Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: households

In NYC and China, developers are building smaller apartments.

Soup and ready-made meals sales are soaring in Brazil. The reason is probably more singles. In the United Arab Emirates, if you are over 30 and female, there is a 60% chance you are unmarried. For Japan, 31.5% of all households are one-person.

Looking at Japan, we would see a contracting population but more households. The reason is a growing singles population that has a distinct economic impact. A person in an affluent nation who moves into a new apartment needs consumer durables (goods lasting 3 years or more) that include a refrigerator, furniture, a TV, maybe a washing machine. Single people tend to live in apartments rather than houses.

There are some universal causes of single living. People are getting married later, there is more divorce, we are living longer and marriage is no longer as attractive. In China and India, male baby selection results in too many bachelors looking for wives.

Where are we? While single person households are increasing around the world, we should be wary of generalizing. We can remember, though, that when more people live alone (please see graph below), it is a major demographic shift that affects demand for certain consumer goods and services.

This Economist article provides an excellent overview of the trend toward living alone around the world and was the source of my graph. It also led me to a Euromonitor report on Japan’s singles. For unmarried mothers specifically, this NY Times Magazine article was interesting because of its focus on 2 families and also provided a sound statistical base.

Econlife Living Solo: Part 1 is here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Golf_human capital formation...000019059879XSmall

With Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore soon to become the Augusta National Golf Club’s first female members, I keep thinking about how women have become more valuable. The reason takes us back to the family.

Assume for a moment that a family is a production unit–sort of like a little factory. In the traditional  set-up, women and men contribute resources. Women bring their ability to reproduce and maintain a household; men are responsible for reproduction and economic sustenance.  In other words, men had real dollar value but not women. And not having dollar value mostly meant having very little value.

However, once a woman enters the labor force, her worth can be quantified.  By contributing to her household’s economic sustenance, at home and beyond, she increases her value. You can see from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) charts that conclude this post, women are increasingly participating in the work force, women earn money, they spend money and they are more educated. Their activities and accomplishments bespeak value.

And, as a woman’s value changes, everywhere she gets greater bargaining power…even at Augusta.

My Sources: For scholarly analysis of women’s value in marriage markets and of the family as a production unit with resource inputs and goods and services outputs, Nobel laureate Gary Becker’s The Essence of Becker is a perfect source. Then, as a complement with more of a historical focus, I suggest Claudia Goldin’s papers and books while the BLS paper for the charts (below) provides valuable statistics. In addition, econlife has looked at the recent controversy at Augusta that involved IBM’s CEO. Finally, I thank Eduardo Porter for The Price of Everything, whose chapter, “The Price of Women,” inspired this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

house..middle.class_000001784895XSmall

If you have questions about Verizon and middle class income growth,  your conclusions might depend on the questions that you ask.

My story begins with a disastrous call to Verizon Wireless. One agent left and never returned, three said they could not help me, and the fifth person, hearing I had made no progress after 45 minutes said, “An iPhone is a luxury item; these things take time.” The sixth agent, realizing my problem had an easy solution, helped me graciously and quickly.
Soon after, Verizon asked me to evaluate their service in an automated survey. Using numbers from 1 to 10 to quantify my satisfaction, I was supposed to assess the last person with whom I spoke in a series of questions. Only in a separate optional comment at the end could I tell about the other five people.
I suspect Verizon’s computers will conclude they just made another customer happy because I gave agent #6 a “10″ for every question. And yet otherwise, my experience was far from ideal.

The Verizon survey reminded me of statistics about middle class income.

Researchers disagree about how much middle class income grew from 1979-2007. Citing a 3 percent total, economists Thomas Picketty and Emmanuel Saez say there was virtually no growth. By contrast, a group of Cornell scholars says middle class income grew 36.7 percent.

A 33.7 percent difference! How? Because the answers you get depend on what you ask.

Picketty, Saez and the Cornell group had to decide whether they would ask questions about a tax unit, a household, or a family. The former two economists chose the tax unit while the latter selected the household.  Then, the Cornell group considered whether to ask questions solely about returns from land, labor and capital or to include government transfers. And after that, questions about household size become relevant because people sharing a household–even if unrelated–benefit from each other’s income through shared spending.

The Botton Line: When Verizon, Picketty and Saez, and the Cornell group looked at the answers to their questions, their conclusions were totally accurate. Who is right? It all depends on which questions you think are appropriate.

The NY Times introduced Thomas Picketty and Emanuel Saez and their ideas in a front page story. Their paper with much more detail is here. For the Cornell group’s research, an Econtalk podcast provided an excellent description and a great summary comparison chart. Gated, their NBER working paper is here.

*The first sentence of this post was edited after it appeared.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (1) Add a Comment

16607_9.10_000005262499XSmall-1

Starting with, “…eating and clothing ourselves is getting easier all the time,” an Atlantic article discusses “cheap” and “expensive.”

Relatively cheap:

  1. computers
  2. media
  3. toasters, washing machines, other manufactured goods
  4. food
  5. internet movies
  6. cell phones
  7. clothing

Relatively expensive:

  1. home energy: electricity, natural gas, oil
  2. homes and apartments
  3. health care
  4. medical insurance
  5. higher education

Why?

Briefly stated, “productivity divergence.” To be discussed tomorrow.

The Economic Lesson

We can define “cheap” and “expensive” by looking at household spending. Cheaper items require an increasingly smaller proportion of our income. Food and clothing are the perfect example.  90 years ago, households used more than one-third of their spending for food and clothing. Now, according to the BLS, the total is closer to 15% for a family earning $62,000 before taxes.

An Economic Question: How does income relate to what we define as cheap and expensive?

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (5) Add a Comment