Rather than repeating a detailed analysis of American Community Survey data, after doing one last year, I’m just making some quick observations on data for New York City and the U.S. for 2006 and 2016, two economically similar years. The prior post was on data from table DP02, “selected social characteristics.”
This one is on DP03, “selected economic characteristics.” (DP04 is “selected housing characteristics”). I’ll just quickly run through the tables in the spreadsheet and tell you what I see. You can a download the DP03 spreadsheet for NYC and the U.S. in 2006 and 2016, once again, here…
and follow along and note what the data shows on the series of tables from top to bottom. Perhaps you’ll catch something I didn’t.
Last year I wrote a long post, with many charts, and some follow-ups based on American Community survey released at the time.
I compared the 2015 data with 2005, a similar economic year. I don’t want to repeat myself and am under some time pressure this fall, so I’m not going to do that again this year. Charts and pretty tables set up to print are a lot of work.
But I did download some of the data for New York City and the U.S. for 2006 and 2016, also economically similar years, to see what it looks like, and I might as well provide it to those interested. What follows is links to two spreadsheets, one from table DP02, “selected social characteristics,” and one from file DP03, “selected economic characteristics.” (DP04 is selected housing characteristics). I’ll just quickly run through the tables in the two spreadsheets and tell you what I see.
If anyone doubts that Puerto Ricans are Americans, just look at the state of island’s economy before Hurricane Maria. You had a bunch of rich people holding bonds exempt from income taxes, and a bunch of public employee pensioners who got their pensions retroactively enriched while traditional pensions were eliminated for those hired after 2000, all expecting to get paid by the poorer generations to follow them. You had an economy based on imports, debts and consumption that would collapse without bailouts from the federal government – at the expense of someone else, someday. You had the executive/financial class, the political/union class, and other members of a better off Generation Greed all seeking to suck money out of younger, poorer generations of serfs. (And those serfs fleeing the island in large numbers.) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its government-owned utility finally went bankrupt. Puerto Rico is like the United States, only more so. I wrote a post titled “The Puerto Rico Disaster” three years ago.
And then the hurricane hit.
Puerto Rico has no money, no economic base, and very few assets of any that have value in the short run. If the public employee pensioners and debt holders expect all they have promised themselves, where do they expect it to come from? Confiscating people’s FEMA rations and Social Security checks? How can people expect to suck out more from those who are so much poorer, or others who never benefitted in the past? But the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is going to end up with a whole lot of abandoned land, urban, rural, seaside, etc, because people will be forced to leave and there will be no income to pay property taxes. That, and a tropical climate in a part of the United States with links to New York, could have value someday. Value someday, perhaps, if they cooperate for the mutual benefit of themselves and the island as a whole, is all that Puerto Rico’s creditors deserve. I propose a debt for equity swap, with that land turned over to three of four new publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) that would compete to earn money by redeveloping the island. Those who wanted to invest in Puerto Rico for the long-term could buy in. Those who did not could sell, and take what they get.
American Community Survey data was released for 2016 yesterday, and the news was reportedly good.
The incomes of middle-class Americans rose last year to the highest level ever recorded by the Census Bureau, as poverty declined and the scars of the past decade’s Great Recession seemed to finally fade. Median household income rose to $59,039 in 2016, a 3.2 percent increase from the previous year and the second consecutive year of healthy gains, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.
While it is not a surprise that income is rising in an economic upturn, the claim is that this is more than a cyclical increase in income – even though wages are not rising.
The income increase extended to almost every demographic group, Census Bureau officials said. The figure the agency reported Tuesday was the highest on record. The agency reports that in 1999, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was $58,655.
Really? I immediately went to American Factfinder
And downloaded median household income for 2016 and 2006, a year at a similar point in the economic cycle. Adjusting the latter into 2016 dollars for an inflation-adjusted comparison. Downloaded it by age of householder. And found almost exactly what I expected.
In the previous post, which should be read first, I chronicled the location of and trends in Brooklyn’s office-based businesses. This post is about consumer-driven businesses. How hard is it to know the future? Consider the 1958 report from consulting firm Voorhees Walker Smith & Smith, Zoning New York City, which formed the basis of New York City’s current zoning resolution, passed in 1961.
Page 11. The growth of the supermarket has plainly reduced the role of the neighborhood food store. The efficiency of the large supermarket is such that a given volume of sales can be handled with sharply lower frontage requirements and, even allowing for parking areas, with appreciably lower land requirements…Simultaneously with the growth of the supermarket has appeared the integrated shopping center, ranging in scale from neighborhood units of ten stores to gigantic complexes with department stores and chain store branches. Since the main attribute of the shopping center is one-stop shopping for the automobile customer, the radius of retail trade areas has dramatically increased.
It is now a commonplace that both the downtown shopping district and the local string street have been adversely affected by these innovations in retail trade (resulting in) the excessive amount of retail frontage in the numerous strip developments of the city. A survey of frontages in sixteen shopping districts in widely scattered parts of the city indicated an average retail vacancy rate of nine percent, with an additional six percent of store frontage occupied by non-retail uses.
It is now 59 years later, and as a result of additional innovations in retail trade, the entire economic structure described by Voorhees Walker Smith & Smith is collapsing in suburban and Sunbelt America, as the strip districts of Brooklyn boom.
Brooklyn is one of the epicenters of the new, youth-driven economy. Employment, and the number of employed and self-employed workers, have soared, but the number of poor people living in the borough has also increased, and its average income remains far below the U.S. average.
Brooklyn’s economic base has long consisted of two things, commuting to Manhattan and bringing back money to be spent in the local consumer economy, and something else. That something else was once agriculture, and then manufacturing and the city’s seaport. With the city’s economic collapse in the 1970s, that something else was largely public assistance and government-funded health care and social services, which dominated the borough’s employment. The borough even lost a great deal of its local consumer-driven business activity, due to its falling relative income and the custom of its better off residents choosing to drive elsewhere to go shopping. Today, however, there is something of a turnaround, both in the economic base in the consumer economy. But where is it concentrated, and why? I had my daughter create some maps of data by zip code using GIS program CartoDB to find out. This post is about office-based businesses, and another will follow.
Last December I wrote a quick post expressing concern that the U.S. might have reached peak transparency, now that the Democratic Party, as a result of the rising burden of public employee pensions, has turned against the dissemination of accurate, factual information about government and society. Joining the Republicans, who have been against providing access to such information for a couple of decades.
Since then I’ve seen the same concern expressed by many others, now that Donald Trump, hardly Mr. Transparency himself, is President, with reports of government bureaucrats spiriting away statistical information to a secure location before the change of regime, lest it be deleted. Even so, I’m always on the hunt for alternative sources of actual facts, and this January I happened to think of one – the Social Security Administration. And wrote a letter to the Deputy Chief of the Office of Long-Range Actuarial Estimates, the office “responsible for estimates for up to 75 years in the future, based on economic/demographic assumptions developed for the annual Trustees Report.”
I didn’t receive an answer. Given that people need to keep their jobs until they can collect their pensions, and having worked for the government for 20 years myself and knowing what it’s like, I didn’t expect one. It is fair to say that I wrote the letter that follows for the purpose of publishing it on this blog after a reasonable period of waiting for a response had passed.