How Consumers Lost a Fast $1.5 Trillion

September 17, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

In Washington these days, there are bitter fights over new types of economic stimulus that might cost $30 billion here, $50 billion there. The biggest battle is over the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts, and whether they should be extended for everybody or just for the middle class. That's a $700 billion argument. Sounds like real money.

[See 11 firms that overdid the layoffs.]

But the turbulent economy, in its normal course, has vaporized far more money than that, and the astonishing decline in Americans' net worth helps explain why government stimulus has been so ineffective. The latest data from the Federal Reserve shows that American households lost about $1.5 trillion in net worth in just three months, ending at the end of June. That's especially distressing because for a year, Americans had been slowly rebuilding wealth lost in the twin housing and stock market busts. The latest numbers are more evidence that the so-called recovery is slowing, if not ending.

When paired with sky-high unemployment, the wipeout in household net worth explains why gloom pervades virtually every income group. Many Americans worry about job security, but unemployment is a particular scourge among people with the fewest assets: young workers and those without a college or even high school education. Among middle- and upper-income people, the unemployment rate is far lower. But those are the ones whose wealth is eroding.

[See how to tell when the recession's really over.]

And is it ever. Household net worth peaked in 2007 at roughly $64.2 trillion. As home values fell and the stock market tanked, net worth fell to a low of $48.8 trillion in early 2009—a staggering 24 percent decline in just two years. It drifted upward for a while but in the latest quarter fell back to $53.5 trillion. From the peak of 2007, that amounts to about $100,000 in lost wealth per U.S. household.

Net worth is different from income, since it mostly amounts to home equity, durable goods like cars, and the value of savings and investments, like retirement portfolios. Those assets don't typically fund everyday spending. But net worth clearly plays a big role is how well-off consumers feel they are, plus it supports some spending at the margins. During the housing boom, for example, millions of homeowners used home-equity loans or lines of credit to pay for home improvements, cars, vacations, and other things. With many homeowners no longer able to borrow against equity in their homes, those days are largely over. A growing nest egg also breeds optimism, which makes consumers comfortable spending. A shrinking nest egg does the opposite.

[See why the rich need the poor.]

The direction of Americans' net worth closely tracks the stock and housing markets, so it's easy to see why wealth declined in the second quarter. For more than a year prior to that, stocks had been on a tear, rising 83 percent from March 2009 through mid-April 2010. That boosted the value of Americans' financial assets by more than $5 trillion. But the Greek debt crisis ended that rally, and now fears of a double-dip recession have depressed stocks further. Overall, the market has fallen about 8 percent from the April highs. In the Fed's data, losses in financial assets accounted for virtually the entire decline in net worth in the second quarter.

The value of housing held stable—but that's not likely to last, either. We now know that the housing market was heavily stimulated by the home-buyer tax credit that expired on April 30, with sales plunging once the subsidy was removed. Since it takes a few months for home sales to go through, sales numbers lag the real-time economy, and the Fed's numbers don't reflect the latest downturn in housing. But the next set of quarterly data will, and the numbers are poised to go even lower. With home sales off, prices seem nearly certain to continue falling, probably into 2011. That will reclaim even more of the wealth Americans have been able to rebuild over the last year.

[See 3 ways Obama could boost hiring.]

With net worth falling again, jobs scarce, incomes flat, and consumers still deeply in debt, it's no wonder Americans seem stuck in a self-fulfilling cycle of gloom. Washington politicians think they have solutions, but every stimulus or tax incentive that fails to get the job done only breeds more cynicism. Even the Federal Reserve, which has been printing money, after all, hasn't conjured enough magic to offset $10 trillion in lost wealth. Probably nobody in Washington can.

Tags:
recession,
economy,
Federal Reserve,
economic stimulus,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

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

Now UTC is getting ready to lay off another 1200 in the next two weeks

United Technologies (includes Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand, UTC Fire & Security, UTC Carrier, Sikorsky and other subsidiaries)

Layoffs since 2008: 11,600

New openings: 535

Biggest needs: sales managers, project engineers, customer-service reps, program managers, design engineers

Where: Central Connecticut; Rockford, Ill.; San Diego; Bradenton, Fla.; Kennesaw, Ga.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Milwaukee; Michigan City, Ind.; Columbus, Ga.; Grapevine, Texas; Indianapolis

Jobs over $100,000: 6 percent

winky of CT 5:46PM May 15, 2012

"Look, the reduction in net worth was mostly a drop in asset values. Most assets are owned by extremely wealthy people who probably don't even know what they own or how much it is worth.."

Give me a break, the extremely wealthy know exactly what their assets are worth, which is why they've been able to amass wealth more effectively over time (broadly speaking) than the middle class. They "feel" this hit just like everyone else. The reduction in net worth you are talking about is mostly from losses in the financial market -- something that affects the upper and middle classes (as these groups own direct interests in the market) and also hurts the lower classes as these instruments are directly tied (by their very nature) to the overall economy which will ultimately affect their job outcomes.

What exactly does "fair distribution" of wealth mean? If someone grows far richer than another based on their own good fortune how does this take away from the wealth-creation potential of the other? Is the wealth of our nation a zero-sum game, or does wealth-creation beget more wealth-creation? What you are failing to see is that the truly rich do not have people working for them, they have their money working for them. They allocate these resources to the places that offer the highest return, and consequently the highest value for society if you believe anything a guy named Adam Smith once wrote...

yeesh.

Joe of OH 10:12AM September 22, 2010

Look, the reduction in net worth was mostly a drop in asset values. Most assets are owned by extremely wealthy people who proabaly don't even know what they own or how much it is worth. This is not to say that the middle class was not hurt too by the drop in their home and 401K values but the vast majority of the 1.5T was lost by rich people who will not miss it and probably did not even know they had it.

Our economy has not been fairly distributing the income and wealth in society for 20 years. The rich few are getting much richer at the expense of the rest of us. The disconnect is that the rich and those that blindly support some Republican ideas mostly on income taxes do not give enough credit to the poor and middle class for making them rich. If the rich did not have thousands of poor working for them, they would not be rich. They should be grateful for what they have and why they have it.

By the way, I am a Republican and support most of their agenda but they are just flat out wrong on income tax rates. One of the least intrusive ways that government can effect people's behavior is through tax policy. If tax rates were higher on high salaries and bonuses, the rich executives and company owners would be incented to take lower salaries and bonuses and more pay in the for of equity. That way, they would make more if their companies do better in the long run. Now they are only concerned with making their short term company targets to qualify for huge bonuses and they get paid even if their companies fail the next quarter. That is not good for everyone else who works for the companies.

Kevin of FL 6:46PM September 20, 2010

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