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
McDonald’s Aims for a Classier Crowd with Lobster Rolls
As sales continue to fall, McDonald’s is desperately trying to reinvent itself, and its latest efforts seem to be aimed at a slightly classier crowd.
New England-area McDonald’s are going to start selling lobster rolls again after a 10-year hiatus, according to a report on Fox CT. No word yet on whether the old name McLobster will be revived.
The new lobster roll is reportedly made from 100 percent North Atlantic lobster, and includes mayonnaise, a bed of lettuce, and a small, toasted roll.
The meal has 290 calories and sells for $7.99.
McDonald’s introduced lobster rolls nationwide for the first time in 1993. Although the launch was a commercial disappointment, the rolls were still available seasonably in New England until 2005. Select McDonald’s restaurants in Canada also offer them for a limited time each year.
There were several reasons for the 1993 McLobster’s failure. Not only were customers wary of a “quality” seafood item served at a fast food chain, but the roll cost $5.99 (about $7.50 in 2015 dollars), a high price relative to the rest of menu.
The new lobster roll will also be expensive and doubts about the quality of its fast food continue to haunt the house that Ronald built. Given those barriers and the company’s track record, it seems unlikely that this particular crustacean-based sandwich is going to be driving a meaningful revival for McDonald’s any time soon.
Most Americans Are Happy at Work, but Feeling Burnt Out
They’re working longer days and clocking weekend hours, but nearly nine in 10 employees are still happy at work and motivated to rise in their organizations, according to a new report from Staples Advantage, the business-to-business arm of Staples, Inc.
The study was not all positive, however. Twenty percent of all workers surveyed and 25 percent of millennials said they expected to change jobs in the next year. Many said they feel chained to their desks during the workday, and 53 percent say they are feeling burnt out.
About half of employees polled said that they feel they can’t get up for a break at all, and just under half eat lunch at their desk.
Related: The One Quick Way to Boost Worker Productivity
“While many are still happy at work, we have to ask whether it’s because they’re truly inspired and motivated, or simply conditioned to the new reality?” Dan Schwabel, founder of WorkplaceTrends.com said in a statement. “Either way, employers need to adjust to win the war for talent and optimize productivity, engagement, and loyalty with employees.”
A quarter of employees say they are working after the standard workday has ended, and about 40 percent work at least one weekend per month. More than a third of workers say they put in those extra hours in order to finish work they didn’t have time to get to, and 22 percent say it’s because they want to get ahead for the next day.
The survey also looked at factors that erode employee productivity, with workers citing email overload and inefficient meetings as top factors. One if five workers said that they spend more than two hours per day in meetings.
Navy Paying Microsoft Millions to Maintain Obsolete Windows XP
Microsoft first introduced Windows XP in 2001. Last April Microsoft discontinued official support for the software. However, one major customer just signed a $9.1 million contract with the company in exchange for ongoing support of the system. The customer? The U.S. Navy.
Although the Navy has begun transitioning away from XP, it has about 100,000 workstations still using the software, including computers on ships, submarines, and other vessels. The entire contract could wind up costing the Navy nearly $31 million if it lasts until the June 8, 2017 deadline, according to CNN Money.
The Navy didn’t acknowledge the termination of the software until Vice Admiral Ted Branch, deputy chief information officer for the Navy, issued a memo in July 2014 requiring all PCs to transition to Windows 7 by April 30, 2015.
While Windows XP no longer receives regular security updates, Microsoft will supply the United States Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) with custom security fixes for its products. Without the updates, the Navy would be susceptible to security threats.
The Navy still operates numerous applications and programs that rely on older versions of Windows, according to Steven Davis, a spokesman for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego.
The Navy isn’t the only Microsoft customer that’s a little behind on the times. The Army signed a support agreement with Microsoft in April, and the IRS is also paying for custom support. In the corporate world, a staggering 44 percent of corporations still have the software installed on at least one PC.
This Match Is Going Public
An IPO for Those Who Think Love and Money Is a Match
The Match Group, home of the hugely popular dating apps and sites Tinder, Match, Chemistry, OurTime, and OkCupid, will issue an IPO in the fourth quarter. Mashable is calling it “the world’s flirtiest IPO.” Barry Diller’s InterActive Corp. (IAC), which owns the Match Group and a slew of other Internet brands, also appointed Joey Levin, formerly the CEO of IAC’s Search & Applications, CEO of IAC.
Back in 1995 when Match.com first debuted, people were skeptical of online dating, but today, dating apps and sites are big business. According to IBISWorld, dating sites are expected to bring in $1.17 billion in revenue this year, with apps totaling another $628.8 million. Online dating accounts for 48.7 percent of the revenue from U.S. dating services, but mobile dating apps such as Tinder are on the rise with 26.2 percent of the market.
Related: The Startup That Turned Down $30 Million from Mark Cuban
The largest dating service companies are the Match Group, eHarmony, Zoosk, Plenty of Fish, and Spark Networks. The Match Group leads the category, with nearly 22 percent share of the market. The Wall Street Journal reported the Match Group accounted for nearly one-third, or 29 percent, of IAC’s overall revenue in 2014. In the most recent quarter, the Match Group’s revenue was $239.2 million, or 30 percent of IAC’s revenue of $772.5 million.
With their portfolio of dating sites in more than 200 countries the Match Group is well positioned to market to the large generation of millennials worldwide. More than 7 million people sign up for their products every month.
Related: Love at First Byte: The Magic of Online Dating
As for what the Match Group’s ticker symbol might be on the stock exchange, the company’s lips are sealed. Many of the good ones are already taken. LOV belongs to rival Spark Networks, owner of JDate.com, ChristianMingle.com, and BlackSingles.com. DATE is the ticker symbol for Jiayuan, China’s largest dating site. LUV is taken by Southwest Airlines. Arrythmia Research Technology has HRT.
Apparently KISS is still available—if the Match Group gets lucky.
Why U.S. Productivity May Be Worse Than We Think
The new economy may be making it easier for people to work from home and in other non-office settings, but it isn’t necessarily making us more productive.
This week, the Bureau of Labor statistics released new data, which showed that Americans spent more time working last year than at any time in the survey’s 12-year history. However, employers aren’t paying workers for those additional hours worked, according to a new research note from Michael Feroli, Chief Economist at J.P. Morgan
That’s bad news for workers, who are doing additional work without earning any additional compensation, but it’s also bad news for the economy. The BLS measures productivity growth (output divided by hours worked) based on the number of hours reported by the employer.
Related: The Do’s and Don’t’s of Boosting Your Productivity
Even by that measure, productivity expanded just 0.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2014, compared to 2.1 percent per year from 2003 to 2009. But when looking at productivity growth based on hours worked from an employees’ perspective, productivity has remained totally flat since 2010, according to Feroli.
What’s behind the discrepancy? Feroli writes that it may have to do with the way we work in today’s economy. “Technology can tether one to the office every minute of the day and in every place, regardless of whether the employer pays for that degree of connectedness.”