Monday, October 30, 2017

Gimme shelter: the real cost of renting vs. homeownership


 - by New Deal democrat

What is the real cost of shelter?

Over the last decade there has been lots of discussion of housing prices in isolation. Sometimes that discussion includes an inflation adjustment -- which is problematic, since housing constitutes nearly 40% of the entire consumer price index, so in essence housing is being deflated largely by the cost of housing itself! From time to time there has also been a little -- but not much -- discussion of rental prices. 

But I have never seen a discussion of the relationship between the relative cost of homeownership vs. renting, particularly as a function of the household budget.

That is a curious void. For the choice (or ability) to live in the residence one desires isn't a matter of its cost by itself, but also the relative cost of the type of residence.  What is the cost of a house compared with the cost of an apartment? How expensive are each of them compared with a household's income?  If both are too expensive, maybe the choice is made to live with mom and dad as an extended family.

The purpose of  this post is to fill that void. Herein I compare the cost of home ownership -- in terms of the down payment, but also in terms of the monthly mortgage payment -- with the cost of renting, and further, compare each to the median household income (since by definition, the people renting the apartment or living in the house are a household!).

Let's start with the "real" cost of a down payment on a house. The first choice of most people is to reside in a single family house.  Most people who follow economics are familiar with the housing bubble, bust, and recovery in the past 15 years.  Here's what the median house price looks like measured in comparison with median household income:



In the above graph I've divided house prices by 10, to measure the share of annual household income needed for a 10% down payment.  The graph would look exactly the same, just with different nominal values, assuming a different percentage of down payment.

What is surprising here is that house prices now are even higher than they were at the peak of the bubble in 2005 as compared with median household income.  As we'll see below, there are good reasons to believe even these lofty prices do not mean we are in another bubble. But perhaps they are an important reason why, even more than eight years into the current economic expansion, home sales are barely above where they were at the bottom of previous recessions:



But if down payments are so dear, why have people chosen in increasing numbers to purchase houses?  Perhaps that's because, when we compare monthly payments, and compare them with the alternatives, the picture looks entirely different.

Let's start with the most obvious comparison.  Here is the median asking monthly rent for an apartment in the US since 1995 (note: the series goes back to 1988):


In 1988 the median rent averged $343 per month. In the second quarter of this year it was $910.

Now, here is what it looks like in comparison with median household income:


If house prices have risen to new highs several times since the turn of the Millennium, so have apartment rents -- almost relentlessly. 

In percentage terms, in 1988, the median rent for an apartment was 14.5% of median household income. That rose to slightly over 16% in the mid 1990s before falling to the series' low of 13.7% in 2000. Since then it has risen to a record 18.4% of median household income in the 2nd quarter of this year.

Now let's take a look at the monthly cost of living in a house. The below graph shows the median monthly mortgage payment for a house  (blue) compared with median household income (red). Median monthly mortgage payment is calculated by using the median house price and the 30 year mortgage rate for each quarter, and consulting an amortization table using those values:



Notice that the monthly payment for the median house isn't extreme at all! In fact, currently it is very moderate in terms of the long term range. Let's break that down by showing the percentage of median monthly income (1/12 of the annual) that one month's mortgage payment consituted (note: I am assuming a 10% down payment, with 90% mortgaged to be consistent. Using a different down payment does not change the shape of the comparison at all, only the nominal values):
  • Going back to 1988, the median mortgage payment was slightly over 40% of median monthly household income. 
  • This fell back under 28% at the end of 1998 before rising to 32% in 2000. 
  • After falling briefly, at the peak of the housing bubble in early 2006 it had reached a secondary peak just over 35% of median monthly income.
  • At the bottom of the bust at the end of 2011 it made a new low of 23%.
  • Even now, with the real cost of a house at all time highs, the median monthly mortgage payment is still less than 24% of median household income.
Monthly mortgage payments are moderate because, even as house prices have risen, mortgage rates fell to new lows not seen in over half a century several times during this expansion, most recently in the summer of 2016:



In our final comparative graph, let's see how median monthly rent compares with median monthly mortgage payment:



Most notably, the overall trend in the last 30 years has been that monthly mortgage payments have fallen from over 3 times median rent to about 1.5 time median rent now. Put another way, even at the peak of the housing bubble, the monthly carrying cost of a house was about 2.3 times the median cost of renting an apartment. At the bottom of the bust, that fell to 1.4 times the cost to rent. For the last five years, monthly mortgage payments have hovered near 1.5 times the median asking rent.

By comparing the "real" cost of housing to renting, both in terms of down payments and monthly mortgage payments, we can make sense of some of the biggest trends in the market for shelter.

Record down payments are keeping an increasing number of prospective buyers, especially first time buyers, shut out of the market for buying a house. An enormous number are living in apartments instead. This explains both the multi-decade lows in the homeownership rate as well as the recent 30 year lows in the apartment vacancy rates, as a disproportionate number of adults are forced out of home ownership and into apartment dwelling.


With both real house prices and real apartment rents at new highs, perhaps it is no surprise that a record number of young adults are choosing, or maybe stuck with, continuing to live with mom and dad:

Note, by the way, that these adults are included as part of their parents' household for purposes of the homeownership rate above.

On the other hand, with monthly mortgage payments at such relative lows compared to both rental payments and median incomes, if one can get past the down payment, home ownership is clearly the better choice. Thus single family home construction continued to rise until at least the beginning of this year, and has declined only slightly with the roughly 1% increase in mortgage interest rates:



Finally, that being said, it is hard for me to imagine how home sales could continue to grow much further if house prices continue to outpace even their 2005 multiple of median household income. But if rental prices also continue to grow relative to median household income, then we can only expect to see even more involuntary extended family households.

[Special thanks to Mike KImel for preparing the customized comparative graphs used in this article.]

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Weekly Indicators for October 23 - 27 at XE.com


 - by New Deal democrat

My Weekly Indicators post is up at XE.com.

This week there was a surge in interest rates, causing mortgage rates to turn into a negative again.

Friday, October 27, 2017

Weekend Pit Bull

          I started this blog in 2006 -- over 10 years ago (where does the time go?).  NDD started blogging over here a few years after that.  About three years ago, we started writing over at XE.com, which we still do.  I pretty much bailed on this site after the shift, largely because of time considerations.  Since then, NDD has kept the BD blog going, providing consistently great content to the readers on a regular basis.  I owe him a great debt of thanks and gratitude for all his work.

         For a number of reasons, I started back here a few weeks ago.  We still have some new things brewing, but they're going to take a bit longer to bring to market.

          When I started the blog, I had two Weimaraners - Kate and Sarge.  Unfortunately, both are now gone, as are a few other pups that I and Mr$. Bonddad have taken care of.  Now we have two pit bulls -- Pibbles -- named Mumph and Lita. 

          Your weekend pit bull means the week is over; it's time to think about anything except economics and financial markets.  To that end, here's Lita (top) and Mumph (bottom, with Elmer the pig).

          

Leading indicators in GDP report negative for second straight quarter


 - by New Deal democrat

Three months ago, when the preliminary read on second quarter GDP was released, I started out with, "While Q2 GDP increased at a smart rate, there was bad news in both of the long leading indicators that are contained in the release."

Today's preliminary report on Q3 GDP makes it two quarters in a row.

There are two long leading indicators in the GDP report: real private residential investement and corporate profits. Since the latter is not released until the second or third revision, the less leading proxy of proprietors' income serves as a placeholder.

Real private residential investment declined at a -6.0% annual rate, following a revised -7.8% annual rate for Q2 (blue in the graph below).  That's even worse when you take into account that the best measure is housing investment as a share of GDP (red). Since housing investment declined and GDP rose, that's an even bigger hit.



Secondly, proprietors' income rose slightly, only +0.2% overall and +0.6% on a nonfarm basis, before adjusting for inflation, which ran over 1% last quarter, meaning that on a real basis, both declined.  The below graph compares nominal proprietors' income with corporate profits adjusted for unit labor costs, which had increased very slightly in Q2 (and hasn't been reported yet for Q3): 



One quarter could just be noise. But two quarters in a row later in the expansion is at very least a yellow flag.

In the last month I have downgraded my long leading forecast from positive to neutral. I'm NOT negative now, but any further significant spreading or deterioration will cause me to turn negative for the first time since late 2006.

I'll update later with graphs once FRED posts the info. UPDATED

Thursday, October 26, 2017

September new home sales: the back end of the hurricanes


 - by New Deal democrat

As promised yesterday, here is my detailed post at XE.comon the September new home sales report.

The bottom line is that, when you do a three month moving average, and account for the transfer of many sales in the South from August to September, you have a metric that is no longer declining, but is not advancing either.

I had a problem posting the final graph, and rather than continue to fight with that platform, here is the graph that compares monthly with quarterly YoY changes in median prices:



The trend in new home prices is outpacing median household income growth this year.

About the "Treasury Market is Predicting Doom" Argument...




 


The top chart is the IEIs, which represent the 3-7 section of the treasury curve.  The middle chart is the IEFs, which are the 7-10 year section of the curve, while the bottom chart is the TLTs, which represent the 20+ year section of the curve.  All three fell through technical support yesterday; all are below their respective 200-day EMAs.  

There are two reasons for this.  First, the market believes Trump will nominate a more hawkish Fed governor, probably John Taylor.  Second, the market is betting the Republicans will pass a large tax cut.  Traders believe this will lead to higher growth and more inflation.  Therefore, they are selling bonds, which under-perform in a higher growth, higher inflation environment. 

If this trend continues, we'll see the treasury curve widen.  That sends the "yield curve is at its lowest level in years, we're doomed" argument out the window.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

A quick note on new home sales


 - by New Deal democrat

I don't know why, but FRED always seems to take its time posting data from the monthly new home sales report.

So, graphy goodness tomorrow, but in the meantime, the bulletpoint takeaway:

  • Needless to say, a good report, with a new expansion high, and
  • the three month moving average has stopped declining, BUT
  • the big increase this month was all about the hurricane affected South, which contributed over 80,000, and 
  • the three month moving average is nevertheless below its high from this past March, and
  • keep in mind that outliers in this report are frequently revised largely away come the next month
Stay tuned!

Linkfest

What if NAFTA becomes a Zombie deal? (FT)
About the Phillips Curve breakdown (Gavyn Davies)
The 3-Equation New Keynesian Model (PDF)
Have smartphones destroyed a generation? (the Atlantic)
Trump nixes cutting 401(k) contributions (NYT)
China's business leaders are having a difficult time with the government (NYT)
The 7 men now run China (NYT)
Xi is now one of the most powerful leaders in China's history (NYT)
It's looking like treasuries want to rally higher (BB)





Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Why does anybody pay attention to Deutsche Bank's economic forecast?


 - by New Deal democrat

So this morning I read  that OMG yield curve tightest since 2007!!!! Head for the hills!!! Recession coming!!! from Mike "Mish" Shedlock.

And here is the accompanying graph:  



Sure enough, yes, if we focus strictly on the time period from 2008-present, (and don't you dare let your eyes wander to the left of the graph!), the yield curve now is the tightest it has been.

But unless you think the universe came into existence in 2007, you really *should* cast your eyes to the left of the graph, where you will see that the spreads among the various treasury maturities are about where they were in early 2005. Two and one-half years before the last recession.

Oh.

This made me remember a similar recession call by Deutsche Bank almost two years ago:
What are plummeting interest rates saying about the outlook for the economy? The spread between the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes and two-year notes is the narrowest since 2007. A model maintained by Deutsche Bank analyst Steven Zeng, who adjusts the spread for historically low short-term interest rates, suggests the yield curve is now signaling a 55 percent* chance of a U.S. recession within the next 12 months. That marks the highest probability generated by the model so far in this expansion ....
[*That was in February 2016. When long term rates made new lows in July, they upped the chances to 60%!]

Here is a graph which accompanied Deutsche Bank's presentation:


Here's the problem. Cast your eye to the left end of the graph, the 1960s. You know, probably the best economy the US has had since, well, forever? What does the graph show then? 
Apparently, the US was teetering on the edge of recession throughout the entire decade. Hoocoodanode? 
Next look towards the middle. There is the 1990s tech boom, second only to the 1960s as the best US economy of our lifetimes. Well, apparently the US was teetering on the edge of recession through that period as well! 
So here is a helpful hint. When your Killer App for foreceasting recessions forecast a recession during the two best economies that the US has had in the last 60 years, your Killer App is crap.
Apparently Deutsch Bank figures that once the Fed starts tightening, it will continue pretty much until it sees a recession looming like an iceberg dead ahead.  That may have made sense half a century ago when the US was primarily a manufacturing economy, which was much more volatile -- a GDP that fell from 4% to 2% quarter over quarter was likely headed to 0 or below in another quarter.  That's simply not the case in our service based economy now.

[Deutsche Bank] estimated the probability of a U.S. recession from now to June 2018 at less than 10 percent. 
Here's their updated graph (which, note, now conveniently omits the entire 1960's):



They're back to extreme bearishness now.  Who cares? Why should anybody be paying the slightest bit of attention to a model which has 5 false positives for 6 correct ones?

If Deutsche Bank wants be right, how about hiring me? I'll accept 1/4 of your current crew's pay. Sounds like a win-win move to me. 

--From Bonddad

I haven't read Mish is forever.  Now I remember why; this analysis is, well, ridicules.  

Here's a long-term chart of one of my favorite indicators: the 10-year CMT - Fed Funds:







The curve inverts somewhere between 12-24 months before a recession.  Right now, the spread is 123 basis points.  So, we need 123 points of compression before inverting, after which time there's a strong possibility that that we'll see a recession within the next 1-2 years.  Usually, it's the Fed's raising short-term rates that causes the most compression.  As NDD notes, that's just not going to happen in the current environment, thanks to low inflation and a Fed now beginning to debate why inflation is so low. 

Using this chart as a basis, we're at least 2 years from a recession.  

Or, you could simply go to the Cleveland Fed's website, where they employ a probit model to predict recessions based on the yield curve.  Here's their conclusion

The slightly steeper yield curve did lead to a slightly decreased probability of recession, but the change was minor. Using the yield curve to predict whether or not the economy will be in recession in the future, we estimate the expected chance of the economy being in a recession next September at 12.0 percent, down from the August probability of 12.5 percent (an even one-eighth chance), itself a tiny drop down from July’s 12.9 percent. So the yield curve is optimistic about the recovery continuing, even if it is somewhat pessimistic with regard to the pace of growth over the next year.




Monday, October 23, 2017

Kimberly Clark (KMB) Is Worth a Look at These Levels

            Dividends are central to my investment philosophy.  They not only lower portfolio volatility but also provide a continued source of funds for reinvestment.  In that vein, I continually monitor a small list of companies that have consistently raised dividends for at least 25 years.  When these companies are weak technically, it’s an appropriate time to examine them as a potential addition to a portfolio.  I detail this process in my book The Lifetime Income Security Solution.

            Kimberly Clark is currently looking attractive from a technical perspective:






The weekly chart (top chart) shows a double-top in the first half of this year followed by a consistent downtrend.  Weekly prices are currently approaching the 200-week EMA.  The daily chart (bottom chart) is very weak; it is below the 200-day EMA and recently gapped lower. 

            According to their latest 10-K, KMB has three lines of business:    
  •      Personal Care brands offer our consumers a trusted partner in caring for themselves and their families by delivering confidence, protection and discretion through a wide variety of innovative solutions and products such as disposable diapers, training and youth pants, swimpants, baby wipes, feminine and incontinence care products, and other related products.  Products in this segment are sold under the Huggies, Pull-Ups, Little Swimmers, GoodNites, DryNites, Kotex, U by Kotex, Intimus, Depend, Plenitud, Poise and other brand names.
  •        Consumer Tissue offers a wide variety of innovative solutions and trusted brands that touch and improve people's lives every day.  Products in this segment include facial and bathroom tissue, paper towels, napkins and related products, and are sold under the Kleenex, Scott, Cottonelle, Viva, Andrex, Scottex, Neve and other brand names.
  •       K-C Professional ("KCP") partners with businesses to create Exceptional Workplaces, helping to make them healthier, safer and more productive through a range of solutions and supporting products such as wipers, tissue, towels, apparel, soaps and sanitizers. Our brands, including Kleenex, Scott, WypAll, Kimtech and Jackson Safety, are well-known for quality and trusted to help people around the world work better.

The company faces intense competition.  This means KMB must very efficient.

            Their balance sheet (as researched on Morningstar.com) isn’t as clean as I would like.  But a high asset/liability ratio is less important for a multi-billion dollar company.  Over the last 5 years, total assets have decreased about $5 billion, thanks to a modest decline in receivables along with a larger decline in property, plant, and equipment (about $800 billion) and inventories (about $900 billion).  Turning to liabilities, the company has increased its debt levels by about $1.4 billion, which is to be expected during a period of record-low interest rates.  According to their revenue statement, their interest expense is 1.75% of gross income – a manageable level.

            Expenses demonstrate that management is top-notch.  Over the last 5 years, their gross margin has improved by 450 basis points, their operating income has risen nearly 550 basis points and their net margin has increased almost 390 basis points.  And then there is EBITDA, which is up 525 BPs.  Considering the intense competition in their market, these are very important and impressive numbers.

            The company is large enough to fund current expansion out of net income.  This means the primary play on their cash flow statement is in their financing structure.  Over the last 5 years, they’ve done a large amount of debt-refunding, which is prudent in a low rate environment.  They have also been buying back stock at a solid pace – another great way to reward shareholders.

            According to FINVIZ, their current yield is 3.42% -- which is about 60 basis points higher than the AAA effective yield and on par with a BBB effective yield (according to FRED) data.  Their dividend coverage ratio is just south of 62%, which means they have room to raise it further.          

              Technically, the company is weak, which means it’s time to look at this company.  While the balance sheet isn’t that impressive, the rising margins show management is very good at its job.  The company has taken advantage of low interest rates to refund its debt; interest rate expenses are under control.


            Overall, this KMB is currently worth a look

     This post is not an offer to buy or sell this security.  It is also not specific investment advice for a recommendation for any specific person.  Please see our disclaimer for additional details.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Weekly Indicators for October 16 - 20 at XE.com


 - by New Deal democrat

My Weekly Indicators post is up at XE.com.

The divergence between the long term and short term forecasts that became apparent las week continues.

Friday, October 20, 2017

Thursday, October 19, 2017

"Hurricane adjusting" initial claims has proven its value


 - by New Deal democrat

For the last month, I deduced a "hurricane adjusted" number for initial claims, which showed that the previous underlying positive trend was intact, with the four week average remaining in the 230,000's.

That approach was borne out by this week's report, which, at 222,000, was the lowest since 1973.

Although I haven't gone through the entire formal exercise, here's how the numbers from the three affected jurisdictions compared in last week's report compared with one year previously:

FL 13,861 (+6508 from 2016)
TX 16,656 (-225 from 2016)
PR 250 (-2409 from 2016) (DoL estimate)

Net change: +3904 from 2016

Since the seasonal adjustment last week was only ~6%, (244,000 vs. 229,289 NSA), this means last week's "hurricane adjusted" number was on the order of 239,000 or 240,000.

Natural disasters will continue to strike. I am confident that the method I used in 2012 after Sandy, and again this past month, is a good way to distill the underlying trend from the disaster disturbance.

Labor Market Slack and Weak Wage Growth

From the IMF's latest World Economic Outlook:

Sluggishness in core inflation in advanced economies—a surprise in view of stronger than expected activity—has coincided with slow transmission of declining unemployment rates into faster wage growth. Real wages in most large advanced economies have moved broadly with labor productivity in recent years, as indicated by flat labor income shares (Figure 1.4, panel 6). As shown in Chapter 2, muted growth in nominal wages in recent years partly reflects sluggishness in labor productivity.1 However, the analysis also reveals continued spare capacity in labor markets as a key drag: wage growth has been particularly soft where unemployment and the share of workers involuntarily working part-time remain high. The corollary of this finding is that, once firms and workers become more confident in the outlook, and labor markets tighten, wages should accelerate. In the short term, higher wages should feed into higher unit labor costs (unless productivity picks up), and higher Sluggishness in core inflation in advanced economies—a surprise in view of stronger-than expected activity—has coincided with slow transmission of declining unemployment rates into faster wage growth. Real wages in most large advanced economies have moved broadly with labor productivity in recent years, as indicated by flat labor income shares (Figure 1.4, panel 6). 

     Consider the following chart from the Atlanta Fed:



For the longest time, I've been staring at the lower left-hand corner of that chart and thinking, "weak wages are really about low utilization."  Let's place that data into context:


The above chart shows the absolute number of employees working part-time for economic reasons.  The total number -- after 8 years of economic growth -- is only now returning to the heights of the previous expansion.  

     Here's another chart of the data:


This chart (better known as the U-6 unemployment rate) presents the information in a percentage format.  This statistic was 10% at the beginning of 2016, which was the highest level of the previous recession.  But during this expansion, we hit this level a full seven years after the recession ended.  That's quite a delay.  

     The excerpt from the IMF report adds two key pieces to this puzzle: First, the US is not the only country experiencing weak labor utilization and a corresponding weak wage growth.  In fact, The IMF strongly implies this also seems to go hand-in-hand with the weak pace of global inflation.  Second, the IMF has research that links these two concepts.     



Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Underlying industrial production trend ex-hurricanes remains positive


 - by New Deal democrat

A few weeks ago, I suggested a hurricane workaround for industrial production. That approach was to average the four regional Fed indexes excluding Dallas, and add the Chicago PMI, and finally discount for the unusual strength this year in these regional indexes vs. production.

Here was my conclusion:
The average of the 5 is 22.9.
Dividing that by 5 gives us +.5.
Subtracting .3 gives us +.2. 
We can be reasonably confident that underlying trend in industrial production in September, despite the hurricanes, has been positive.
That approach was borne out yesterday when overall September Industrial Production was reported at +0.3%, with manufacturing production up +0.1% as shown in the graphs below.:

First, here's the longer term view,. Note that the decline in 2015 was due to weakness confined to the Oil Patch:



Here is the close-up of this year:



That's the good news.  The bad news, of course, is that even with this improvement, the big (revised) August decline of -0.7% in production, and -0.2% in manufacturing has not been overcome, and production is still below where it was this spring.

If we were to apply the same workaround for August as we did for September, however, the forecast would have been a manufacturing reading of +0.2% for that month as well.  That would be enough to put us slightly above where manufacturing production was earlier this year.  Indeed, the Fed suggested that but for the hurricanes, September would have been +0.25% higher.

So despite the softness in industrial production the past few months, I believe the overall trend remains slightly positive and not suggestive of any underlying downturn in the economy.
                           

-- From Bonddad

Something to remember about industrial production is that, this cycle, it is the weakest coincident indicator.  Consider the following two charts:




The top chart shows the overall industrial production index, which peaked in the first half of 2014, dipped and has since risen a bit.  But it is still about the same level as the last expansion's peak.  The bottom chart explains why.  When we break the index down into market groups, we only mining (above in green) has done well.  Manufacturing (in blue) and electricity production (in red) have been trending sideways since early 2012.




About This "Renegotiating NAFTA" Thing ...

While I'm sympathetic to the plight of that percentage of the U.S. population that has seen stagnant wage growth for the last 30-40 years, I also think it's important to highlight the data underlying trade with Canada and Mexico post-NAFTA -- data which shows that someone benefited from the agreements as well.  To that end, consider these two charts:





NAFTA was put into force at the beginning of 1994, which, coincidentally, is when the two charts above begin.  The top panel shows total US exports to Mexico, while the bottom shows total US exports to Canada.  Between the years 1994 and 2017, total exports to Mexico increased 8 fold while those to Canada were up 3 fold.  In other words, there were also clear winners on the US side.  

     There are problems with trade -- there always are.  But there are also benefits, which have been greatly overlooked over the last few years.  


Monday, October 16, 2017

A housing teaser


 - by New Deal democrat

Here is something I have been working on for the last month.  As it happens, last week Kevin Drum posted some aspects of the same data.

House prices have exceeded by a substantial margin median household income:



But the monthly mortgage payments have not:



This is because, while the prices of houses have increased, mortgage interest rates have decreased over the same period.

So, saving for the down payment is considerably more difficult (unless, e.g., parents are helping out), but once the house is bought, the monthly carrying cost for living in the house really hasn't gone up at all.

 What's missing in this discussion is comparing both household income and mortgage payments to the alternative (leaving aside living in mom and dad's house) of paying rent.

I still have some number crunching to do, but once the three way comparison is finished, it will be a really illuminating look into how much the alternatives for shelter really cost.  Stay tuned.

Is This Why Wages Are Low?

These are two graphs from a post over at the Center for Equitable Growth. 




The top chart shows that the relationship between unemployment and wage growth isn't as strong as you'd think.  Recent research highlighted by Fed President Bullard made the same observation.  But the bottom chart -- now that's what a tight correlation looks like!

I ran a quick, down-and-dirty calculation from FRED data using simple correlation analysis, but I used the employment to population rate and the Y/Y percentage change in average hourly earnings of all employees.  Here's the scatterplot:





The correlation was .68 -- pretty high.   

Here's a chart of the prime age employment ratio:




It's still low; it only just attained levels seen at the low of the last recession, meaning this analysis could be on to something. 

Sunday, October 15, 2017

A thought for Sunday: the Rule of Gerontocracy


 - by New Deal democrat

The US looks like government of, by, and for senior citizens.

President Donald Trump just had his 72nd birthday. He assumed office at age 71, the oldest person ever to do so.

In Congress, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is 75 years old.  His Democratic counterpart, Charles Schumer, is a relatively spry 66. The median age of US Senators is 63. A full 30 Senators are age 70 or older. Sixteen of them are over 75. Nine are over 80!  

The oldest, Diane Feinstein of California, is 84 years old and just announced that she intends to run for re-election. Should she win, by the end of her term, she will be 91 years old -- if she survives. The average life expectancy for an 85 year old woman is 6.9 years. In other words, she will have nearly a 50% chance of dying in office before she completes her term.

In the House of Representatives, Speaker Ryan is the baby of the group at age 47.  Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is 77. The average House member is 57 years old, the oldest average ever. Over 30% of the Members are age 65 or older. Over 15% are over 70. Twelve Members are over 80!

The median age of Justices of the Supreme Court is 67. Two Justices are over 80.  One is 79. In the 19th Century, the average Justice served about 10 years. Now they sit on average close to 25 years.

In short, the majority of the leadership of all three branches of the US government are old enough to collect Social Security and Medicare.

Forget Boomers, most of the US leadership belongs to the Silent Generation, and formed their basic political opinions in the 1950s during the days of Ike and Senator Joseph McCarthy, and when court-ordered racial integration was just beginning.  And it shows.

In survey after survey, when it comes to social justice issues, the older the person, as a general rule the more conservative their opinions.  Here is the demographic breakdown on attitudes towards gay marriage:



And here is the breakdown as to immigration:



Since people over age 45 are the most likely to vote in midterm elections:


these are the age groups who are having their views enacted.

And when it comes to partisanship, the most reliably conservative, Republican generation has been the Silent Generation (along with the tail end of the Boomers and the early Gen X, who came of age during the stagflationary 1970s):



While, as the chart shows, the late "Greatest Generation" leaned blue, but they have almost all passed from the scene. Thus the midterm elections have been dominated by an extremely conservative electorate. They have elected people in their own age group.  And the politicians they elected are serving their interests.

This is government of, by, and for the elderly: rule by gerontocracy.