The Wealth of our Nation and Our Cities
Edward J. Dodson
[A paper delivered a the Council of Georgist Organizations
conference, Bridgeport, Connecticut, July 2003]
During the Depression years of the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt
promised his fellow citizens a "New Deal." His years as
President of the United States ushered in the era of the planned
economy and the introduction of programs ostensibly designed to
provide a safety net for those most at risk in our society. The Second
World War, destructive in so many ways, brought full employment to
U.S. workers, enabled industries to modernize and created an enormous
pool of savings unleashed into the economy after the war's end.
Millions of young adults married and began to create the "baby
boom" generation. All of these factors combined to pull up median
household income by 37 percent between 1949 and 1959, and another 41
percent during the 1960s. "
Between 1947 and 1973, median family income
grew from $20,102 to $40,979, or by 104%," according to
data published by the Economic Policy Institute (the "EPI").
The economy was then hit with huge increases in the cost of fossil
fuels and entered a prolonged period of stagflation. However,
from 1973 to 1997, the EPI reports, "median
family income rose an average of 0.35% a year."[1]
By the beginning of the 1980s, government policies changed, with the
stated objective of stimulating investment in job-creation and
economic growth. The results have been rather mixed. On the one hand,
the effective tax burden on those at the top of the U.S. economic
ladder has been significantly reduced -- while government spending has
continued to escalate well beyond its revenue stream, creating a
national debt that has passed $6 trillion and is now forecasted to
continue rising with no return in sight to a balanced budget
environment and a gradual retirement of some portion of the national
debt.
Accounting for government spending is less than ideal. We do not
really know how much the government is spending or on exactly what. In
2002, the director of fiscal policy at the Cato Institute summarized
the problem:
"Now that the
federal government has cracked down on corporate financial mischief,
it should turn attention to its own accounts. Congress has passed a
bill it thinks will promote sound corporate bookkeeping and punish
business leaders who break the rules. Meanwhile, the financial
accounts of many federal agencies are a shambles, and Congress
breaks budget rules all the time. Companies such as Enron collapsed
under piles of hidden debt. But the government is creating its own
crisis by amassing trillions of dollars of unfunded retirement
liabilities.
For five years the federal government has attempted to produce a
comprehensive financial statement based on private sector accounting
principles. Five years in a row the government's auditor - the
General Accounting Office - has not been able to certify the
statements as correct because of the government's weak financial
controls and mismeasurement of assets, liabilities and costs.
The sloppiest bookkeeper in the federal government is probably the
$370 billion Defense Department. The GAO finds that the department
has "serious financial management problems ... that are
pervasive, complex, long-standing, and deeply rooted in virtually
all business operations throughout the department." The
Pentagon loses track of assets, mismanages and wastes inventory,
deliberately low-balls project costs, and makes billions of dollars
of erroneous contractor payments."
[2]
How our government spends revenue raised from taxation and from the
issuance of debt is a matter of great importance to each of us, as
citizens -- or should be. Those of us who sincerely care about the
plight of the least fortunate in our society need to know where public
funds are to be spent and who the beneficiaries are. However, above
the problem of public accountability is the overriding question of
what ought to be done by government (i.e., what ought to be our public
priorities).
Although the United States has always promised the opportunity for
citizens and new arrivals to rise above the circumstances of their
birth, the fact is that wealth and income have from the very earliest
period been highly concentrated. When historian Jackson Turner Main
examined the colonial record in 1965, published in his book The
Social Structure of Revolutionary America, he concluded:
"The revolutionary
class structure can now be described in terms of occupational
groups. Each occupation had its exceptional men, but in general the
laborers were poorly paid and acquired little property; artisans
earned somewhat more and became small property holders; most farmers
were in the same position, though some became wealthy; professional
men and shopkeepers received good incomes and had substantial
estates; while merchants were characteristically well-to-do or rich."[3]
Another characteristic of wealth ownership from the colonial period
on has been the extent to which assets are owned by foreign nationals
and companies domiciled outside the United States. The Federal
government was then and is now highly dependent on the willingness of
foreign nationals to invest in U.S. government securites. In a
volatile world, lending funds to the U.S. government is, relatively
speaking, a "safe harbor" for one's surplus assets.
Economists disagree whether, on balance, the fact that so much of the
U.S. government debt is held externally is a strength or a weakness.
There is an active market for this debt because the world's investors
perceive the U.S. government to be a high quality debtor. Multiple
shocks to the economic engine or political situation could jeopardize
this long-held status.
Economists also have widely differing views on the extent to which a
rising national debt threatens the stability of the economy. In
periods of high interest rates, the amount of revenue required to
service the outstanding debt can become a high percentage of total
government spending. The Executive and Legislature branches talk about
deficit reduction but give virtually no consideration to the
possibility of retiring a significant portion of the national debt.
After several years of optimal performance during the Clinton years,
Federal revenue is declining and President Bush has achieved
significant reductions in taxes on dividends, incomes and estates. He
is hoping for a supply-side effect that failed to develop during the
Reagan years.
The graph below does not reflect the huge escalation in total debt
incurred since President Bush has taken office.
For the moment, the low interest rate environment is allowing the
Federal government to take on added debt without driving up interest
rates. A much more serious scenario develops if this debt must be
refinanced down the road in an environment of rising interest rates.
Asset Ownership and Incomes
For most of the post-Second World War period -- for the majority of
U.S. households -- acquiring property and enjoying rising incomes
became an expected outcome of living according to certain norms.
Millions of people benefited by access to better schools. Obtaining
professional credentials or technical training prepared us for a place
in the expanding economy. Others achieved significant financial wealth
because of their talents in the arts or athletics. In fact, when one
looks at the enormous number of professional sports teams and
entertainment mediums that exist because of spending by U.S.
consumers, it is had to reconcile the fact that asset ownership and
income is actually very highly concentrated at the top. Whether by
design or simply because of statistical convenience, U.S. government
reporting downplays the true extent to which wealth is concentrated:
"[B]y designating
the top 20 percent of the entire nation as the "richest"
quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make
as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top
4 percent."[4]
Among the U.S. population, the top 1% -- fewer than 3 million people
-- control assets of greater value than the bottom 95%. The Forbes
400 wealthiest Americans in 1999 included 268 billionaires. In
1998, the top 1% of income-recipients enjoyed greater income than the
100 million people at the bottom. Between 1983 and 1997, only the top
5% of households experienced an increase in net worth. All others
experienced a decline. More recent data is not available on the status
of household wealth since then; however, one can surmise that a
considerable portion of the gains experienced by investors in the
stock market have been lost. In
Recent
Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998, Edward N. Wolff provides
important insights in the process of wealth concentration that has
occurred in this country. Among his observations:
- Only the richest 20 percent of households experienced large
gains in wealth during the period analyzed.
- After 1989, non-elderly middle income families experienced the
largest losses in wealth.
- Households with zero or negative net worth increased from 15.5%
in 1983 to 18.0% in 1998.
- Median household financial wealth in 1998 was less than
$18,000.
- The top 1% of families owned 38% of total household wealth and
47% of total financial wealth..
- The top 20% of families owned 83% of total household wealth and
91% of total financial wealth.
- The number of millionaires increased by 54% between 1989 and
1998, those with $5 million or more more than doubled, and the
those with $10 million or more quadrupled (attributable to the
surge in stock prices between 1995 and 1998).
- Although the rate of homeownership reached 66.3% in 1998, the
net equity in owner-occupied housing fell from 23.8% in 1983 to
18.2% in 1998.
- Among the richest 19% of households, housing comprised 29% of
total assets, liquid assets 11% and pension assets 15%. Some 43%
of assets took the form of investment assets -- real estate,
business equity, stocks, and bonds. Another 24% was in the form of
stock directly or indirectly owned.
"By the beginning of
the century [the U.S.] had become the west's citadel of inherited
wealth. Aristocracy was a cultural and economic fact." [Kevin
Phillips, in Wealth and Democracy] |
A remarkable amount of personal wealth has been turned over to the
thousands of foundations established over the last century.
The
Foundation Center estimated the value of assets held by the
nation's foundations in 2000 at $486 billion. However, during 2002
foundation assets fell in value by a median of 9 percent because of
the downward direction in the value of corporte shares of stock).[5]
The five largest foundations (Gates, Lilly, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson,
Getty) control assets of nearly $75 billion. Yet, despite this
enormous pool of funds available to address many societal problems,
the extent of wealth and income concentration in the United States
continues to worsen:
- The overwhelming majority of wealth possessed by the very rich
is inherited.
- Over half of all households have no financial assets or owe
more than they own.
- The incomes of the top 1% of the population is greater than the
bottom 40%.
- Business Week reports that in 2000 the twenty
highest-paid executives in the U.S. received compensation totaling
$2.024 trillion. Over 100 C.E.O.s received at least $10 million.
The organization United for a
Fair Economy has compiled the data on how corporate executives
are now compensated in relation to the rest of the nation's workforce.
The first chart shows the trend just since 1990. The second chart
shows how the multiple has climbed since 1960:
Forbes continues its annual tradition of publishing a
list
of the wealthiest people in the United States. Just three individuals
-- William Gates, Warren Buffett and Paul Allen -- control assets
worth $100 billion. The 400 people included in the Forbes list
have a combined net worth in excess of $1 trillion. To put their
wealth in some perspective, even in the wealthiest suburban
communities across the country only 35-40% of households have annual
incomes over $100,000.[6]
A more detailed picture of how wealth and income are distributed in
the United States can be found at
The Shared
Capitalism Institute website.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
The state has, proportionally, more
millionaires than any other. Yet, the City of New Haven (the location
of Yale University) is the fourth poorest city in the United States.
The infant mortality rate in New Haven is as high as in Malaysia and
67 percent of children in the city are without health coverage. Over
the 1992-2002 decade, Ct had the largest growth in the income gap
between rich and poor families.
How do we Tax Wealth and Income?
An ongoing debate with enormous potential impact on our society
concerns the extent to which wealth and income ought to be subject to
taxation. What level of taxation is appropriate to the benefits
enjoyed and what level is unjustly confiscatory? Is the size of one's
income an appropriate basis for one's tax obligation, or should a
distinction be made based on other factors, such as whether income is
"earned" or "unearned?"
In addition to the Federal government, forty-three states also tax
personal income. At what point incomes become subject to taxation
differs in each state. Eleven states provide income supplements to
families with incomes at or below the poverty line. Alabama exempts
the least income from taxation ($4,600); California exempts the most
($36,800). For quite awhile there has been a good deal of debate over
the fairness of the Federal income tax, the main alternative proposal
being to replace the current system with a flat tax. Yet, there is
great reluctance to make any major changes. Legislation raises or
lowers effective tax rates, loopholes are closed and new ones opened.
The tax rules are extremely complex and subject to conflicting
interpretation. Accountants, lawyers and tax preparation services
build careers and businesses based on their success in minimizing the
tax obligations of clients. In far too many instances, people feel
compelled to use tax preparation services because they simply do not
understand how to comply with the tax laws.
The taxation of inherited wealth is also under intense debate. One
side argues that inherited wealth already has been taxed and should be
exempted from taxation at the time assets pass on to heirs. Others
argue that the accumulation of wealth is possible only because of the
benefits society provides, so that a good portion of a person's estate
should be returned to society and not passed on through inheritance.
In any case, the exemption of inherited wealth from taxation is
already considerable. A report prepared by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
analyzed the data for 1997, concluding:
- Fewer than 43,000 people -- less than 2% of those who died that
year -- were subject to payment of a Federal estate tax.
- By 2006, a person's estate up to $1 million will be exempt from
the estate tax.
- Over 90% of all estate taxes are paid by people whose annual
incomes exceeded $190,000 at the time of their death.
- Only 6 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in
which a family business or farm forms the majority of the estate.
- Family farms and family-owned businesses account for less than
4% of all assets in taxable estates valued at less than $5
million.
A coalition of anti-poverty groups and others argue the case to
retain the taxation of inherited wealth. A surprising number of people
in the top eschelon of the wealthy have joined in this campaign.
Pictured at the right is Chuck Collins, Program Director of United for
a Fair Economy, whose organization has been described by John Nichols
of the Nation as:
"... the single
most effective group in the country when it comes to publicizing
issues of economic injustice, income disparity, the racial
underpinnings of the gap between rich and poor, and . . . the
yawning chasm between the salaries of corporate CEOs and those of
working Americans."
Collins has collaborated with William Gates, Sr. to popularize the
idea that the wealthy owe much of their success to societal
institutions and good fortune.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
Two-thirds of Connecticut's corporations (some
33,000) pay the minimum $250 corporate business tax each year. 2,100
companies pay no corporate business tax at all. Between 1990-2001,
revenue from business taxes fell from around 24% to just 7%. The
state's income tax, introduced in 1991, is described by critics as
both complicated and regressive. The Yankee Institute for Public
Policy calls for the removal of "all tax cliffs" and for the
"indexing for inflation" to make the system fairer.
After exhaustive debate in the public media, the U.S. Congress has
agreed to reduce taxes over the next ten years by an estimated $350
billion. This represents the third largest tax reduction in U.S.
history. Critics point to the fact that the overwhelming percentage of
beneficiaries are the very wealthy. Moreover, unless an historically
unique supply-side effect occurs, the Federal deficit is forecasted to
hit over $500 billion in 2004. At the beginning of 2003, The Heritage
Foundation's Center for Data Analysis published
Who
Really Benefits from Dividend Tax Relief?, a report by Norbert
J. Michel challenging the assertions the "average" working
Americans would hardly benefit by the President's tax cut proposals. A
close look at the data, Michel concluded, reveals a very different
picture:
The double taxation of
dividends in the U.S. tax code distorts economic activity because it
encourages the retention of corporate profits and debt financing and
discourages dividend payments and equity financing, solely for tax
purposes.
Eliminating the double taxation of dividends would be a positive
step toward tax neutrality. Millions of families would benefit from
dividend tax relief, including the many moderate-income workers who
receive dividends. As of 2000, more than 42 million American workers
owned a 401(k) plan, and nearly 40 percent of all U.S. households
owned an IRA. Data show that, as of 2002, nearly 53 million U.S.
households (just under 50 percent) and about 84 million
individuals owned some form of equities. Additionally, in 1998, 70
percent of all taxpayers receiving dividends earned less than
$55,000 in wages and salary.
All true dividends are subject to double taxation. Since all
investments compete for investors dollars, removing the 35
percent layer of corporate dividend taxes would affect other
investments as well. Even the fact that many Americans hold equities
in tax-deferred accounts will not, in the long run, diminish the
impact of eliminating the double taxation of dividends. Dividend tax
relief may be criticized as providing a tax break for the
wealthy, but the IRSs own data clearly suggest
otherwise.
Subsequent discussions at this conference will examine the pros and
cons of specific changes in the way government raises revenue and from
whom. Hopefully, the long-term result of changes in our tax system
will achieve greater fairness and equity, as well as efficiency and
simplicity. Whether the current changes meet these tests will become
known as individuals and entities make investment decisions, as
household incomes rise or fall, and as the economy produces greater or
lesser employment at livable wages. These considerations beg the next
question.
Is the Middle Class in Decline?
A real concern for the health of the U.S. economy and our society
expressed by many public officials, economists and others, is the
perceived declining economic strength of the middle class. Some recent
statistics suggest the situation is getting worse every year. As
already shown, those at top have experienced an unparalled increase in
their net worth and incomes. The picture for everyone else is less
clear.
People who have owned homes for any period of time have experienced
significant increases in their nominal net worth. Some have "cashed
out" and relocated to less costly parts of the country, investing
the net gain in stocks and bonds. Homeowners have also been able to
take advantage of historically low mortgage interest rates to reduce
their overall debt payments or upgrade and expand the size and
amenities of their home. While widespread, the benefits of low
interest ratese and rising housing values are not universal. The
Center for Housing Policy, the research affiliate of the National
Housing Conference (NHC), produced a study of housing affordability
for low- and moderate-income working families across the nation. In a
press release dated
May 5, 2003, NHC reported:
None of America's
elementary school teachers, police officers, licensed practical
nurses, retail salespersons or janitors would qualify to purchase a
median priced home based on median income. ...[M]edian annual
salaries for each of these five occupations fall short of the nearly
$50,000 necessary to qualify for the median priced home of $156,000,
with the earnings of licensed practical nurses, retail sales persons
and janitors lagging by substantial margins. Of particular concern,
families dependent solely on the salary of a janitor or retail
salesperson pay in excess of what is considered affordable for a
two-bedroom apartment in all of the 60 individual metropolitan areas
studied.
The State of Working America, a report released in the Fall of
2002 by the Economic Policy Institute states that average household
income of black families rose by 17% between 1995-2000, while average
Hispanic income rose even faster, by 27% in the same period. An
argument can be made that median income figures are more relevant,
inasmch as the average figures are distorted by a relatively few very
high income minority households. The recessionary downturn in the
economy has also affected minorities disproportionately. The data
analyzed in this report suggests that millions of households are
maintaining their living standard by working longer hours, working
more than one job and having more than one person in the household
employed. According to the authors, workers in the United States:
- enjoy less paid time off and shorter vacations than workers in
most other developed countries.
- work 1900 hours each year (the equivalent of 49 out of 52
weeks), compared to between 1800-1850 hours by Japanese workers,
or the 1200-1500 hours by many European workers.
- are increasingly married women with children, working
full-time.
- are single parents required to work due to restrictions under
new welfare criteria.
- enjoy increased household incomes only because more than one
adult works full-time.
- if male, earn the same average wage as in 1980.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
1.5 million people -- half the population of
the state -- reside within a 30-minutes drive of the town of Berlin,
Connecticut. The area has an average household wealth of about
$200,000 and a median household income of $54,000.
A Population Addicted to Debt?
The Federal Reserve reported that at the end of the first quarter of
2003 consumer debt in the United States was $1.742 trillion, with
revolving debt accounting for $711 billion of that amount. Managing
debt has become a serious challenge for an increasing number of
households, as evidenced by the fact that in 2002 a record 1.5 million
people filed for protection under the personal bankruptcy laws. This
has prompted calls for bankruptcy reform to make it more difficult for
people with higher incomes and huge amounts of accumulated debt to
obtain relief of their credit obligations. On the positive side, as
Fed Chairman Greenspan has noted, millions of homeowners have been
able to refinance the mortgage loans on their primary residences,
taking an additional $2 billion of equity to repay home equity loans
and credit card debt. In the short run, at least, these homeowners
are in a much improved financial situation. Still at risk are those
who have experienced a loss of employment or other decline in income
and have been forced by circumstances to take on additional debt.
Minorities Continue to Lag Behind
Minorities continue to make up a disproportionate share of the
asset-poor population, although there are clear indications that more
and more minorities are taking advantage of opportunitiesnot available
to them in previous decades. The U.S. is now home to more than 20
million foreign-born residents. More than 25,000 well-trained workers
from India have settled in the U.S. to work in the high-tech
industries. They now own and manage hundreds of technology firms. An
important side-effect has been philanthropic giving. Beneficiaries are
not just communities in which immigrants live and succeed, but also
those back home. In 1998, the U.S. recorded $16 billion in remittances
from foreign born workers to their home countries, out of a global
total of $70 billion. In fact, nearly 23 percent of all international
remittances originate in the U.S.
[7]
African-Americans and Hispanics have made enormous progress in the
United States. African-Americans own 3.6% of all businesses, although
most have revenue of less than $25,000. Many members of these minority
populations remain impoverished. The U.S. Census data shows:
- Over 31% of African-American households have zero or negative
net worth (double that of Whites).
- Over 26% of African-Americans fall below the official poverty
line. The rate for Hispanics is nearly the same.
- African-Americans hold only 1% of the total net worth of all
U.S. households.
- The median income for African-Americans fell from $31,000 in
2000 to $29,000 in 2001.
- Ten percent of African-Americans own real estate other than a
primary residence, compared to twenty percent for Whites.
- Roughly 10 percent of African-Americans now work in executive
or managerial jobs, double the percentage in the early 1980s
(compared to 15 percent for all U.S. residents).
- Four times more Whites than African-Americans hold mutual-fund
investments.
- In 2001, 10.2% of Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders were
living in poverty, up from 9.9% in 2000. Median household income
for this group fell by 6.4 % between 2000 and 2001, the first
annual decline since 1991.
- The poverty rate rose for every racial group, while the median
income fell. Blacks had the highest poverty rate 22.7%, up
from 22.5% and income fell from $30,495 to $29,470, the
largest decline in 19 years.
- The poverty rate for Asian-Pacific Islanders rose from 9.9 to
10.2 while income fell more than 6% to $53,635.
- Hispanics, which the Census Bureau classifies as an ethnic
group rather than a racial category, had a slight decline in
poverty 21.5% to 21.4% but income also fell, from
$34,094 to $33,565.
Living Below the Poverty Line
"I have a pessimistic view,
we're not talking about poverty as much as we should be and we don't
have the degree of public effort that we should have. [Jamie S.
Gorelick, Vice Chairman, Fannie Mae]
Data gathered during the 2000 U.S. Census reveals that the distance
between the "haves" and "have nots" in the United
States is becoming greater. Some 33 million people -- nearly 12% of
the population -- live in families with incomes below the official
poverty line of $18,104. An analysis by the
Children's
Defense Fund draws our attention to those suffering most:
- 11.7 million American children younger than 18 lived below the
poverty line. More children live in poverty today than 25 or 30
years ago. The number of poor children reached a recent peak of
15.7 million in 1993, then fell steadily for eight years but rose
slightly in 2001.
- One out of every six American children (16.3 percent) was poor
in 2001. By race and ethnicity, 30.2 percent of Black children,
28.0 percent of Hispanic children, 11.5 percent of Asian and
Pacific Islander children, and 9.5 percent of Non-Hispanic White
children were poor.
- Three out of four poor children live in a working family.
Despite the economic downturn and rising joblessness among parents
in 2001, 74 percent of children in poverty live in a family where
someone works full-or-part time for at least part of the year. One
out of three poor children (34 percent) lives with someone who
worked full- time year round.
"Statistics released [in October 2002] by the government census
bureau show that for the first time in 10 years the number of people
caught in the poverty trap has suddently increased. Unemployment is up
from 4.2 per cent in 2000 to 5.7 per cent last year. While the middle
class shrinks, the numbers living below the official poverty line of
$18,104 a year for a family of four has shot up to 33 million -- from
11.3 to 11.7 per cent." [Ed Vulliamy.
"US
in Denial as Poverty Rises", the Guardian. 2 November
2002]
Poverty in the United States does not, generally, translate into the
kind of deprivation seen in much of the developing world. However, the
rate of child poverty in the U.S. is two-to-three times higher than
that of most other major Western industrialised nations. Poverty is
closely linked to serious health problems and learning disabilities
among the young, diminished potential to achieve self-sufficiency and
a greater probability of involvement in criminal activity as an
adolescent or young adult. These are serious, and costly public
issues.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
Roughly 7.5% of Connecticut's population live
at or below the official poverty line. Among persons under the age of
18, the poverty rate is 10.4% (85,908 persons). In the major cities,
this rate climbs to double or triple the average. In Bridgeport, the
rate is over 25%; in Hartford, 41.3%; in New Haven, 32.6%; and, in
Waterbury, 23.9% [Source: 2000 U.S. Census]
Housing and Homeownership
The U.S. Census Bureau reports a homeownership rate of roughly 68
percent. Across the nation, some 74.4 million housing units are
owner-occupied. Among African-Americans and Hispanics the
homeownership rate is between 48-49% but experiencing annual
increases. In fact, during the 1990's, the number of minority
homeowners increased by 4.4 million, reaching 12.5 million by the end
of the decade.
[8]
Housing prices have been escalating in most parts of the country
since the mid-1990s. The $1 million house is no longer a rarity. Over
9,000 residential properties sold from $1 million or more in 1998.
Although union wages for construction workers, restrictive building
codes and density restrictions are often pointed to as primary reasons
for the shortage of new, affordable housing units, the more
fundamental reason is the escalating cost of land available for
development. A commentary on the housing market published in October
of 2002 by theMortgage Bankers Association of America attempted to
focus attention on this underlying market dynamics:
Residential
single-family property can be valued with a model that combines
current returns (similar to stock dividends) and appreciation
potential. Instead of dividends, the owner of a home receives the
consumption value of the unit in housing service, similar to the
rental value should the unit be rented to another person. That value
is called "imputed rent." Since the current imputed rent
supports a great deal of the current value of most homes, real
estate is generally a much lower risk investment than one that
depends on several years of continued earnings growth.[9]
The authors' reference to "imputed rent" is unfortunate.
The dilemma is that people have to live somewhere, incurring actual
expenses related to whatever housing they occupy. Most people choose
housing options based on what their household income permits. If they
do not have much savings, they will likely lease housing from a
private or public owner of real estate. To the extent people own more
than one residential property, the tendency is to live in the property
that most meets their space and amenity needs. Other real estate is
leased out to obtain "rental" income. The reality is that
only a small number of property owners are in a position to actually
enjoy net imputed rental income. Few homeowners offer their
residential property for lease if they suffer a loss in household
income and cannot maintain payments on a mortgage loan. If they have
sufficient savings, they will sell the property and attempt to find
less costly housing or relocate in order to find alternative
employment.
There are numerous housing markets in every metropolitan area across
the United States. Housing prices during the last decade have been
increasing -- at different rates -- in almost all of these markets. A
few have peaked and experienced reversals (e.g., the San Francisco Bay
area). Some markets are driven up by the influx of higher income
households competing for a limited supply of existing housing units
and by developers competing with one another to acquire developable
land parcels. The hoarding of land by speculators in these markets
drives up the cost of land faster and further. Sklarz and Miller, in
the above article, should have noted that one of the important
distinctions between the imputed rent associated with housing units
and that of land parcels, is that the ownership of housing requires
continuous outflows of financial reserves for maintenance and systems
replacement, whereas the only cost of ownership imposed on the
landowner is whatever annual tax payment is required by the local
community. The result is that as demand for land increases, the supply
often actually falls as owners decide to hold land longer in
anticipation of greater future gains.
The outcome of these market and public policy dynamics by the first
quarter of 2002 was to push the national median price of housing to
nearly $151,000. Double-digit price increases were experienced in many
parts of the country, with housing in some parts of Massachusetts
increasing at over 20% annually. As already noted, not every market
continues to move upward. A number of metropolitan areas (e.g., the
San Francisco Bay Area, Peoria, Illinois and Springfield, Missouri)
have experienced declines from their high points but have not fallen
back to pre-1995 levels).
Another important observation needs to be made about housing in the
United States. Although the prices of single-family homes have been
increasing for decades, so has the size and amenities of homes being
built. Between 1970 and 2000, the average size of new homes has
increased from 1,500 square feet to more than 2,200 square feet. In
just five years -- from 1992 to 1999 -- the home building industry
added 11.5 million single-family homes to the nation's housing stock.
Most are constructed with energy-efficient systems and appliances,
central air-conditioning, wall-to-wall carpeting, attached garages and
two or more bathrooms. Yet, demand continues to outrun supply. Data
released by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates the U.S. loses about 0.6%
of its housing stock annually, which translates into a forecasted loss
of 15 million units by 2025. During this same period the population
of the nation will increase by 30 million households. Thus, to meet
demand the nation will need to construct 45 million new housing units.
In the Northeastern states, the increases have been most dramatic in
Boston metropolitan area, impacting young families and other
first-time homebuyers most seriously.
STATE / MARKET |
2001 ($000) |
2002 ($000) |
% Change |
CONNECTICUT |
|
|
|
Hartford |
145.0 |
156.5 |
7.9% |
New Haven/Meriden |
159.1 |
173.5 |
9.1% |
MAINE |
|
|
|
Portland |
118.9 |
128.0 |
7.7% |
MASSACHUSETTS |
|
|
|
Boston |
345.1 |
358.0 |
3.7% |
Springfield |
119.4 |
129.7 |
8.6% |
Worcester |
136.0 |
170.3 |
25.2% |
NEW YORK |
|
|
|
Albany/Schenectady/Troy |
116.6 |
127.5 |
9.3% |
New York metro |
236.3 |
285.6 |
20.9% |
RHODE ISLAND |
|
|
|
Providence |
142.2 |
169.6 |
19.3% |
In the State of Connecticut, housing prices in some areas had been
falling since the late 1980s. On the one hand, this made the cost of
single family housing in Connecticut relatively affordable. Until 1996
the ratio between housing cost and per captial personal income had
fallen for nine consecutive years.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
The state's overall rate of homeownership in
2000 was 66.8%. For African-Americans the rate was 36.5% and for
Hispanics 28.1%.
One of the side-effects of rising real estate prices is the
disappearance of rental housing affordable to those at the bottom of
the economic ladder. Adult children return, if they can, to live with
parents, in more and more cases bringing their own spouse and children
with them. The least fortunate become homeless. Economic hardship
coexists with mental illness and drug addiction to exacerbate the
situation of the homeless. Single men make up 40% of the total.
Families with children make up another 40%. Single women another 12%
and teenage youth another 2-4%.. Nearly one-third of the homeless
suffer from some degree of substance abuse. Nearly one-fourth are
considered to be mentally ill. One in ten homeless persons is a
veteran of the U.S. military.
Housing Wealth
For a very large number of U.S. households, "equity" in
their home and the land on which the house rests represents a
significant portion of their net worth. A 2001 study by the Consumer
Federation of America indicated that half of U.S. households headed by
someone over age 45 possessed assets of at least $100,000. Nearly 35
percent of the wealth of these households is equity in their primary
resident. Parents often tap this equity in order to borrow funds for
their childrens' college education. Others sell after reaching
retirement from their working life and either move into rental housing
or relocate to a part of the country where housing is less costly --
or they downsize from a single-family property to a townhome,
condominium or manufactured housing unit. For all of these reasons,
housing (and land) equity is a driving force in our society and
economy. Existing homeowners generally benefit by the rise in land
values, although retirees living on a fixed income often find it
difficult to absorb increases in annual real estate taxes.
The last six or seven years have seen a return to unprecentedly low
mortgage interest rates. Homeowners have refinanced mortgage loans
several times during this period, either to tap equity for various
expenses or simply to reduce the monthly payments or the length of
time over which loans are repaid. Data on mortgage loan originations
to owners and purchasers of 1- to 4-family properties indicates that
in 2001 a total of $2.03 trillion in financing was provided. Total
mortgage debt increased to $2.48 trillion in 2002, and the forecast
for 2003 is $2.59 trillion.
[10]
Lenders made over 16.7 million mortgage loans in 2002. Of this total,
the overwhelming majority -- around 75% -- were made in an amount
representing less than 80 percent of the appraised value of the real
estate. Even so, one estimate is that more than 420,000 mortgage loans
were made at a level representing more than 95% of property value.
The Mayors National Housing Forum reports:
- More than 14 million families spend more than half their income
on housing, and housing costs are growing faster than incomes.
- The shortfall in affordable housing for the very poorest now
stands at 3.3 million units. These numbers understate the shortage
because higher-income households occupy 65% of the units
affordable to the poorest families.
- Congress would have to double the minimum wage for low-incoime
working families, as well as those families leaving the welfare
rolls, to afford a two-bedroom rental apartment.
The Problem of Homelessness
The causes of homelessness are complex. Although personal failures
are involved, an important question is whether homelessness can be
materially reduced (if not eliminated) by the adoption of changes in
public policy. A report by
Hope
Harbor Christian Mission provides the following statistics on
homelessness:
- Most homeless people are dependent on a variety of drugs, are
emotionally dysfunctional, are to some degree mentally ill, and
are medically at risk.
- Up to 40% of the homeless are women and children.
- 30 to 40% of the homeless are mentally ill.
- 60% of homeless clinets are local, with the remainder being
transient.
- 70% of homeless clients are under 45 years old.
- 30% of homeless men are veterans.
- The ethnic breakdown of the homeless is that 42% are Caucasian,
39% are African-American, 14% are Hispanic, 1% are Asian and 4%
are Native American.
- 18% say that gambling is a direct cause of their homelessness,
and nearly 40% still gamble or buy lottery tickets..
Who Owns the Land?
"There are no ideal
data sources on land ownership in the United States -- other than in
the 3,000 plus county courthouses throughout the nation."[11]
An important but often overlooked component in our economic system is
that every person requires access to land on which to live, work and
play. Our system embraces both private and public control over land,
directed in part by market forces and in part by societal needs. We
need no reminder that the history of land ownership in the United
States is troubled. Colonial governments removed the indigenous tribal
peoples in order to establish a system of land ownership on the
English model. The territory under colonial control (and later under
the control of the states and the Federal government became a public
domain that could be sold off to raise revenue to supplement taxation.
There are a number of states where most of the land remains under the
control of the Federal government. Nearly 96% of Alaska remains in the
public domain, for example. Rhode Island sits at the other extreme
with less than 2% of its territory held by government. This pattern is
inconsistent, even in the Northeastern states, as the following chart
shows:
STATE |
% of total area under federal and state ownership |
state rank |
Connecticut |
06.2% |
40 |
Massachusetts |
06.3% |
39 |
Maine |
05.7% |
41 |
New Hampshire |
18.0% |
19 |
New York |
37.1% |
13 |
Rhode Island |
01.5% |
50 |
Vermont |
15.8% |
25 |
The Federal government controls 28 percent of the nation's land area.
State and local governments control another 9 percent, and trust lands
for the indigenous tribes who occupied the continent before the
arrival of Europeans account for roughly 2 percent. Thus, over 60
percent of the land -- 1.4 billion acres -- is in private hands.
"If you want to get rich --
Buy Land." [J. Paul Getty] |
The total land area of the United States consists of 2.3 billion
acres. Our cities occupy 72 million acres, expanding at a rate of 1.4
million acres annually. Another 73 million rural acres are developed
for non-farm residential use. Less than one percent of our land is
dedicated to housing people (and roughly 5 percent is used for
residential, commercial and industrial purposes).
Not surprisingly, the principal private landowners in the United
States are Seniors.
Agricultural and Resource-Laden Land Ownership
Decade after decade we continue to experience a loss in the number of
family-owned farms across the United States. Periodically, thousands
of farmers become insolvent and are forced to sell out and attempt to
find alternative employment elsewhere. Markets for agricultural
commodities have always been competitive, and the development of
effective means of transporting agricultural products over long
distances has only contributed to the need for farmers to be highly
efficient -- unless heavily protected from competition by legislation
that imposes quotas and tariffs on imported commodities. Even so,
there is a rather consistent repeated pattern of behavior that
victimizes farmers. In periods of rising prices (e.g., during the
First and Second World Wars), farmers were encouraged to borrow from
banks to acquire and cultivate additional -- often marginally-fertile
-- acreage. Meeting the debt service on these land acquistion loans
depended on the cash flows from artificially inflated commodity
prices. When war ended and overseas farmers were able to bring their
own farms back into production, demand fell, commodity prices came
down, and the more highly leveraged farmers defaulted on their bank
loans. The banks foreclosed, the farms were sold to
financially-solvent neighbors, or -- in more recent times -- to
corporate agribusinesses.
"Of all private
U.S. agricultural land, Whites account for 96 percent of the owners,
97 percent of the value, and 98 percent of the acres. Nonetheless,
four minority groups (Blacks, American Indians, Asians, and
Hispanics) own over 25 million acres of agricultural land, valued at
over $44 billion, which has wide-ranging consequences for the
social, economic, cultural, and political lie of minority
communities in rural America."[12]
Prices for commodities are determined internationally. U.S. farmers
compete with farmers elsewhere as much for subsidies and price
supports as for market share.
By 1935 there were just 6.8 million family farms left in operation.
By 2002 that number had fallen to just 2 million. The children of
farmers are leaving their parent's farms in droves. And, many farmers
must work second jobs in nearby towns in order to keep farming. Even
this strategy becomes less and less possible as rural towns close down
as the rural population moves away. As summed up by Mary Hendrickson,
professor of rural sociology at the University of Missouri (Columbia):
"The devastation in
America's rural communities is caused by the loss of infrastructure
tht makes society work. What disturbs me most are the compromises
rural folks have to make in order to stay on the land, and they find
themselves in a powerless relationship with the big guys."
[13]
Several findings in the study by Professor Jess Gilbert at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, are both revealing of the trends in
land ownership and the continuing importance of land ownership as a
basis for building individual wealth.
- In 1999, the estimated aggregate value of all agricultural land
in the United States (some 932.5 million acres) was $1.283
trillion.
- 58% of the acres owned are farmed by owner-operators.
An analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on competition by
developers for agricultural land located in the path of residential
and commercial development makes the very astute observation:
"When demands for
developable land are sufficiently high, the value of land in
developed use will exceed its value in agricultural use. This
enables developers to outbid farmers for use of the land. ...As more
land exits farming, the local agricultural economy may suffer.
However, existing farmers may welcome the increase in farmland
values, especially if they view their investment in land as a
retirement fund and do not have children who plan to continue
farming the land." [14]
U.S. government subsidies have overwhelmingly benefitted corporate
agribusiness. Total subsidies in 2001 amounted to over $71 billion.
Not surprisingly, corporate farmers and ranchers reported huge
increases in profits at taxpayer expense.
All across the nation there is a slowly-growing movement to preserve
wilderness. A leading nonprofit steward is the San Francisco-based
Trust for Public Land (TPL). In 2002, TPL acquired over 170,000 acres
of land in northern New Hampshire from International Paper Corp.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
TPL was not able to raise the $32.7 million
asking price for the Connecticut Headwaters.
"Go where there is populaton growth young man."
For those who have the financial reserves or the borrowing capacity,
purchasing land and holding on to it has proven to be a very
profitable investment strategy. Ron Axelrod, principal of a
California-based land investment firm, advisers potential investors
that "land selected must be in the path of growth in areas that
are on the verge of rapid growth -- for it is population growth the
creates wealth." Population growth increases demand for housing,
for public infrastructure, for retail shopping, for office buildings,
for everything residents look for as citizens and consumers. When
owners of undeveloped land in the cities or adjacent suburbs ask more
than developers believe can be profitably developed, they look for
less expensive land further out, driving up the cost of rural land and
often encroaching on a region's most productive agricultural land. On
the other hand, two researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
-- Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa -- concluded in 1997 that:
"Urbanization and
the increase in rural residences do not threaten the U.S. cropland
base or the level of agricultural production at present or in the
near term. Urbanization rates of increase are relatively small and
other land (such as forest, pasture, and range) can be shifted into
crop production. Also, crop yields per acre continue to increase due
to advances in technology. For these reasons, the U.S. cropland base
should be sufficient to meet food and fiber demands (both domestic
and foreign) for the foreseeable future."[15]
Is there a shortage of urban land for development?
Research pubished by The Brookings Institution in 2000
[16] indicates that on
average, 15% of the land area in our cities is described as vacant ("ranging
from undisturbed open space to abandoned, contaminated brownfields").
Although cities in the Northeastern states generally had the lowest
percentage of vacant land, they reported the highest number of
abandoned structures.
The challenge has long been one of how to stimulate investment that
recycles or replaces abandoned structures or brings into development
locations in the cities rather than the continuous conversion of
outlying agricultural land and open space for development.
Connecticut by
Comparison |
Bridgeport, with a total area of 10,880 did not
report (and ostensibly did not have the data) on the number of acres
vacant. The city did report roughly 1 abandoned structure for every
1,000 inhabitants. New Haven, with 12,800 total acres, reported that
700 acres of land were vacant, but also reported 4.26 abandoned
structures for every 1,000 inhabitants. Stamford, with 14,320 total
acres, reported 3,648 acres were vacant (but did not have data on
vacant structures).
"The current
climate is not going to change. You're still going to see affordable
housing disappear as land disappears. We think land prices are going
to stay like they are and go up." [17]
The historical data confirms that land prices -- and "nominal"
prices, particularly -- have not experienced a general or long-lasting
decline in the United States. Yet, land markets do exhibit periodic
crashes. These occur when price rises occur so rapidly that they
outpace increases in personal incomes and business profits. Those
individuals who lease land, lease housing, lease office space, lease
retail space or any space experience rising demands from property
owners for a larger share of their household or business income. In
some markets, the problem is now reaching crisis proportions. As
recently reported in the Wall Street Journal:
"The expanding
population, immigration, and readily available credit have sparked
record demand for homes; but builders are facing a critical shortage
of developable land. Land costs have soared to excessive heights as
builders engage in bidding wars and local governments preserve land
for conservation, lengthen the permit approval process, and impose
moratoriums on residential development to minimize the impact of
rapid growth. As a result, families are paying more for shelter;
cities are getting denser and more expensive as living spaces
shrink; and large suburban homes are appealing only to wealthy
buyers or those willing to commute long distances to the city.
...There is cause for concern, considering that falling home prices
generally follow declines in land supply, notes New York-based
housing analyst Barbara Allen. Homebuyers have been forced to
shoulder much of the costs associated with land constraints that
have been passed on by builders during the housing boom, but Las
Vegas-based home-building consultant Dennis Smith predicts they will
be willing to do so only for as long as interest rates remain low."
[18]
"All wealth derives from the
land." [Aristotle] |
References
- Quoted in: Chuck Collins, Chris Hartman and
Holly Sklar.
Divided
Decade: Economic Disparity at the Century's Turn, published
by United for a Fair Economy. 15 December 1999.
- Chris Edwards.
"Now
It's Time for Government Reform", Cato Institute, Augut 12,
2002.
- Jackson Turner Main. The Social Structure
of Revolutionary America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1965), p.112.
- Michael Parenti. "The Super Rich Are Out
of Sight," Common Dreams, December 27, 2002.
- Source: Brad Wolverton.
"Big
U.S.foundations see drop in assets for third straight year".
The Chronicle of Philanthropy. 6 March 2003.
- "East
Coast Suburbs Lead the Country in Household Income". AmeriStat.
2003.
- Source: Susan Raymond.
"Minority
Philanthropy on the Rise in the U.S." On Philanthropy,
21 November 2000.
- Patrick A. Simmons.
"Changes
in Minority Homeownership During the 1990s". Fannie Mae
Foundation Census Note 07. Fannie Mae Foundation, September 2001.
- Michael Sklarz and Norm Miller.
"Are Home
Buyers 'Irrationally Exuberant'?" In The News.
Mortgage Bankers Assocation of America. 9 October 2002.
- Jim Daylor. "Regional Economic Strength,
Health and Growth Continues," New England Real Estate
Journal, January 2001.
- Jess Gilbert, Spencer D. Wood and Gwen Sharp.
"Who
Owns the Land? Agricultural Land Ownership by Race/Ethnicity",
Rural America, Winter 2002, Vol. 17, Issue 4, p.58.
- Ibid., p.55.
- Quoted in: Rich Heffern. "Farmers: get
big or get out; chronic low prices force families off the land as
agribusiness grows," National Catholic Reporter, May
31, 2002.
- Land
Use, Value, and Management: Urbanization and Agricultural Land,
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa. "Major
Uses of Land in the United States, 1997. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Statistical Bulletin No. 973.
- Michael A. Pagano and Ann O'M. Bowman.
"Vacant
Land in Cities: An Urban Resource", The Brookings Institution
Survey Series, December 2000.
- Dennis Smith, president of Home Builders
Research. Quoted in: Hubble Smith. "Even as land prices,
rise, housing market stays hot," Las Vegas Review-Journal,
March 5, 2003.
- Patrick Barta. "Growing Scarcity of Land
Alters Home Economics" Wall Street Journal,15 April
2003.
|