Automakers Are Having a Record Year, but Here’s a Trend that Should Worry Them
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.
Related: What's Next for Oil Prices? Look Out Below!
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.
Related: U.S. Companies Are Dying Faster Than Ever
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:
- 6 Reasons Gas Prices Could Fall Below $2 a Gallon
- Hoping for a Raise? Here’s How Much Most People Are Getting
- What the U.S. Must Do to Avoid Another Financial Crisis
Here’s Why Americans Are Keeping Their Cars Longer than Ever
As cars get more reliable Americans are holding onto their vehicles for longer than ever before. The average age of cars and light trucks is now 11.5 years old, according to a new report from IHS Automotive.
In addition to better reliability, cars are getting older because Americans bought far fewer new cars in the years following the Great Recession, as concerns lingered about unemployment and the strength of the economy.
Even as consumers have started purchasing new vehicles again, they’re still holding onto their older ones. The average length of ownership of a new vehicle reached 6.5 years in the first quarter of 2015, more than two years longer than in 2006. The number of cars more than 12 years old continues to grow and is expected to increase 15 percent by 2020.
Related: The Incredible Disappearing American-Made Car
IHS predicts that the average age of vehicles will inch up slightly over the next few years, hitting 11.7 years in 2018.
The number of cars on the road hit a record 258 million, posting a 2.1 percent increase over last year, driven by the purchase of new cars. IHS expects that volume of cars less than 5 years old will increase by 24 percent over the next five years.
Consumer sales of autos were on pace to rise 4.2 percent this month, according to TrueCar, compared to July of 2014, thanks to increased demand, summer sales events and the growing popularity of premium brands.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Why Hillary Clinton’s Tax Plan to Soak Investors Won’t Work
- US Health Spending: $3.1 Trillion a Year and Growing
- Joe Biden: The Looming Threat to a Republican Presidency
The Most Expensive Cities for Singles -- and the Cheapest
Looking for love in all the pricey places? Check out these lists of the most and least expensive cities for singles before you go on that next date or plan your next move. Looking good doesn’t come cheap, and the price of a decent wardrobe and a gym membership add ups before you even step out the door.
To determine which cities were the least and most affordable for singles, GoBankingRates examined 89 cities and rated them according to four expense categories -- clothing, dates, gym memberships and rent -- using data from Numbeo.com. “Singles are more likely to exercise, and to have a gym membership,” says Elyssa Kirkham, a finance writer for GoBankingRates. “They’re more likely to rent than own a home, and spend more money on dates and clothing.”
Related: Hot New Dating Criteria: What’s Your Credit Score?
San Francisco is the most expensive city for singles, especially when it comes to rent. Rent is 30 percent more expensive in San Francisco than it is in Honolulu. The cost of a date here is $147, compared with the median cost of $109. California just might be the most expensive state to date in, claiming seven of the top 15 spots: San Francisco, Fremont, Glendale, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland.
The second most expensive city? New York City, which boasts the most expensive gym membership at $90 per month. Clothing costs here are the second-highest in the nation -- bad news for all the Carrie Bradshaws out there. And date night will set you back $145.
The most expensive date night in the country is in Washington, D.C., which came in third overall. Date night in our nation’s capital costs $166 for dinner, a bottle of wine, two movie tickets and a 10-mile taxi ride. Compare that to Chattanooga, Tennessee, which had the cheapest date night at $78.
Looking for more bang for your buck? Move to Reno, Nevada. Rent here is just 86 cents per square foot, and a night out averages $97.30. Keep in mind, though, that “the Biggest Little City in the World” was once known as the divorce capital of the world, so dating there may offer less promise than other locales.
Related: The Bad News About All the Singles in America
Most Expensive Cities for Singles
- San Francisco
- New York
- Washington, D.C.
- Honolulu
- Boston
- Fremont, California
- Glendale, California
- Anchorage, Alaska
- Miami
- Seattle
- Irvine, California
- Los Angeles
- San Diego
- Oakland, California
- Madison, Wisconsin
Related: Marriage?? Young Americans Aren’t Even Shacking Up
15 Cheapest Cities for Singles
- Reno, Nevada
- Tucson, Arizona
- Grand Rapids, Michigan
- Tacoma, Washington
- Indianapolis
- Mesa, Arizona
- Little Rock, Arkansas
- Albuquerque, New Mexico
- Huntsville, Alabama
- Memphis, Tennessee
- St. Louis, Missouri
- Jackson, Mississippi
- Stockton, California
- Omaha, Nebraska
- Chattanooga, Tennessee
Donald Trump Isn’t as Rich as He Says…but He’s Still Pretty Rich
“I’m really rich,” Donald Trump boasted last month when he announced he was running for president. A new analysis by Bloomberg confirms that claim, but finds that the real estate mogul and presidential candidate is worth about $7 billion less than he claims.
When he announced his presidential bid, Trump touted a net worth of about $8.7 billion, a figure that soon ballooned to $10 billion. But Bloomberg calculates his wealth closer to around $2.9 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a daily ranking of the world’s biggest fortunes, arrived at the value using both prior-known information and a 92-page personal disclosure form that Trump filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Related: 7 Revelations from Donald Trump’s Financial Disclosure
The federal form that all presidential candidates are required to submit asks only for broad ranges in asset values, not specific sums. Anything above $50 million in value is lumped together in one category, which in Trump’s case left plenty of room for questions about just how valuable some of his assets are. The federal report also doesn’t require candidates to list personal property like art, clothing or real estate that’s for his own use.
The Bloomberg analysis went into much more depth, using figures such as purchase dates, square footage, rental rates and more.
The disclosure form revealed that most of Trump’s fortune comes from real estate holdings, such as the Trump Doral resorts in Florida and Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York City. Other lucrative properties include premier golf courses in the U.S., Ireland and Scotland.
Related: Donald Trump Just Showed Why His Campaign Is Doomed
Trump had valued his golf and resort properties at $2 billion. Bloomberg, using price-to-sales ratios for similar properties, put the value at a combined $570 million.
The Bloomberg methodology also doesn’t put much value in the Trump brand, counting only the cash being held as part of licensing or other business deals. “Trump’s own estimations,” Bloomberg noted, “include much higher values for his brand.”
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Huckabee Trounces Trump in the Shameless Shock Game
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
- 15 Facts You Didn’t Know About Donald Trump
In a Black Eye for Wearable Tech, Nike Giving Refunds for FuelBand
If you thought that the calorie count and steps tracked by your Nike FuelBand were inaccurate, you may have been right.
Nike and Apple have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit claiming that the companies made misleading statements regarding the product’s ability to accurately track calories and steps, according to a website maintained by settlement administrator Gilardi & Co.
The companies have denied the allegations and claim they broke no laws, but they have agreed to a settlement in which Nike will give consumers who join the class action suit by January $15 or a $25 Nike gift card. The total cost of the refunds could reach more than $2 million.
Related: Why No One is Actually Buying Wearable Tech
Anyone who purchased a FuelBand from January 19, 2012 through June 17, 2015 is eligible for the refund.
Last year, Nike began shifting its focus away from producing FuelBands, choosing instead to focus on apps, including one for the Apple watch, that support fitness tracking. The company has said it has more than 60 million digital fitness software users.
The FuelBand was an early entrant into what has become a crowded field or wearable fitness trackers, despite questions about their accuracy. However smart watches, which offer built-in fitness trackers along with other apps, may soon eclipse the demand for that standalone products.
A report released last year by tech analysts Juniper Research projected that revenue from wearable tech, would increase from $4.5 billion in 2014 to more than $53 billion in 2019.
Sweet, Sour, Salty and...Fat? Scientists Add a New Basic Taste
The thousands of taste buds on a human tongue each contain as many as 100 taste receptors. The interaction between those receptors and the chemicals in our food determine the taste of that hamburger or salad you’re having for lunch.
Our sense of taste has long been broken into four basic categories — sour, sweet, salty and bitter. A fifth basic taste was added more recently: umami, which means “delicious” in Japanese but refers to a meaty or savory flavor sensation. Now researchers claim there’s a sixth basic taste.
Scientists at Purdue University have published a new study in the journal Chemical Sense that they say provides evidence that chemicals called nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) — in other words, fat — causes a taste sensation that is different from the other five tastes. The researchers have proposed that the new taste be referred to as “oleogustus.” “Oleo” is the root word for oily or fatty in Latin and “gustus” means taste.
Related: The 11 Worst Fast Food Restaurants in America
The researchers emphasize that they are talking about a taste, not just the creamy mouth feel you get from eating a rich piece of meat or a dish loaded in butter.
The fat that delivers that creamy, smooth feeling is a triglyceride, made up of three different fatty acids, they explain. Oleogustus — a gag-inducing taste on its own, but much more appetizing in combination with other flavors — comes from only one of those fatty acids that breaks off from the larger molecule in the food or as you’re chewing.
This finding has the potential to generate big changes in the food industry. Understanding the taste component of fat can do more than add to our knowledge of how our brain and digestive system interact. It may also help the food industry create more appealing, and potentially healthier, products.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Teens Are Having Much Less Sex Than Their Parents Did at That Age
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
- The New Generation of ‘Genuinely Creepy’ Electronic Devices