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
Comcast to Cut the Cord with Time Warner
Comcast is dropping its merger with Time Warner after a year of regulatory pushback, according to Bloomberg. The news wire's unnamed sources say there will be an announcement tomorrow.
In today's changing media landscape it is not really clear what the preemptive breakup of a media megacorp (formed from mere media titans) will mean for consumers, especially in the face of Verizon's push to slim down its bundled offerings, the new ala carte service from HBO and the continued expansion of Netflix's original programming. As more and more people cut the cord, the market for traditional cable TV is eroding, and more consumers opt simply for an Internet connection.
Even without that, Comcast dropping its deal probably will have no impact at all for the average cable subscriber, given the already segregated monopolies allowed individual cable companies. So, unless you own stock in either of these companies, this is pretty much just more status quo in a rapidly changing market.
Can Low Self-Control Turn You Into Edward Snowden?
Be very wary if your employer asks you to take a test and then says please put on this cap. The cap could have sensors measuring your “self-control,” which researchers at Iowa State University have connected to—cybersecurity.
Yup—this wasn’t about eating the last cookie, having sex with a stranger, or taking a hit from some unknown new drug just because your friend said it was an amazing experience. The test measures how long someone hesitates before doing something risky or wrong.
Hmm. Maybe I’ll wait a few seconds before robbing that jewelry store! If they waited, the researchers determined that the employees were considering the consequences of their actions and therefore had higher self-control than those who simply filled their duffle bag with whatever bling was in sight.
Those with higher self-control were deemed better cyber security risks than the low self-control group.
But who knows? Maybe the high group was just casing the joint and calculating how much they could carry without getting caught. Or maybe they were searching for the largest unflawed diamond in the case that could be hidden in their pocket!
So much for brainwaves.
These Students Are Making Even More Than They Expect After Graduation
College students who major in STEM fields generally know that they can make more money than their peers once they graduate, but they don’t know how much more.
Turns out, those students majoring in science, technology, engineering and math, actually have starting salaries that are higher than expected, according to a new report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.
Engineering majors, for example, expect to earn $56,000, but actually receive 15.5 percent more than that, with starting salaries average nearly $65,000. Computer Science majors expect to make around $51,000, but receive 22 percent for an average starting salary of $62,000.
Chemistry majors have the largest gap between expectations and reality: They expect to earn an average of $39,000 but take home an average $58,000 in their first year, a 51 percent increase.
Related: The Closing of the Millennial Mind on Campus
The typical college graduate in 2014 received a starting salary of $48,000. Liberal arts and humanities majors had the lowest starting salary, with an average of just $39,000, according to NACE.
Not only do STEM majors enjoy higher salaries, but they can also expect more job security and better job prospects. All of the top 25 jobs recently compiled by U.S. News and World Report fell into either a science- or math-based discipline.
Still, not everyone has the interest or aptitude to excel in a STEM career. A third of those who begin their college career majoring in those fields end up transferring to a difference study area, according to a recent report by RTI International.
Will Obama Send a Smoke Signal About Weed?
The resignation of Michele M. Leonhart, chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, just one day after 4/20 -- which is sort of Thanksgiving for stoners -- offers President Obama an opportunity to replace her with someone who shares his relatively benign view of marijuana.
The right appointment might also be a gift to Hillary Rodham Clinton since it would signal to younger voters that it's not just libertarian-leaning Republicans like Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky who want to decriminalize the use of pot.
Representative Early Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat, told The New York Times that Obama should appoint someone who "understands the federal approach to marijuana isn't working."
Related: How to Stop Cyber Attacks: Let Workers Smoke Pot
The flashpoint that led to the departure of Leonhart after a 35-year career at the D.E.A. was a congressional hearing that revealed agency agents in Colombia had taken part in parties with prostitutes paid by drug cartels. But Leonhart, who has lumped marijuana in with crack, meth and heroin, found herself at odds with the President, who has called pot no more dangerous than alcohol.
“Hopefully this is a sign that the Reefer Madness era is coming to an end at the D.E.A.,” Mason Tvert, the director on communications at the Marijuana Policy Project, told Bloomberg Politics.
How to Stop Cyber Attacks: Let Workers Smoke Pot
What’s true for the government is true for business. FBI Director James Comey thinks you can’t hire top tech talent with a ban on weed. It all started in the Reagan administration, which imposed a no-hire policy for applicants who toked up within the past three years. Good luck with that.
In 2014, Comey raised the issue during a speech: “A lot of the nation’s top computer programmers and hacking gurus are also fond of marijuana. I have to hire a great workforce to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview.”
That’s not the only reason the government can’t hire competent programmers and white hat hackers. They come at a high price, there’s a shortage, and they hate red tape and bureaucratic annoyances. For some lawmakers, though, it’s easier to get lost in the weed than try to reform the federal hiring process. That’s why Gerry Connolly (D-VA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) have two proposals in the House requiring info from the intelligence director on how classifying pot as Schedule 1 narcotic crimps the feds recruiting efforts.