Generally one draws conclusions after research.
I should clarify this. While the upper class grew faster than the lower class, it’s not necessarily correct to say households rose/fell out of the middle class. Households merge and split. Babbies are formed. People die. Individual income tends to rise over time until we retire.
When I left home for college, I became a new lower-class 1-person household. When my wife and I moved in together, two households became one with higher income (even after the household size adjustment.)
So as the country’s demographics change, we naturally expect some change in household characteristics. In 2016, the over-65 population was 15%, up from 12% in 2000. The percentage of the population enrolled in college was up by nearly a point. Obviously some old people and students live with other earners, and some have plenty of income on their own, but we would still expect a higher percentage of lower-income households with these changes. The foreign-born share of the population also increased.
The total number of households increased faster than the population increased. Not surprisingly, the percentage of households with multiple earners dropped 5 points 2000-2016. And the increase in share of households with zero earners by 3.5% is consistent with the aging population.
But you had asked about regional differences. There’s some more info here:
I can’t figure how to direct link PDFs on my phone, but “2018 SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING INVENTORY” lists a 0.7% increase in units 2017-18. But also that 31% of the residential buildings were single family homes. Obviously those only turn over at whatever rate they turn over, but that offers plenty of room for densification. As do the 20% of residential buildings with only 2-4 units.
I promise I’m done for a bit after this one.
I don’t think anyone linked to this article:
And not that we should get in the habit of linking to basic-ass government data, when not being familiar with them makes one unqualified to participate, but:
Well, here’s this for starters:
How exactly do you make that densification of single family homes work? Eminent Domain?
No one (or very, very few) owning a single-family home in SF are going to consider rebuilding it as apartments. It’s value is as a single-family home which the well-heeled will pay a premium for - in Nov, 2020 the average cost was $1.625 million. Which quickly prices it out of range from a city government program. Even if the government could buy them on the open market, SF has the 3rd smallest average home lot sizes in the US (those space constraints again) - 2,713 sq. ft… It’s not terribly cost efficient to buy random lots that size and try to build skinny needle high-rises on them. That’s assuming the government acquires the political capital necessary to change zoning laws to allow such things in a residential neighborhood.
This is not an easy problem to solve. What available space there is for dense housing usually comes at the expense of former industrial/sometimes retail sites of which there are only so many. Good luck reducing the single-family home footprint in SF - probably ever.
I’m just going on the theory that if those areas can more broadly share in our economic growth, then there’ll be less radicalization within the populace. You have to remember that in 2008, there was a financial collapse, not just an election. And the recovery that occurred afterward didn’t happen as much in rural America. I think there are people in these parts of America that are doing good things for their lives. But it often involves them moving away toward large cities. If Biden can implement policies to keep more of the growth within the rural areas, it might make the Trumps of the world seem like less of an option. I don’t know, it’s maybe a long-shot in today’s environment. But I think Biden wants to help everyone, even people that currently hate him and his party.
Actually, lots of landlords make damn fine money renting their houses out, room by room. Three singles with halfway decent jobs can live there, and the landlord can often get more money, overall, than if he rented it as a single-family home. (Yeah, there’s more overhead…)
Yeah, true. A college friend of mine for years rented a bedroom in a Haight-Ashbury flat shared between four roommates, all on leases. But that just turns it into a de facto duplex to 4-plex, which is not the kind of dense housing Ruken is talking about.
It doesn’t bode well when the first plot is from the authors whose methods were later shown to also link suicide and recycling. But I think what that article does do is provide a nice list of factors one could examine to determine whether a country is “in decline”, regardless of whether or not the correlations are spurious.
For example, life expectancy in the US has generally risen since 1900. That’s with rising Gini coefficient, falling GC, static GC. Inequality in the US is actually rising at a slower clip in the last 20 years than in, say, the 70s at 80s. But as we’ve discussed, there’s actually been a decrease in life expectancy since 2014. I think that’s cause for concern and I hope others do as well. But we didn’t see falling life expectancy in past years with higher GC or greater dGC/dt.
You mentioned “political capital necessary to change zoning laws”, and I think that’s far more important than people’s desire to sell. NYC up-zoned various neighborhoods in the early 200Xs and saw a large increase in units. But that’s also an example of how simply increasing density doesn’t necessarily increase accessibility, as places like Long Island City saw a bunch of $10M condos go in.
GINI or other forms of measuring inequality or not only misleading they are dumb.
I’d rather live in a society with a Bill Gates and a Warren Buffet then in a nominally equal society where everyone is fighting over the one or two remaining donkeys at the zoo.
I agree. But that’s not the choice we’re facing in today’s US. There are extremes and then there is everything in between. And GINI isn’t the end-all, be-all measure in and of itself. It’s just one of many measures that economists look at when judging the health of an economy.
Yeah that’s the problem – paying people too much to make burgers and now the burgerer jobs are moving overseas! I knew my whopper tasted of sweatshop.
A lot of China’s manufacturing is going overseas to places like Vietnam where wages are lower. Like most governments, the Chinese want a more educated workforce fighting for newer, hi tech jobs and has been investing accordingly.
Americans thinking the solution is a race to the bottom is a nice exemplar of what the real problem is.
A nation of bun picklers and Wal-Mart greeters that has a hard time making paper masks is going to have quite a dilemma when we have to tangle with an industrial powerhouse.
Yes, the US still has a manufacturing base but our counterproductive policies are causing a real relative decline. Another thing, people say that we need higher wages cause of the cost of living. They conveniently ignore, purely out of either ignorance or partisanship, that increasing the money supply relative to goods and services available actually is one of the root causes of that increase in cost of living.
Concerning the so-called educated workforce. Each population has a distribution of ability. The bottom 20-45% of folks aren’t going to be high tech workers.
It very much doesn’t. A median is just the middle. If income disparity is getting wider, there are fewer people in that middle, meaning more people who are worse off. Sure, it also means there are people who are better off. But the problem is that there are more and more dissatisfied people. The better off people are just still satisfied.
Plus, the more money those at the top have relative to those below them, the more power they have. The more they can shape the country the way they want it to be. Money has more influence in politics than ever, where it’s hard to get even the Democrats to not put businesses and rich people above the rest.
Trying to tell those of us who actually live with how much worse things are that we’re actually better off is a losing proposition. We still live in a world where every adult has to work, where many people have more than two jobs, where kids have to help out their parents financially. We may have a few extra goods, but our lives in general have not improved.
It is stuff like this, where the wrong numbers are used, that lead people to stop trusting the numbers. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is part of the anti-science bent many have.
Let me put it simply like this: What wealthy nation is trying to gain low skill manufacturing jobs? None. Nobody wants to invest in jobs that are going to be automated out soon anyway.
As I say, even gdp pp non-wealthy countries like China are trying to move away from jobs like that.
How does a minimum wage increase the money supply? All it does is redistribute some of a company’s profits.
Here’s a video from a progressive I watch a lot, explaining that 8 million more people have fallen into poverty, and the flaws with the usual use of the “rising tide” analogy. And it describes how income inequality causes harm.
No, it doesn’t. It could, but dopers who check census data before posting know that’s not what hapened; the average real income of the lowest quintile of households was the highest it had ever been in 2016. More people may be in Pew’s lower category, but the boundary is defined by the middle. You can be better off and still “fall” per their definition.
More after my morning calls.
My daughter was born 1 month after 9/11 and she’s never seen an America not in decline. Best she saw was, perhaps, an American Abeyance from 2012-2015.