Automakers Are Having a Record Year, but Here’s a Trend that Should Worry Them

View published(active tab)

Automakers Are Having a Record Year, but Here’s a Trend that Should Worry Them

iStockphoto

By Michael Rainey

September 2, 2015

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.

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.

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:

The Woefully Distorted Federal Policies on Child Abuse

By Eric Pianin

May 6, 2015

Here’s something just in from the world of grossly distorted government policy:

Every year, roughly 680,000 children are reported victims of neglect or abuse by their parents in this country – a tragic statistic reflective of troubling societal, psychological and economic problems. Even worse, 1,520 children died from maltreatment in 2013, nearly 80 percent of them at the hands of their own parents.

Federal and state authorities over the years have developed a large and costly system for reporting and investigating maltreatment, removing endangered children from their homes, and preventing and treating problems of parents and children.

But as a new study touted on Wednesday by the Brookings Institution concludes, the federal government provides states with far more money to support kids once they have been removed from their homes and placed in foster care than it provides for prevention and treatment programs to keep the kids out of foster homes in the first place.

And the disparity is startling.

Two of the largest grant programs in Title IV-B of the Social Security Act provide states with funding totaling around $650 million annually for “front end” services designed to prevent or treat parent and child problems that contribute to abuse and neglect. They address problems such as substance abuse, family violence and mental health issues.

Yet another series of programs in Title IV-E of the Social Security law provides states with open-ended funding that totaled about $6.9 billion in 2014. Those funds pay almost exclusively for out-of-home care for children from poor families, along with the administrative and training expenses associated with foster care, adoption, and guardianship.

That’s a 10 to 1 disparity in funding for the two efforts – one to try to hold families together and the other to move children out of their homes and into foster care.

“Congress has the opportunity to change the funding formula under Title IV of the Social Security Act so that states have the flexibility to put money where it will be most effective at keeping at-risk children safe, ensuring that they have a permanent home, and promoting their well-being,” wrote Ron Haskins, Lawrence M. Berger and Janet Currie, the authors of the study.

In their policy brief, “Can States Improve Children’s Health by Preventing Abuse and Neglect,” Haskins, a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings, Currie of Princeton University and Berger of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, write that revising the grant programs could improve the welfare of children who are at risk of abuse or neglect.

This is something else that lawmakers might consider later this year when they begin to focus on disability insurance and other programs within the Social Security law.

For Most, Social Security Is Pocket Money—Not a Pension

By Marine Cole

May 6, 2015

More than one-third of Americans who haven’t reached retirement age believes that Social Security will be a major source of income in their post-work years despite the ongoing funding problems of the government program.

The 36 percent of those polled in a recent Gallup survey who expect to rely heavily on Social Security represents the highest percentage in 15 years. It’s also nearly 10 percentage point higher than a decade ago.

In addition, 48 percent told Gallup that they expect Social Security to be a minor source of retirement funds, while only 14 percent said that they don’t expect Social Security to be a source of retirement income at all.

“Generally speaking, the older non-retirees are and the lower their household income is, the more they expect to rely on Social Security as a major source of retirement funds,” according to Gallup.

Close to half of non-retirees whose annual household income is less than $30,000 said Social Security will be a major source of funds.

Believing that Social Security will be a major source of retirement income might not be a great idea.

Social Security currently provides average benefits of about $1,260 a month. Going forward, Social Security checks could shrink if funding problems persist or benefits could start kicking in at an older age.

Work-Life Balance: Why Millennials Get Hit Hardest

iStockphoto

By Beth Braverman

May 6, 2015

Even with (or maybe because of) the proliferation of apps and technology to help workers connect with their jobs round-the-clock, finding a balance between work and life is getting harder, according to a new report from Ernst & Young.

The study finds that about half of managers worldwide work more than 40 hours a week, and 40 percent say their hours have increased over the past five years. In addition to technology shifts, the “always on” work culture reflects lingering effects of the recession that has left fewer employees handling larger workloads.

The balancing act is particularly difficult for millennials, who are becoming managers just as they enter into parenthood. U.S. millennial parents are the most likely to have a spouse that’s also working at least full-time, and they’re the less likely than older generations to have taken a career break when having children.

More than one in four millennials is working more after having children, compared to 13 percent of Gen Xers and 16 percent of boomers. Millennial parents place a high value on flexibility, and say that a flexible schedule would make them more engaged, less likely to quit, and more likely to work flexible hours. Even so, one in six says they have suffered a negative consequence for working a flexible schedule.

More than half of those surveyed said that they would make job and career changes in order to find a better work-life balance. Those findings echo the results of a CareerBuilder survey released last year which found that a third of workers don’t want a leadership role because they don’t want to sacrifice work-life balance.

GOP Governor Asks Voters to Raise Their Own Taxes

By Rob Garver

May 5, 2015

Michigan voters go to the polls today to vote on Proposal 1, a referendum that would hike the state sales and gasoline taxes. An unexpected twist in the story, though, is who is backing the plan and why. Support for the proposal speaks to the declining state of infrastructure in the U.S. and the increasing urgency with which states are taking matters into their own hands.

Proposal 1 is a complex mix of policy changes that would raise more than a billion dollars to fund road construction and repair, plus hundreds of millions for education and other purposes. It would do so by hiking the Michigan state sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent. That represents a 17 percent increase in total sales taxes Michiganders will face on taxable items.

However, the bill also abolishes the sales tax on gasoline – Michigan is one of the few states in which gas is not exempt from state sales tax – and would dramatically increase the wholesale gasoline tax. The net effect, according to the Detroit Free Press, would be an increase of between 7 and 9 cents per gallon in what consumers pay at the pump. The proposal would net about $1.9 billion per year for the state’s coffers, the majority of it coming out of the pockets of Michigan’s taxpayers. (A small percentage would come from out-of-state visitors paying taxes on items purchased in Michigan.)

Normally, a $2 billion tax hike – the biggest in the state in a generation – would be the sort of thing Republican politicians would attack mercilessly, but in Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder is a strong proponent of the deal. And Snyder isn’t alone. Prominent Republican and Democratic lawmakers have thrown their support behind the measure.

The move also has significant support from the business community. Unsurprisingly, the biggest backers of the deal are the construction companies and related industries. But there is also support in the general business community, even among some companies whose products would be more expensive.

Even with substantial support from legislative leaders and businesses, though, the prospects for Proposal 1 looked poor heading into the vote today Public opinion remains generally against the proposition despite a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign by supporters that has dwarfed efforts by the opposition.

Should the vote fail, though, the state’s pothole-pocked roads and crumbling bridges won’t fix themselves, so legislators will have to find the revenue somewhere, either by increasing taxes via a different route, or cutting spending from an already tight state budget.

Tequila’s Stunning Rise: How It Shot Up in U.S. Popularity

By Marine Cole

May 5, 2015

Americans are drinking more and better-quality tequila, and not only in margaritas on Cinco de Mayo.

Tequila sales have been growing at an average rate of 5.6 percent a year since 2002, according to February figures from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. In 2014 alone, 13.8 million nine-liter cases were sold.

The U.S. represents tequila’s largest market, with about 52 percent of global sales. America’s renewed thirst for mixed cocktails has been a boon for spirits overall, but especially for tequila. Meanwhile, sales in Mexico have remained flat largely because the market there is mature, with little room for growth.

The Distilled Spirits Council said that one of the keys to tequila’s U.S. growth has been distillers’ ability to offer a product for every budget and occasion, but the fastest growth has been in high-end and super-premium brands.

“High-end brands have grown 189 percent in volume since 2002,” it noted. “Virtually unknown in 2002, super-premium tequila volumes have skyrocketed 568 percent and today account for 2.4 million 9-liter cases.”

Celebrity endorsements may have also raised the status of tequila. George Clooney, Sean Combs and Justin Timberlake have all promoted tequila brands.

In addition, distillers are trying to boost the popularity of high-end tequilas further by offering tastings and tours — at least one of which is aimed at the super-wealthy.

Tequila Avion, an ultra-premium tequila maker, is offering a $500,000, three-day trip for 10 to Jalisco, Mexico, to taste its spirits and partake of luxury accommodations, butler service and a private dinner among other amenities.

If that seems a tad pricey, Experience Tequila in Portland, Ore., offers four-day tours to Mexico for just under $1,500, and you can find tequila-tasting classes in many cities for about $100.

Search form

Quick Hits