What Americans Buy
npr.org
npr.org
1947: 468.7
1967: 637.1
2007: 1,230.2
You might conclude that we are spending dramatically more on food all around, but keep in mind the population of the US in 1947 was less than half what it is now, so those numbers aren't quite as dramatic as they appear. All indications are that on the whole we have much better access to high quality food now (we have more access to things like fresh fruit, and wine), though this is not necessarily true if you are poor.
Yes.
1947: $3254/person ($468.7B / 144 million people)
1967: $3201/person ($637.1B / 199 million people)
2007: $4073/person ($1230.2B / 302 million people)
Eating Your Veggies: Not As Good For You? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880145,00.ht...
And,
Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999 http://www.jacn.org/content/23/6/669.full
Which concludes: "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content."
I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximately 4% more on medical care than we were in 1949.
That we are generally buying larger houses is no surprise, but that we're spending a substantially larger portion of our incomes to do so is, while not surprising, certainly interesting in the sense that this binds us to our income streams more than generations past.
I don't know the data, so perhaps someone could enlighten me as to whether or not this is because houses are just more expensive than they used to be, or because we just like buying larger houses (possibly for status) than we used to, or whether we just have more income available to spend on houses since we're spending so much less on food and clothing?
This is almost meaningless by itself. An actually useful number would be comparing that to say, number of doctor visits/treatments and how effective those are.
4% in terms of the whole pie, but over 100% more in relative terms, which I think is more important.
>I don't know the data, so perhaps someone could enlighten me as to whether or not this is because houses are just more expensive than they used to be, or because we just like buying larger houses (possibly for status) than we used to, or whether we just have more income available to spend on houses since we're spending so much less on food and clothing?
To address the point about houses being more expensive than they used to be, I think the $/sq ft in real terms metric has increased. As people move out farther and farther out into the suburbs and exurbs, the externalities of the house increase. It's much more expensive on a per capita basis to run a full service municipality when the density is 300 people / sq mi vs 4000 or 7000 people / sq mi. It's also more expensive for utilities, etc.
After the mortgage there's not a lot left to spend on anything else!
To get down to 7% they must not be counting employer contributions, those who get medical care from the VA, Medicare or Medicaid, nor people going uninsured and then filing bankruptcy when they get hit with notable medical costs.
There is simply no way.
No, but it's money that has a direct impact on wages and given the inconsistency of rates of employer contributions, it would mean that "What Americans Spend Their Money On" is not equivalent to "What Things Cost, That Americans Buy". Similarly not counting government payments toward health-care breaks that equivalence.
I wasn't trying to dismiss a potential usefulness of seeing where net consumer spending is going, on average. I was just responding to what I saw as a casual conflation between "we're not spending much more out of pocket" with "the price of healthcare isn't that big a deal". I saw the GP post as suggesting that large year-over-year percent increases hadn't amounted to a large net impact when compared to earnings. I may have misread that, but that's the implication I was responding to.
And there's simply no way 7% of net consumer spending is the right picture from which we can deduce the impact of health cost increases.
Significantly behind is child care, and well behind that are taxes.
For a family of four? Not that I've seen. Even after employer contributions people in my orbit are usually looking at ~$1000 out-of-pocket (granted, pretax) for family medical/dental/drug/vision.
I am no economist, but I would expect the opposite. Having too many people in one field would result in a reduction in wages and prices until people started leaving that field as a result and the supply/demand ratio stabilized. What am I missing or misunderstanding?
1 unit of X and Y both cost 10 man hours in 1962.
1 unit of X costs 10 man hours in 2012.
1 unit of Y costs 1 man hours in 2012.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/391/t...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_...
(Who provides cheap healthcare? The Mayo Clinic.)
Something really complicated is going on making those two channels very different.
Women spend more time shopping for men and children than men spend shopping for women and children.
Women spend a lot more on shoes than men.
Women spend a lot more on accessories than men.
Women enjoy shopping more than men so retailers offer more opportunity to browse.
I think it's more like, the vast majority of clothes are socks, underwear, jeans and t-shirts. Simple, everyday stuff that wears out. I'd bet the sales of this stuff pretty much equals out. However, there's a layer of "nice" clothes. mens stuff is more expensive, but lasts and is fashionable longer. Suits vs dresses might be a good example.
I'd also guess men are spending more on clothes than they have historically.
Although I see where you're coming from, especially since sales/sqft is a big KPI for retail.
Men still buy clothes. And men are not cost sensitive - women will shop for bargains, while men will just buy whatever they think they need.
I'd imagine women spend 7X as much time shopping for clothes, easily. That's why they need 7X the space. But they don't buy that much more, they just look at stuff, try it on, ask questions, drag their SO along (who takes up more space) ...
Men just walk in, see if it fits, pay up and get out. You just need a big rack of jeans / suits / t-shirts sorted by color and size, a change room, and someone to take their money on the way out.
That said I find it really hard to find a shirt with French cuffs so im probably a bit of an outlier, but I figure if I'm going to get dressed why not look good at the same time?
Note: I also find a lot of designer fashion in thrift stores because it's one of the few things that lasts long enough to make it through.
If your income level drops, it should be relatively easy to cut back on food expenses. You can simply eat less or buy less expensive food. Not great options, but possible. On the other hand, if you income level drops, it's can be very difficult to reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would think that people are more vulnerable to unexpected drops in income.
Same thing goes for medical costs. It can be very difficult to reduce those without sacrificing health.
Another big issue is that in 1962 most households were single income. Most mothers were at home. If the husband lost his job, there were 2 potential wage earners that could theoretically renter the job market to regain the needed income. Today most households are dual income, and require all of that income to pay the bills. So if one personal loses their job, there isn't a backup worker able to enter the workforce if needed. So again, more vulnerability to reduced income.
> On the other hand, if you income level drops, it's can be very difficult to reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would think that people are more vulnerable to unexpected drops in income.
I was shocked to see how high housing was. 31.3% just for rent or mortgage? You are screwed in a two person household if someone loses a job.
And 5.4% for utilities? I assume that includes mobile, but that feels incredibly high.
Phone, cable, water, trash, electricity?
Anybody here spending 3% of their income on health care? I mean in most cases insurance premiums alone are much more than 3% of average income. Not to mention things like cancer that cost about 500k on average to treat. Who takes this data seriously?
Also, I think it's interesting that recreational spending has increased very little. Are we already saturated with all the recreation we want?
In a better scenario, groceries, being cheaper and generally healthier than food "eaten out" would make up a bigger percentage of total food spend.
That said, as a 20something single guy, I don't remember the last time I went to a grocery store and i think i manage my money pretty well.
I'd like to see these food spend #s (and the rest of these #s) broken down for income levels and other demographics
Of course, that was back when my body could handle this kind of abuse.
As for it being healthier, it all depends on your choices. If I am eating in, but having noodles and microwave pizza it will be much less healthy than getting a salad out. I have been on business trips where I ate every meal at a restauraunt for more than two weeks, but it was a relatively healthy diet.
(j/k)