Now Where is the Handbasket When I Need It?
You know what they say about the difference between a recession and a depression: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job.

Michigan has been in a one-state recession for a long time, though perhaps the nation has joined it (we're still waiting on the numbers). But from some contacts I have with the state, there's certainly a woe-is-us mood in the air. (Then again, I could have a biased sample).

Earlier this year I made several comments about the Michigan economy and the economy in general in the politics forum of the Detroit News blog, where I'm one of the featured writers.

Here we go. Each item in bold is was a separate blog entry; and the links didn't make it over here.

Fat People, Fat Houses, and Lots of Debt
Some people will tell you that the American middle class is being squeezed by greedy corporations and corrupt politicians. They're being squeezed, all right: They've got too much stuff.

So says a study from UCLA anthropology professor Jeanne Arnold, who poked into the garages of a group of middle-class families and observed how much time they spent in their backyard pools.

Author Jeanne Arnold says that for the families she looked at, "most cars can't fit in garages because they're too full of clutter from the house." Further, she said "(f)rom construction materials to excess furniture and toys, storage of material goods has become an overwhelming burden for most middle-class families." She estimates that 75% of families in Southern California suffer a "storage crisis."

Think that debt is piled on by sneaky mortgage brokers? Think again. Arnold concludes that many families in her study " seem to fuel their stress and frustration by buying more possessions than their homes can absorb, adding to their debt."

America's greatest nutrition problem is not lack of food, it's obesity. Perhaps its greatest economic problem is yet another form of obesity.

The Myth of Income Stagnation
Have American incomes stagnated over the last few decades? That may be what you hear now that we're in political silly season. But it's simply not true.

By one estimate, using Census Bureau numbers, the median family income was up 23% between 1973 and 2005 (the last year for which numbers are available). That these numbers reflect the median rather than mean incomes is even better; it reflect a widespread growth. In fact, there are reasons to think that official numbers underestimate income growth.

La, La, La, I Can't Hear You!
So Libby (and some other people, I would guess) think that I'm selling "voodoo economics."

Sure. The Census Bureau (from which I drew my numbers) has entered the black arts?

More remarkable is this claim: "You can wave all the statistics around that you like ...," which strikes me a lot like saying "la, la, la, I can't hear you."

There's a lot of political gain to be made, by both Democrats and Republicans, in the idea that (say) 5,000 people in the country are living large while the rest of us are eating dog food for dinner.

It just ain't so. Yes, many people will face hard times at various points in their lives (I could tell you my own stories of draining fast-food grease pits at 3 a.m.), but by any objective standard Americans are materially better off than they were decades ago.

By way of judging material well-being, I offer as exhibit A the fact that our garages are loaded with personal belongings, and companies such as Got Junk, Pack Rat and Public Storage exist to deal with the overflow of our possessions.

Doesn't look like gloom and doom to me.

Livin' Large in the USA
In response to my comment on the storage business as indicator of American prosperity, Mako left this comment: "The success of storage space is simply a reflection of our society's temporary status, where either we move every few years, or that we're simply running out of whatever space we have left."

He's right; some of those storage units are full because people move, and we are a mobile society. Then again, the fact that we have stuff to store only reinforces the point that there's lot of prosperity going around. It's easy to forget the trend towards improvements in the material standard of living when news media focus (as they often do) on hardship and the politician, who hopes you'll see him as a savior, preaches a message of gloom and doom.

Here's another indicator of the long-range growth of American prosperity, though: houses have gotten bigger over time. Says the Dallas Morning News, Average home sizes have grown by more than 50% since the early 1970s, while the number of people in most households is shrinking.

Lots of Progress in 14 Years
If you've left dial-up a long time ago, you might enjoy this spoof of the TV show "24," circa 1994. It shows how much positive change to the Internet and everyday communications has been brought about--largely through profit-seeking businesses.

There's a certain strand of political thought--I'll refrain from trying to invoke a clever name--that focuses on redistributing wealth. One reason, perhaps, is that it focuses on gloom and doom, and think that there's a fixed amount of material well-being to go around. Watch the spoof, and you'll see how things have changed in just a few years.


Brother Can You Spare an Apocalyptic Vision?
A fundamental element of sales is the plan-meet-need strategy. You have a need, I've got a plan.

It's easier for a politician to get you to give up something you have if you think that the sky is falling. (Of course, it's easier in all cases for him to get your permission to wrest something from someone else and give it to you.)

How Poor is Poor?
In response to my recent comments on the historic rise in American well-being, Libby Spencer predicts an "economic gloom and doom that's descending on America." My own remarks get a dismissal as "glibertarian." Hey, I suppose that beats "fascist." (Be grateful for small favors?)

In any case, it's understandable that people focus on the latest news, and especially their own immediate situation. But it can also lead to a profound misunderstanding of the world. (And yes, I see the stock market is sinking today.)

The idea that the well-being of the family that founded Wal-Mart somehow means that we're all going to be out on street corners selling apples and collecting tin cups (Libby's latest argument) is & well, rather absurd. Nobody is forced to shop at Wal-Mart, which is where it is because it serves the needs and wants of millions of people every day. Customers vote with their dollars, deciding that they'd rather have the stuff from Wallyworld than the dollars they give up.

In any case, I don't expect to see, even in Michigan, large numbers of people standing on corners selling apples, a la the Great Depression.

For one thing, would-be apple-sellers would be put out of business by nanny-state bureaucrats for selling without a permit. For their own good, of course.

I'll close by pointing out one area where I would wholeheartedly agree with Libby: taxpayer support of professional sports teams is a bad idea. Not because team owners are multi-millionaires--that's icing on the rhetorical cake--but because funding a private entertainment business with taxpayer funds it a perversion of government's role. This would be the case even if sports stars earned the minimum wage.

In response to a recent blog entry of mine, blog reader "ConservativeGuru" had this to say: "I am sure many of the people Libby is predicting selling apples by the roadside, will drive back home in their shiny new pickup, pull a six pack from the fridge, plop down in their laz-e-boy, flip on their HD digital cable infused 50" plasma TV, pick up their phone and gab away for an hour with a friend 2000 miles away bemoaning their situation and Michigans bad economy."

I can't predict what any particular person will do, but Hans Bader seems to agree: "most people classified as poor by the federal government are actually not poor at all. Most people below the federal poverty line have a living standard that is higher than most Europeans', and higher than what Americans enjoyed in past generations."

Labels: Economics

(permalink)

The "Decline" of the Middle Class
The populist card is getting played a lot these days. Just to show how terrible things aren't, the crying is about the middle class.

As George Bullard reminds us, though, one reason for the decline of the middle class is the growth of the upper class: People are, to borrow a line from a 70s TV show, "moving on up."

Labels: Economics

(permalink)

Private Gain, Private Pain.
If a tree falls in the middle of your property and there's not a government employee around, will it still be cleaned up?

When I returned to town from a recent trip up north, I noticed that many homeowners had placed tree branches, some of them very large, out by the curb. Of course that told me that a significant storm had passed through. But it also raised a question about public policy: who's going to pick up and dispose of that debris?

I've lived in several cities in my life, and so I've seen several approaches to refuse disposal. Some cities have an in-house garbage disposal unit, often employing union labor. Others follow the monopoly model, but contract out the collection to a commercial firm such as Waste Management or BFI.

In my current city, each landowner is responsible for selecting his own refuse hauler. Though it means that multiple trucks will be bearing down on residential streets on collection day, it also means that residents are able to choose in a competitive market for the combination of price and service that works for them.

Given that background, I was surprised to see the branches out by the road. Had people forgotten that the city won't come out and haul this away?

Perhaps. I looked up the city web site, and sure enough, there was an announcement, front page: your trash if your responsibility. That includes tree limbs that fall solely on your property. Late that evening, I got a "Reverse 911" call to that effect as well, just to drive home the message.

My lot is fairly small and (sadly) with few stately trees. The upside is that the scrub trees along the back property line produced only one "large" branch that needed disposal. Within a week, I had attacked it with vigor, resulting in a nice addition to my stockpile for winter burning.

It certainly can be a nuisance to make your own arrangements, especially if, unlike me, you have many trees to take care of. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Why? Trees add value to the land. You pay more, but when you sell, you get more back, too. Like a spacious, up-to-date bathroom, a grove of trees adds to your property value.

I would no more expect taxpayers to pay for the tree-related expenses of my property than I would expect them to pay to replace a leaky toilet. My gain, my pain. Your gain, your pain.

Save tax money for truly public services. Clean up after yourself.

(Same message as before; re-written on 8/20/07 because the first edition was in dire need of an edit.)

Labels: Economics

(permalink)

The Cost of Regulation: Seen in Housing Prices.
No surprise here: government action has consequences. In this case, people are being priced out of the housing market.

Forbes reports on the least affordable U.S. real estate markets in its July 23 issue.

Some of the numbers are astounding:

"For example, in the first quarter of 2001, 42.3% of homes sold in Los Angeles were available to the median earning household. But in the first quarter of 2007, only 3% of homes sold there were affordable to those households earning the median income."

There are several factors at play, but one that cannot be ignored by policy makers is the role of restrictive laws and regulations:

ontributing to an area's unaffordability are local policies that jack up the cost of building new homes. This increases price pressure.

"A lot of it has to do with regulations and zoning," says Robert Bruegmann, a history and urban planning professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "The higher cost of doing business--and the uncertainly of business--in places like California drives up home prices. The cost of building isn't that different in Houston versus Los Angeles, yet L.A. prices are so much higher. ... One of the few variables you can look at is regulatory burden."

The article notes that of the top 10 "unaffordable" cities, 7 are experiencing net outmigration. So don't blame a boom in housing demand for rising prices. Far from it: soaring prices may be driving people out, both negatively ("can't buy a house") and positively ("let's cash out while we can").

Labels: Economic freedom, Economics, housing

(permalink)

The Large Cost of Marginal Increases in the Home Ownership Rate.
A key insight of economics is to focus on the marginal (or "next step") costs and benefits of a given action. Say that you're going to buy a new car. You may be willing to pay another $5,000 for a better vehicle, but at another $5,001--that extra dollar--you start to reconsider.

The same logic works in public policy and in the economy generally. We stop and say "Is this increase in benefit really worth the cost?"

In the last few years we've seen record levels of home ownership. Oh yes, the American dream, spread wider (a greater percentage of the population and deeper (with second homes) across the country than ever before.

"Subprime Aftermath: Losing the Family Home," A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (temporary link), provides a look at the marginal costs of expanding the ownership base.

"In 2006 alone, subprime investors from all over the world injected more than a billion dollars into 22 ZIP Codes in Detroit, where home values were falling, unemployment was rising and the foreclosure rate was already the nation's highest, according to an analysis of data from First American LoanPerformance. Fourteen ZIP Codes in Memphis, Tenn., attracted an estimated $460 million. Seventeen ZIP Codes in Newark, N.J., pulled in about $1.5 billion. In all of those ZIP Codes, subprime mortgages comprised more than half of all home loans made.

The figures show the extent to which the new world of mortgage finance has made the American dream of homeownership accessible to folks in previously underserved communities. By some estimates, subprime lending has accounted for as much as half of the past decade's rise in the U.S. homeownership rate to 69% from 65%. But as the experience of West Outer Drive illustrates, the flood of cash has also encouraged people to get into financially precarious positions, often precisely at the time when they were least able to afford it. In doing so, it may have temporarily alleviated -- but ultimately worsened -- some of the nation's most acute economic problems."

By definition subprime lending means loans that are, on an economic analysis, the least justified. They're to people who are stretching themselves to the limits of their abilities to repay--and as it turns out, sometimes beyond that. The article emphasizes the stories of a neighborhood in Detroit which is experiencing a rush of foreclosures now that adjustable rate mortgages are adjusting ... up. Unfortunately, there are (literally) neighborhood effects at play:

"Kevin Lightsey, a local agent at Keller Williams Realty, says he doubts such foreclosed homes are likely to find new owners willing to live there. 'Nobody's going to want to buy into a neighborhood with 20% foreclosures,' he says. 'You end up with no neighborhood.'"

Labels: Economics

(permalink)