afford, we used our homes as ATM machines, and we have fallen so deeply in debt that millions of us face foreclosure. Our bad behavior has brought the nation's financial institutions to their knees.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just because newspapers and television say so does not make it true. In fact, the average American has been careful with his money. But the institutions in which we entrusted our dollars gambled them away.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 2007 American Housing Survey provides the evidence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First, let's take a look at mortgages. In 2007, the 51 million American homeowners with mortgages remained well above water. They owed a modest median of $100,904 on their homes--just 54 percent of their home's value. This statistic has not changed much in years--it was 55 percent 10 years ago in 1997. Granted, home values have dropped since 2007 and are likely to fall even more. Still, for most homeowners a substantial cushion remains. Only 3 percent of homeowners owe more than their house is worth. The great majority of homeowners with mortgages have 30-year fixed-rate loans carrying a median interest rate of 6.4 percent. Things on Main Street appear to be in order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Second, let's take a look at home equity loans. The way it is reported, you would think everyone has a home equity loan. But among the nation's 76 million homeowners, only 14 million had a home equity loan or line of credit in 2007. Do the math, and that translates into just 19 percent of homeowners. Or put it this way: 81 percent of homeowners do not have a home equity loan. Even those who have tapped into their equity have not been using their home as an ATM machine. The median amount owed on home equity loans is a reasonable $25,934. Again, nothing exciting to report on Main Street.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Third, let's take a look at foreclosures. Most of the foreclosure numbers in the press come from &lt;a href="http://www.realtytrac.com/"&gt;Realtytrac&lt;/a&gt;, an online business that sells foreclosed properties--and in the process of doing so, collects foreclosure data. Realtytrac provides foreclosure statistics to much of the media, including the Wall Street Journal. Not surprisingly, its data show a big increase in foreclosures. In 2007, says Realtytrac, "more than 1 percent of all U.S. households were in some stage of foreclosure." That sounds like trouble on Main Street. But read the fine print in the methodology, and you will discover that the definition of Realtytrac's "households" is the Census Bureau's count of "housing units." There is a big difference between the two concepts. When a household faces foreclosure, a family loses its home. A household is defined as an occupied housing unit--meaning that someone lives there. In contrast, many housing units facing foreclosure are vacant, owned by flippers and developers who gambled on rising prices and lost.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2007, 14 percent of the nation's housing units were vacant--a record high. Overbuilt, overpriced, and financed by cheap money, these housing units are the crux of the crisis--a crisis caused by lax lending standards. It was not Main Street, but Wall Street that drank the Kool-aid. Main Street, however, is paying the price.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-4544058386722998334?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-10-13T21:13:24.247-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><title>How Many Have Health Insurance Through Their Own Employer?</title><link>http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-many-have-health-insurance-through.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Cheryl Russell)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:11:44 PDT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21541568.post-5805719146233137690</guid><description>Surprisingly few Americans have health insurance through their own employer. In 2007, the figure was just 31 percent, according to the Census Bureau's &lt;a href="http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/health/toc.htm"&gt;Current Population Survey&lt;/a&gt;. The percentage covered through the plan of a parent or spouse's employer is almost as large, at 28 percent. Another 28 percent of Americans are covered by government health insurance--either Medicaid, Medicare, or military. Just 9 percent buy their own private plan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By age, only 45-to-54-year-olds are likely to be covered by their own employer's health insurance plan. Fifty-one percent of people aged 45 to 54 have their own employment-based health insurance. In every other age group, less than half have insurance in their own name.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Males are more likely than females to have their own insurance--35 versus 27 percent. Among non-Hispanic whites, 35 percent have health insurance through their own employer. The figure is 31 percent among Asians and 27 percent among blacks. Hispanics are least likely to have health insurance through their own employer, at 20 percent. A larger 32 percent of Hispanics have no health insurance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Since 2000, the percentage of Americans covered by their own employer's health insurance plan has fallen by 2 percentage points.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Percentage of people covered by their own employer's health insurance plan by age, 2007:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;under age 18       0.3%&lt;br /&gt;aged 18 to 24     19.0&lt;br /&gt;aged 25 to 34     47.3&lt;br /&gt;aged 35 to 44     48.9&lt;br /&gt;aged 45 to 54     51.2&lt;br /&gt;aged 55 to 64     49.9&lt;br /&gt;aged 65 or older  25.7&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='//blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/21541568-5805719146233137690?l=demomemo.blogspot.com'/&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2008-10-13T21:11:44.858-04:00</app:edited><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item></channel></rss>
