Automakers Are Having a Record Year, but Here’s a Trend that Should Worry Them

View published(active tab)

Automakers Are Having a Record Year, but Here’s a Trend that Should Worry Them

iStockphoto

By Michael Rainey

September 2, 2015

U.S. auto sales closed out the summer on a positive note, topping estimates and casting some rosy light on the health of the American consumer. Recording its best August since 2003, the auto industry is on pace to sell 17.8 vehicles in 2015, well ahead of expectations of 17.3 million. If the numbers hold up, 2015 will be the best year ever for U.S. auto sales, beating the 17.4 million mark set in 2000.

The general consensus is that auto industry is in pretty good shape these days. Gas prices and interest rates are low, boosting the market for cars and light trucks. More than 2 million jobs were added to the U.S. economy in the past year, and more jobs is usually good news for auto sales. The unemployment rate has been trending lower for five years, sitting at a relatively healthy 5.3 percent in July.

As with any statistic, though, there’s more than one way to look at the situation. Sure, auto sales are climbing as the economy gets stronger and more Americans hit their local car dealers’ lots. At least to some degree, though, higher auto sales should be expected just as a result of U.S. population growth. And those rising monthly sales figures are masking a continuing trend that is more worrisome for the auto industry: per capita auto sales are still in a long-term decline, even including the solid growth the industry has seen since the end of the recession. Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives did the math and made a graph:

According to Short’s analysis, the peak year for per capita auto sales in the U.S. was 1978. As the red line in the graph shows, the trend is negative since then.

In the graph, per capita auto sales in January, 1976, were defined as 100; the readings in the index since then are relative to that 1976 sales level. As you can see, the index moves higher until August of 1978, when per capita auto sales were up nearly 20 percent over 1976. Since then, per capita auto sales have fallen, reaching a low in 2009 that was nearly 50 percent lower than 1976. Since 2009, per capita auto sales have risen nicely, but are still more than 15 percent below peak.

What could explain the negative trend? Two factors come to mind. First, demographics. It has been widely reported that the millennial generation is less interested in owning cars for a variety of reasons, ranging from a weak economy to a cultural shift away from suburban life. However, the data on millennial car purchases is ambiguous; recently, millennials have started buying cars in volumes that look a lot like their elders. And even if millennials are less interested in buying cars, their preferences can’t explain a shift that began in the 1970s, before they were born.

The other factor that may explain the trend is income inequality. A study of car ownership by the Carnegie Foundation found that countries with higher income inequality have fewer cars per capita. The logic is simple: As more income is claimed by the wealthy, there’s less to go around for everyone else. And that means there’s less money for middle and lower income groups to buy and maintain automobiles, among other things.

Here’s a chart of the Gini index for the U.S. since 1947. (The Gini Index is a widely-used measure of income inequality. A higher Gini number means higher inequality.) Note that the Gini reading started climbing in the late ‘70s – the same time when per capita car ownership in the U.S. began to fall.

This chart tells us, not for the first time, that the U.S. has experienced more income inequality since the 1970s. Combined with the per capita auto sales data above, it suggests that as the rich have gotten richer and everyone else has struggled to keep up, car ownership has suffered. Although this is by no means proof of the relationship between income inequality and per capita car ownership over the last 40 years, it hints at an interesting theory – and suggests that the auto industry has good reason to be concerned about growing inequality in the U.S.

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times:

Hoping for a Raise? Here’s How Much Most People Are Getting

iStockphoto

By Beth Braverman

August 10, 2015

Nearly all companies plan to give raises to their employees next year, with an average salary bump of 3 percent, the same increase workers received this year, according to a new survey released Monday by Towers Watson.

Raises for executives and management will be 3.1 percent.

“To a large extent, 3 percent pay raises have become the new norm in corporate America,” Sandra McLEllan, North American Practice Leader for Towers Watson said in a statement. “We haven’t seen variation from this level for many years.”

While the average raise is 3 percent, companies plan to tie the amount of individual raises to worker performance. Employees with the best reviews will receive an average 4.6 percent increase in salary, while workers with below-average ratings will get less than 1 percent.

The survey also found that companies are shifting their compensation packages to include more short-term incentives and bonuses. Eighty-five percent of workers took home a bonus this year, up from 81 percent this year. Nearly 90 percent of exempt employees were eligible for an annual or short-term bonus.

Even as unemployment has finally fallen, wage growth since the Great Recession remains largely stalled. Last month, wages for civilian workers grew just 2.1 percent, according to the Employment Cost Index.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen, who is looking for economic growth before instituting a rate hike, has said that stagnant wages are one factor hampering such growth. After all, consumers can’t increase the amount of goods and services they can purchase if they aren’t increasing their pay.

Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:

When Buying Car Insurance, Young Drivers Should Stick with Mom and Dad

iStockPhoto

By Suelain Moy

August 10, 2015

The parents of young drivers have enough to worry about, but a new study from insuranceQuotes.com finds that those who add coverage for an 18-to-24-year-old can expect to see an average annual premium increase of 80 percent on their existing car insurance. The good news: That’s still cheaper than if the young drivers bought insurance on their own. If those young drivers were to buy individual plans of their own, they’d pay 8 percent more on average — and in some cases, over 50 percent more — than their coverage costs on a parental plan.

Premiums can vary widely depending on the driver’s age and state. An 18-year-old can expect to pay an average of 18 percent more for an individual policy than he or she would if added to an existing policy. But in Rhode Island, an 18-year-old will pay an average of 53 percent more for an individual policy. In Connecticut and Oregon, the difference is 47 percent.

In states such as Arizona, Hawaii, and Illinois, it actually becomes cheaper, on average, for a young driver to get his or her own policy after turning 19. When it comes to determining premiums, Hawaii is the only state that doesn’t allow insurance providers to consider age, gender, or length of driving experience.

These are the five states with the greatest difference in premiums for young drivers buying their own coverage.

1. Rhode Island: 19 percent
2. Connecticut: 16 percent
3. North Carolina: 14 percent
4. Vermont: 14 percent
5. Maine: 14 percent

And these five states have the smallest difference:

1. Hawaii: No difference
2. Illinois: No difference
3. Arizona: 2 percent
4. Mississippi: 5 percent
5. South Carolina: 5 percent.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

Vladimir Putin’s Cheesy Act of Defiance

Youtube

By Millie Dent

August 7, 2015

The United States and European Union have been squeezing Russia with sanctions since it annexed Crimea, a territory that previously belonged to Ukraine, in March 2014. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin established a ban on U.S. and EU foodstuffs a few months later as a snub to the West.

On Thursday, Russia commemorated a tightening of that year-old ban on Western agricultural products by bulldozing bright yellow blocks of cheese. The country also streamrolled fruit and set piles of bacon ablaze. By midday, 28 metric tons of apples and tomatoes from Poland had been demolished, as well as 40 tons of apricots from an unknown country, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Western sanctions and a plunging ruble have caused Russian food prices to spike this year. Some politicians, religious leaders and other Russian citizens denounced the destruction of the food, noting that millions of Russians are living in poverty. More than 285,000 people signed an online petition that asked Putin to distribute the food rather than destroy it.

The Kremlin has promised to help develop Russia’s own agricultural industries and to promote domestic food products that the middle-class generally ignore in supermarkets in favor of status symbols like French cheese and Italian meat. In addition, the Kremlin announced that any contraband foodstuffs found would be destroyed. Russia’s Agricultural Minister Alexander Tkachyov said on state TV that the quality of Western food products could no longer be guaranteed.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

This May Be the Best Frequent Flier Perk Ever

JOSHUA LOTT

By Beth Braverman

August 7, 2015

Forget about getting bumped up to first class. Delta Airlines is now bumping its best customers off commercial flights entirely -- and onto private jets.

The program got off the ground last week, according to Bloomberg, with its first flight traveling from Cincinnati to Atlanta.

To be eligible for the upgrade, fliers must have at least 125,000 miles in travel and $15,000 in annual spending with the airline. The bump costs an extra $300 to $800.

In addition to improving the loyalty among some of Delta’s best customers, the program has a side benefit for Delta, allowing it to get some value from positioning flights, known as “empty legs,” which make up about 30 percent of industry flying.

Delta and other airlines have been shifting their loyalty programs in ways that make it easier for elite flyers to earn rewards and more difficult for more irregular customers.

Starting in June 2016, Delta will issue rewards based on the amount of money spent rather than miles traveled, and the airline may change the number of miles necessary to book a flight based on demand and other factors.

Analysts say that other airlines may follow suit. Airline reward programs have been unsuccessful in fostering loyalty among patrons, many of whom book flights based on cost and convenience rather than brand preference. Only 44 percent of travelers and 40 percent of business travelers fly at least three-quarters of their miles on their preferred airline, reports Deloitte.

Delta’s reward program ranked 9^th on U.S. News’ annual ranking of the best airline rewards programs, released this week, receiving 3.1 stars out of 5. Alaska Airlines was ranked first.

You’ve Got to See This GOP Hawk’s Grisly Ad Opposing the Iran Deal

Youtube

By Michael Rainey

August 6, 2015

A group led by John Bolton, the aggressively hawkish Republican insider who served as George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has released an unusually grisly ad that vividly portrays a nuclear attack on the United States.

The 30-second video was produced by the Foundation for American Security and Freedom, which Bolton leads. It shows an all-American family of four sitting down to a dinner of pasta and red sauce. The father kindly asks, “How was your day?” As his wife and children enthusiastically reply, a blinding flash rips through the scene to the sound of burning and destruction. The screen fades to black, and then we see and hear Sen. Rand Paul speaking, with his words also written on the screen: “Rand Paul: ‘our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon’.” The screen fades to black again, and then we see a nuclear explosion, with the words: “It only takes one.” As the nuclear cloud boils up into the sky, we see the final message: “A nuclear threat is a threat to our national security.”

The 30-second video seems to consciously mimic Lyndon Johnson's infamous "Daisy" ad from the 1964 presidential election. That ad was widely criticized for using a nuclear explosion to frighten the audience into believing that, if elected, Republican nominee Barry Goldwater would risk all-out war with the Soviet Union. The ad was shown only once (on September 7, 1964) but that proved to be enough.

Several differences between the Bolton group’s ad and “Daisy” stand out. For one, the new ad shows a family being destroyed by a nuclear blast. By contrast, the Johnson ad implied the death of a small girl and many others, but without showing the blast and its victims together.

Another difference is the target. The “Daisy” ad took aim at a hawkish Republican candidate for president, implying that an aggressive attitude toward a major enemy could lead to the destruction of the world. The Bolton group’s ad takes aim at a dovish Republican candidate — and, by implication, a dovish American president — while suggesting that a diplomatic approach toward a major enemy could lead to war on American soil.

A final difference: The Johnson campaign withdrew the “Daisy” ad as the criticism poured in. The Bolton group’s ad is on the Internet, where it can be seen over and over again. And thanks to the dynamics of social media, it will likely reach a larger audience than “Daisy” ever did — though to what effect, it remains to be seen.

Here’s the Daisy ad:

Search form

Quick Hits