Automakers Are Having a Record Year, but Here’s a Trend that Should Worry Them
U.S. auto sales closed out the summer on a positive note, topping estimates and casting some rosy light on the health of the American consumer. Recording its best August since 2003, the auto industry is on pace to sell 17.8 vehicles in 2015, well ahead of expectations of 17.3 million. If the numbers hold up, 2015 will be the best year ever for U.S. auto sales, beating the 17.4 million mark set in 2000.
The general consensus is that auto industry is in pretty good shape these days. Gas prices and interest rates are low, boosting the market for cars and light trucks. More than 2 million jobs were added to the U.S. economy in the past year, and more jobs is usually good news for auto sales. The unemployment rate has been trending lower for five years, sitting at a relatively healthy 5.3 percent in July.
Related: What's Next for Oil Prices? Look Out Below!
As with any statistic, though, there’s more than one way to look at the situation. Sure, auto sales are climbing as the economy gets stronger and more Americans hit their local car dealers’ lots. At least to some degree, though, higher auto sales should be expected just as a result of U.S. population growth. And those rising monthly sales figures are masking a continuing trend that is more worrisome for the auto industry: per capita auto sales are still in a long-term decline, even including the solid growth the industry has seen since the end of the recession. Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives did the math and made a graph:
According to Short’s analysis, the peak year for per capita auto sales in the U.S. was 1978. As the red line in the graph shows, the trend is negative since then.
In the graph, per capita auto sales in January, 1976, were defined as 100; the readings in the index since then are relative to that 1976 sales level. As you can see, the index moves higher until August of 1978, when per capita auto sales were up nearly 20 percent over 1976. Since then, per capita auto sales have fallen, reaching a low in 2009 that was nearly 50 percent lower than 1976. Since 2009, per capita auto sales have risen nicely, but are still more than 15 percent below peak.
What could explain the negative trend? Two factors come to mind. First, demographics. It has been widely reported that the millennial generation is less interested in owning cars for a variety of reasons, ranging from a weak economy to a cultural shift away from suburban life. However, the data on millennial car purchases is ambiguous; recently, millennials have started buying cars in volumes that look a lot like their elders. And even if millennials are less interested in buying cars, their preferences can’t explain a shift that began in the 1970s, before they were born.
Related: U.S. Companies Are Dying Faster Than Ever
The other factor that may explain the trend is income inequality. A study of car ownership by the Carnegie Foundation found that countries with higher income inequality have fewer cars per capita. The logic is simple: As more income is claimed by the wealthy, there’s less to go around for everyone else. And that means there’s less money for middle and lower income groups to buy and maintain automobiles, among other things.
Here’s a chart of the Gini index for the U.S. since 1947. (The Gini Index is a widely-used measure of income inequality. A higher Gini number means higher inequality.) Note that the Gini reading started climbing in the late ‘70s – the same time when per capita car ownership in the U.S. began to fall.
This chart tells us, not for the first time, that the U.S. has experienced more income inequality since the 1970s. Combined with the per capita auto sales data above, it suggests that as the rich have gotten richer and everyone else has struggled to keep up, car ownership has suffered. Although this is by no means proof of the relationship between income inequality and per capita car ownership over the last 40 years, it hints at an interesting theory – and suggests that the auto industry has good reason to be concerned about growing inequality in the U.S.
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times:
- 6 Reasons Gas Prices Could Fall Below $2 a Gallon
- Hoping for a Raise? Here’s How Much Most People Are Getting
- What the U.S. Must Do to Avoid Another Financial Crisis
When It Comes to Fees, These Credit Cards Are the Worst
Two credit cards from First Premier Bank have the most fees of 100 cards researched for a CreditCards.com report released today.
The average number of fees per credit card analyzed was six, but the First Premier Bank Credit Card and the First Premier Bank Secured MasterCard carry 12 potential fees each. The PenFed Promise Visa Card was the only one in the survey that levied no fees at all.
A quarter of the cards surveyed charged an annual fee, although 10 percent waived that fee for a consumers’ first year. All cards except for the PenFed Promise Visa Card charged a late payment fee, which can run up to $25.
Related: What to Know Before Your Teen Gets a Credit Card
Penalty fees tend to be easier for consumers to avoid (don’t make late payments), and it’s worth shopping around for cards that don’t have fees for the transactions you need.
Most cards carry a cash advance fee, typically the greater of either $10 or 5 percent of each cash advance. Among cards that allow balance transfers, 90 percent charge a fee for doing so, typically $5 or 3 percent of the transfer.
Another common fee was the foreign transaction fee, typically about 3 percent per transaction, charged by 77 percent of cards. “If you travel internationally a lot, a credit card that doesn’t charge foreign transaction fees is a great value,” CreditCards.com senior industry analyst Matt Schulz said in a statement.
If you’re hit with an unexpected, one-time fee, try calling your issuer and asking them for a refund. Often customer service reps are authorized to do so on a case-by-case basis.
MOST POTENTIAL FEES
- First Premier Bank Credit Card (12)
- First Premier Bank Secured MasterCard (12)
- Credit One Visa Platinum (9)
- Fifth Third Bank Platinum MasterCard (9)
- Navy Federal Credit Union Platinum (9)
- Navy Federal Credit Union Cash Rewards (9)
- Regions Visa Platinum Rewards (9)
FEWEST POTENTIAL FEES
- PenFed Promise Visa Card (0)
- ExxonMobil SmartCard from Citi (3)
- Spark Classic from Capital One (3)
- Capital One Spark Cash Select for Business (3)
- Spark Miles Select by Capital One (3)
Amazon vs. Walmart: A Graphic Look at the Numbers on Prime Day
Amazon’s campaign to create a Christmas-in-July shopping frenzy online seemed to be working on Wednesday, if the sheer number of blog posts debating the pros and cons of its big sales event are any measure.
Marking the company’s 20th anniversary while promoting Amazon Prime -- the $99 a year program which provides free shipping, online video and other perks -- Prime Day promises “more deals than Black Friday,” according to the retailing giant.
While some shoppers complained about lackluster offerings, critics were missing the point. Amazon’s likely goal was not to boost revenues through a massive sale, but to sell more Amazon Prime memberships. As always, Amazon has its eye on the prize of becoming the world’s largest retailer.
Walmart, the current retailer champion, didn’t the challenge sitting down, announcing its own massive online sale beginning July 15. It looks like the battle is on for control of the mass market online shopping space.
How do the two retailing giants stack up? This graphic from WebpageFX provides some basic facts.
Created by WebpageFX
Obama All but Calls Cosby a Serial Rapist
For months, comedian Bill Cosby has come under relentless attack amid allegations that he raped dozens of women over the years after slipping them drugs. As the controversy grew, some on Capitol Hill questioned whether something should be done to strip the long-celebrated actor of a Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded him in 2002 during the Bush administration.
Today at a White House news conference, President Obama abruptly veered from an extensive defense of the Iran nuclear deal to a thinly veiled denunciation of Cosby as a serial rapist. In response to a reporter’s question of whether he would consider rescinding the medal, Obama said, “There’s no precedent for revoking a medal,” and that “we don’t have the mechanism.”
Then, after noting that he rarely publicly discusses pending civil law suits that might result in criminal charges, he made this startling pronouncement: “I’ll say this: If you give a woman -- or a man for that matter -- without his or her knowledge a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that’s rape.”
It was a dramatic moment as the first African American president in U.S. history denounced from the White House pulpit the conduct of one of the most prominent and (once) beloved black actors and comedians of modern times.
Related: Bill Cosby's Moralizing Comes Back to Haunt Him
Cosby and his lawyers for months have dismissed as fantasy claims by more than two dozen women that they had been sexually assaulted by the actor over the past several decades – frequently after having been given knock-out drugs to make them groggy or put them to sleep.
But this ‘he said-she said’ controversy came to an end earlier this month after Cosby had admitted in a deposition giving Quaaludes to women he wanted to have sex with.
The documents, dating back to 2005, stem from a civil lawsuit filed by Andrea Constand -- one of the dozens of women who have publicly accused the comedian of sexual assault. The records were made public after The Associated Press went to court to compel their release.
Following that report, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said it was an outrage that Cosby continued to hold the highest civilian honor in America. In a statement to Politico, a spokeswoman for Gillibrand said Cosby's medal must be revoked "because we need to set a clear example that sexual assault will not be tolerated in this country."
Obama apparently agrees with the senators, but just doesn’t know what he could do to take the medal back.
Garage or Backyard? Here’s What First-Time House Buyers Want
More than two-thirds of potential first-time homebuyers want a house in move-in condition, and 43 percent are looking for a place in the burbs.
Beyond that, first-time buyers are most interested in a home with a backyard or pool, striking design, and smart or energy efficient technology, according to the TD Bank First-Time Home Buyer Pulse.
“It’s encouraging to see interest from the first-time homebuyers who have been cautious for much of the housing recovery,” TD Bank Head of Pricing and Secondary Markets Scott Haymore said in a statement. “Consumers are gaining confidence in the economy and many are looking to enter the housing market within the next two years.”
Related: Why First-Time Home Buyers Are Flocking to Tennessee
Last year, first-time homebuyers comprised 38 percent of the market, according to the National Association of Realtors.
Among those surveyed, 62 percent want to make a down payment of at least 20 percent, but nearly two-thirds said they were still saving up for it. Almost half said they needed to pay down debt before they could buy a house.
The average down payment in the first quarter of 2015 was $57,710, reports RealtyTrac. Entry-level buyers usually put down less money than repeat buyers, and are more likely to take advantage of Federal Housing Administration loans, which allow down payments of as little as 3 percent for those who qualify.
Those who can’t get an FHA loan can still put down less than 20 percent by buying private mortgage insurance, with annual premiums of between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of the loan amount.
Obama Faces Widespread Public Distrust on Iran Deal
President Obama will try to drum up support for the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal Wednesday afternoon at a news conference. But with widespread public disdain and distrust of Iran, Obama may have trouble convincing Americans of the wisdom of dealing with a long-time arch enemy in the Middle East.
The U.S. and Iran on Tuesday announced an agreement that would potentially block Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon for at least a decade while lifting international economic sanctions against Tehran. However, a new AP-GfK poll that was conducted just ahead of the announcement found that Americans only narrowly back diplomatic relations with the hardline Islamic government, and many want to see the sanctions kept in place.
Related: The 8 Most Important Things to Know About the Iran Nuclear Deal
Just 51 percent of those interviewed said the U.S. should have diplomatic relations with Iran while 45 percent said it shouldn’t. At the same time, 77 percent of those interviewed said the harsh U.S. and international economic sanctions against Iran should be preserved at current levels or even increased.
Only 12 percent of those interviewed thought sanctions should be decreased and seven percent said they should be eliminated altogether.
The public’s wariness and distrust of dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution and U.S. hostage crisis matches the reception the nuclear agreement has received on Capitol Hill where most Republicans and some Democrats say they fear Obama has conceded too much to a country that has fomented terrorist activities throughout the Middle East and has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel.
Fifty-six percent of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy, according to the poll conducted last Thursday through Monday, while an additional 31 percent consider Iran to be unfriendly but not an enemy. More than 70 percent of Republicans, half of all independents and 45 percent of Democrats described Iran as the enemy.
Related: Clinton Cautious in Her Praise of a Nuclear Deal She Helped to Orchestrate
Before the agreement was announced, six in ten Americans said they disapproved of Obama's handling of the U.S. relationship with Iran, while just over a third approved.
Obama is likely to prevail in pushing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement through Congress over the next two months, despite near-unanimous opposition from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and other leaders and rank and file Republicans. Still, he will need to hold in place at least 34 of the 46 Democrats in the Senate to create a veto-proof firewall in the event Republicans push through a resolution of disapproval of the nuclear deal.
That means that Obama cannot afford any more than 12 Democratic defections to keep the agreement alive. Yesterday, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden began working the phones to shore up support on Capitol Hill, and the president will continue that effort during this afternoon’s White House press conference.
During an interview yesterday with Tom Friedman of The New York Times, Obama stressed that the deal prevented a pathway for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon while making it clear he shared Americans’ distrust of the Iranian government and had limited expectations of improved relations down the road.
Related: Iran Agrees to Limit Nuclear Weapon in Historic Deal
When announcing the deal yesterday, Obama said, “This deal is not built on trust -- it's built on verification…. We will, for the first time, be in a position to verify that Iran is meeting all of these commitments. International nuclear inspectors will have access to Iran's nuclear program -- where necessary, when necessary. This is the most comprehensive and intrusive verification regime that we have ever negotiated. If Iran tries to divert raw materials to covert facilities, inspectors will be able to access any suspicious locations.”