Why Rich Consumers Matter More

December 3, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

Here's something odd: Consumer spending is drifting upward, raising hopes for an economic recovery. Yet the unemployment rate is spiking like a scary fever, with jobs more scarce than at any time since the 1930s.

Does this make sense? Where are unemployed consumers getting the money to buy new stuff? Are we so addicted to spending that we're forking over every last dime to get that doorbuster special?

[See 10 retailers gaining strength from the recession.]

Doubtful. The answers aren't sitting there in the usual statistics, but some educated guesswork might help explain who's spending and who isn't—while exposing a myth or two about the so-called recovery. The latest data shows that consumer spending rose 0.7 percent in October, while incomes rose just 0.2 percent. Since spending went up by more than income, that suggests consumers must be drawing down their savings to buy stuff.

But hold on—the saving rate fell by just a tiny fraction in the latest data, and in general it's been going up all year. So if people are spending more, it must be coming from somewhere other than a boost in income or a drawdown in savings. Household debt has been going down too, so consumers aren't financing new purchases by taking out loans or driving up their credit-card balances. The only other explanation would be a boost in people's assets that is providing an extra pool of cash for purchases.

Housing, the biggest asset for most families, is still falling in value in most areas. But look at that stock market! Up 23 percent for the year and 65 percent or so since it hit bottom in March. That has replaced lost wealth for some consumers and, presumably, made them more comfortable spending money.

[See how to tell if you're saving enough.]

Next question: Who tends to own stocks, mutual funds, and other investments that have benefited from the bull market? Many working-class and middle-income people are indirect stock-market investors, through their pensions or retirement funds (if they're lucky enough to have them). But that wouldn't boost spending today, since those investments are mostly set aside for future use.

The other big beneficiaries of the bull market are wealthy and upper-middle-income Americans with spare money to invest and plenty of savings set aside if they lose their jobs or have other problems. And the numbers suggest that affluent consumers are indeed the ones who feel like a recovery is at hand—a stock-market recovery, that is. They're probably the ones who are actually spending more. Maybe the only ones.

The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.

[See how the government is swallowing the economy.]

With twin crashes in the stock and housing markets in 2008, affluent consumers lost a lot more wealth than those with much smaller portfolios (or none at all). And the wealthy cut back like everybody else. But now, there's some evidence that wealthy consumers are bouncing back faster than the rest of America. Surveys by Gallup show that consumers in all income categories cut back by similar amounts over the last year. But in recent months, wealthy consumers say they're cutting back by less than lower-income consumers, compared with a year ago. "The question we're trying to answer," says Dennis Jacobe, chief economist at Gallup, "is whether the Wall Street rally has more of an effect on wealthy consumers."

It probably does. Gallup's data shows that job worries, for instance, account for 60 to 70 percent of the spending drop for middle- and lower-income Americans but just 30 percent of the drop among the affluent. So an awful job situation, with nearly 20 percent of Americans unemployed or underemployed, would spook the wealthy less than others.

A "recovery gap" between rich and poor carries uncomfortable overtones. Politicians in Washington court trouble when they promote policies that benefit the wealthy more than anybody else, especially in a recession. But it's actually in the nation's interest that well-heeled Americans start spending again, whether the rest of us join them or not. "High-income households are particularly important to the outlook because they account for a disproportionately large share of consumer spending," writes Scott Hoyt of Moody's Economy.com. "They have so much more money to spend that they are extremely important to aggregate spending." So swallow hard: Those record Wall Street bonuses you're about to hear about are actually a good thing. Even if they make you feel nauseated.

The wealthy aren't likely to share those bonuses or their stock gains, of course, so mainstream Americans need to wait for the ever elusive trickle-down benefits. And that highlights another economic anomaly: We may actually be in the midst of a two-tier recovery in which life is getting better for a small minority of Americans at the top of the income chain, and they spend enough additional money to drive up spending and other stats and make it look like there's a real recovery. But the same so-called recovery could bypass many ordinary Americans, which is what seems to be happening now.

At least one thing hasn't changed: It's good to be rich. Now as much as ever.

Tags:
wealth

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As we learned in school, 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, while 5 +1 also = 6. So, six various ordinary roofing shingles are available at the market today. Three customers may each buy two to stop three leaky roofs, or one can buy five designer color shingles, leaving only one ordinary shingle for the remaining customer. The author seems to imply that since a customer can walk away with wow, five shingles, the economy must be better better served. Because of the distributive property, in one scenario, one roof remained leaky to rot out the interior, and in the other, all three roofs kept the interior dry, comfortable and preserved for future dwellers, preserving total asset value.

I wonder if the author has read the story about how the big bad wolf blows away economies invested in bling, fluff, bobbles, bubbles and whoopie, or an economy invested in every ninth grade kid who knows exactly what the distributive property in math is about and knows exactly when the shyster mortgage brokers and sumptuously bonused bankers are trapping him with deals that don't add up to what can be paid each and every single year over the following several years of family income distribution.

We have a choice here in styling an economy that still has serious long term consequences: preserve asset value for the future, or bling for this evening's drunken stupor.

Richard Patterson of OH 5:15AM December 23, 2009

Call me negative. Even the unemployed will eventually replace "necessary" worn out and broken items. I know. But, will I be spending more than necessary? No!

In the past, I would buy a replacement prior to its failure and a spare, but today, I might let it go until the discomfort factor prods me to buy, and not always then. I have multiple items of electronic waste stock piled which may never be repaired (need filters, rechargeable batteries, and other ills) or replaced. If I can't repair the item for small change or with my current repair holdings, it finds a shelf. I don't have a job, so I have plenty of time to do manual labor with a broom or shovel which prior, was done with a fancy gadget. During WWII, people did the same thing because they couldn't replace items due to material shortages. When and if employment improves, I still will move financially slow, replacing a nest egg before doing consumable spending. If I survive this debacle, I am one of the responsible minority that watch my borrowing. My safety cushion is growing ever thinner! Soup lines are forming. Even a generous 15% annual return on a $100K savings will eventually draw down the principal (trust the market with a nest egg?)!

Ubiquitous Quip of IN 10:44PM December 16, 2009

Due to the recent recession, it has been the loss of aspirational spenders that has really hurt sales, because aspirational spenders feel more need to show off material trophies, whereas gagillionaires are generally sort of comfortable with having wealth and may fore-go shopping trips to spend more on travel, instead (they already have the Armani suit filled closet, but maybe have not yet been to Istanbul).

This has been the biggest blow to consumer spending, along with the job losses, that aspirational spenders have less to spend on status objects.

Angie Koutrotsios of IL 4:25PM December 16, 2009

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Read Rick's latest blog entries here.

advertisement

advertisement