Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Finance: the Downscaling of America
Reuters ^ | July 5, 2003 | Linda Stern

Posted on 07/05/2003 11:36:42 AM PDT by sarcasm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When mutual fund powerhouse Fidelity Investments wants new ideas, one of the places it goes is Inferential Focus, a quirky New York prognosticating firm.

In their efforts to predict the future, the company's staff of seven, led by President Charlie Hess, read 350 publications on a regular basis. They ignore most of the noise -- surveys, prognostications, formal speeches and staged events -- and look for actual occurrences that can point to changes in American society, which can then be spun off into investable ideas.

What they are finding now is this: We're going down. Downwardly mobile, that is.

Even though the worst of the bear market might be behind us, the American middle class will continue to lose ground and the American consumer will continue to be squeezed for some time to come, said Hess and Gail Eisenkraft, one of his partners, in a recent interview.

They find that to be true at both middle and upper levels of the income spectrum. That has implications for the way we all spend and invest our money.

It's no secret that the U.S. has been on a rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer track for several years. Most recently, the Labor Department said that the top 5 percent of America's wealthiest households earned 22.4 percent of national income in 2001, the most recent year for the compilation of these figures. That is its highest share since figures were first collected in 1967.

The lowest class, meanwhile, earned its smallest share, 3.5 percent. The middle section is slipping too.

Middle income households, which in 2001 earned between $33,315 and $53,000, earn 14.6 percent of American income every year. That's another 35-year low. Hess and Eisenkraft now say that this slump is spreading to the better-off, who are starting to act more like the less-well-off.

There are specific economic forces that will continue to hold the middle class down, says Hess.

Here are some of the events and trends that he sees working together to create a middle-class slide: the export of technical jobs and the continued unemployment of many American tech workers; the squeeze on state economies that will result in higher state taxes, fewer state services, and higher-priced state educations; the triple threat of high health-care costs, high debt burdens and continued weak stock prices and battered portfolios.

As a result, even the upper-middle class is starting to downscale spending habits and life style.

'We're seeing those pressures converge on the reasonably affluent household,'' says Hess.

More resourceful parents are sending their children to community colleges for the first year or two of higher education, just to save money. Everyone is shopping discount.

``The Dollar Store near Beverly Hills has shown more growth than any other Dollar Store in the country,'' Eisenkraft notes.

Maybe that's not all a bad thing. Perhaps if everyone is worrying about their money, they will spend less on empty status items, and nobody will have to be ashamed of being budget conscious. It might even be considered cool to shop the sales.

What, besides handwringing, can a squeezed middle-class person do?

Shop down and invest like everybody else is shopping down, suggests Hess. ``We are talking to our investor clients about the many plays that might result from the search for cheaper upscale and cheaper downscale.''

You can live well and spend less by nailing down a 15-year mortgage instead of a 30-year mortgage while rates are low; by buying used cars instead of new, and by looking for freshman-year college bargains, Hess suggests.

You can make money in the market on this trend by buying companies that sell used cars, good clothes at a discount, product manufactured homes or quality items at commodity prices, like the big warehouse stores.

Look, too, at for-profit trade schools that could benefit once middle-class students realize they are graduating college with tens of thousands of dollars in debts and no solid job prospects to speak of, suggests Eisenkraft. That's just one more way of investing in the downscaling of America, so that even if you're down, you can be up, at least a little.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

1 posted on 07/05/2003 11:36:42 AM PDT by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
at for-profit trade schools that could benefit once middle-class students realize

realize that a degree is pretty much worthless as foreigner will do your job for 1/20th of the cost? And that our trade rep Zoellick supports this?
2 posted on 07/05/2003 11:43:55 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Become a car mechanic to service the used cars mentioned in the article.
3 posted on 07/05/2003 11:51:59 AM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
This is the most straight up, turthful article I have seen yet on where we are and where we are headed economically. I wouldn't even worry about it if the items mentioned weren't mostly things that are necessities of life.

Also, the last paragraph about education was profound indeed. Maybe people will quite looking at universities as glorified trade schools and recognize them for what they should be; that is NOT places to learn to be productive citizens, but rather places to be GOOD citizens.

4 posted on 07/05/2003 11:56:45 AM PDT by GaConfed (The idea the American consumer receives a benefit from products made overseas by cheaper labor falls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaConfed
You might want to check out their site:

Inferential Focus

5 posted on 07/05/2003 12:01:27 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; crazykatz; MelBelle; autoresponder; Willie Green
from the article:
There are specific economic forces that will continue to hold the middle class down, says Hess.
Here are some of the events and trends that he sees working together to create a middle-class slide: the export of technical jobs and the continued unemployment of many American tech workers; the squeeze on state economies that will result in higher state taxes, fewer state services, and higher-priced state educations; the triple threat of high health-care costs, high debt burdens and continued weak stock prices and battered portfolios.
As a result, even the upper-middle class is starting to downscale spending habits and life style.
6 posted on 07/05/2003 12:12:54 PM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
"It's no secret that the U.S. has been on a rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer track for several years."

The poor get poorer?!

What nonsense!

Who wants to assert that the "poor" today physically earn **less** than the poor of "several years" ago?

The "Poverty Level" today is around $14,000 per year for an average household. That's more than the middle-class average income in the 1950's.

The poor get "poorer"?!

I think not.

7 posted on 07/05/2003 12:21:32 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The "Poverty Level" today is around $14,000 per year for an average household. That's more than the middle-class average income in the 1950's.

Inflation? How much credit card debt does that person have? Do their own their home or do they rent? Do they ever take a vacation? How many hours a week do they work? Do both members of the household work, compared to just the husband in the 50's?
Its not easy to compare just based on income.
8 posted on 07/05/2003 12:24:39 PM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The "Poverty Level" today is around $14,000 per year for an average household. That's more than the middle-class average income in the 1950's

Have you forgotten about inflation?

9 posted on 07/05/2003 12:34:00 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lelio; sarcasm
Are you claiming that average salaries/wages have failed to keep up with inflation?
10 posted on 07/05/2003 12:35:49 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Real income levels for a substantial portion of the population have either been stagnant or have declined since the 1970's.
11 posted on 07/05/2003 12:41:42 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm

Average Administrative Salaries

OfficeTeam's 2000 Salary Guide  contains some of the most up-to-date, "real world" salary and staffing trend information available. Job descriptions and a regional analysis of hiring trends and selected local salary variances are also included in the guide. You can request a copy of the Salary Guides through OfficeTeam’s Web site, www.officeteam.com, under "free resources" in the Career Corner  section.

Here are the U.S national averages for various support titles/levels and average percentage increase from 1999 to 2000 (Canadian national averages are also included).

Title

Salary Range % increase from 1999

Front Desk Coordinator

$21,000-$26,000 2.2%

Junior Administrative Assistant

$20,250-$23,000 6.1%

Administrative Assistant 

$21,500-$26,500 5.5%

Senior Administrative Assistant

$25,000-$35,500 3.4%

Executive Assistant

$28,500-$34,750 5.4%

Senior Executive Assistant

$33,500-$46,000  2.6%

Office Manager

$26,500-$33,500 5.3%

Senior Office Manager 

$33,000-$44,000 2.0%

According to the OfficeTeam guide, "Administrative Assistants who possess the Certified Professional Secretary (CPS) rating through the International Association of Administrative Professionals may command higher starting salaries." In addition, a new section on employee retention added to the salary guide this year also suggests that employers offer administrative staff paid association membership to build contacts and develop professionally.


Average Annual Salaries for Secretaries/Administrative Support Staff

1951-1999

Data based on research from the International Association of Administrative Professionals (IAAP) and other sources as noted.

1951
Average Annual Salary
Secretary: $3,060 (membership survey)

1965
Average Salary
Secretary: $5,678 (membership survey)

1975
Average Salaries (membership survey)
60% reported salaries of $9,000 or more
32% in the $9,000-$11,000 range
17% in the $11,000-$13,000 range
7% in the $13,000-$15,000 range
4% at $15,000 and over

1980
Average Salaries (membership survey)

Under $10,000 14%
$10,000-$11,999 16%
$12,000-$14,999 33%
$15,000-$16,999 22%
$17,000-$19,999 12%
$20,000 or more 4%

1983
Average Salaries
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983

Secretary I  $14,732
Secretary II $16,031
Secretary III $18,254
Secretary IV $20,032
Secretary V $23,137

Administrative Management Society Survey, 1983

Level B $13, 468
Level A $15,080
Executive Secretary $17,628

 IAAP Salary Study, 1983

Below $10,000 3%
$10,000-$12,999 12%
$13,000-$15,999 23%
$16,000-$18,999 25%
$19,000-$21,999 19%
$22,000-$29,999  16%
$30,000-up 2%

 1983 - 1990 comparison

Secretaries enjoyed a 36.1% increase in salary between 1983 and 1990, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. The median average salary for secretaries in 1983 was an estimated $13,000. In 1990, it was almost $18,000. That put the average secretary a few steps ahead of the Consumer Price Index -- which measures the cost of living for a family of four. The CPI rose 31.3 percent in the same period.

1988
Average Salaries (based on member survey results)

Less than $10,000 13%
$10,000-$19,999 18%
$20,000-$39,999 36%
$40,000-59,999 16%
$60,000-$74,999 5%
$75,000-$99,999 3%
$100,000 or more 3%
Don't know/refused 7%

1991
Average Salary Range, by Title

Administrative Assistant $24,903-$29,305
Executive Secretary $24,582-$28,300
Administrative Secretary $24,267-$31,013
Secretary/Receptionist $ 8,320-$17,744
Secretary $19,352-$24,517

1995
Fortune
  Magazine, June 1995, "What Americans Earn"

Initial Pay Industry Average Typical Top Pay
Secretary $12,480 $28,189 $50,000
Receptionist $13,000 $22,387 $28,000
Executive Secretary $14,000 $37,485 $70,000

1999
Average salaries
1999 Administrative and Office Support Salaries, United States

Administrative Assistant  $20,000-$25,500
Senior Administrative Assistant $23,500-$36,000
Executive Assistant $26,000-$34,000
Senior Executive Assistant  $32,000-$45,500
Office Manager (up to 5 years exp.) $25,000-$32,000
Senior Office Manager (5+ years exp.) $32,500-$43,000
Specialized Medical Secretary $26,000-$36,000
Desktop Publishing Specialist $27,000-$38,000

According to a 1997 IAAP study, the average salary for IAAP members was $28,420. Just over half (51%) earned over $26,000; thirty-one percent earned over $31,000.

For 3,200 other job-field salaries in the U.S., Click Here

12 posted on 07/05/2003 12:43:59 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
"Real income levels for a substantial portion of the population have either been stagnant or have declined since the 1970's."

Nonsense.

As you can see from the data (for secretaries, with a link to 3,200 other professions included) in the above post, average incomes have soared from $3,060 in 1950 up past $28,000 by 1995, and they continue to climb today.

13 posted on 07/05/2003 12:47:57 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Southack

15 posted on 07/05/2003 12:51:51 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Even your own chart shows a .2% **real** inflation-adjusted earnings growth in American wages from 1965 to 2000.

That's not the same as being stagnant or falling behind, and that's the worst period on the whole graph!

16 posted on 07/05/2003 12:58:19 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Southack
$3000 to $28k over 50 years is a 4.4% increase. That's comparable to inflation.
17 posted on 07/05/2003 1:02:03 PM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibertyAndJusticeForAll
Hess is correct.

Add to that the professional multi-generational permanent unemployed classes, criminals, and/or non-tax paying illegal aliens and you have a blueprint for moral, ethical, and economic bankruptcy.

It is hard to put the toothpaste back in that California tube, and now in NYC, ex-Dim and 5 Billionaire+ Mayor Bloomberg is raising taxes, fees, banning activities, and increasing social benefit programs all at once.

Unlike a liberal Bill Gates, who at least has some understanding of the average Joe Sixpack, Bloomberg exhibits an arrogance and dismissal of all that do not agree with his looney dictatorship.

Bloomberg is Gray Davis East in triplicate.

Libs are more dangerous to the survival of America then any terrorists.

Witness the NYC murder totals under minority Mayor David Dinkins who played tennis while NYC rioted; 2200 murders a year.

Under Rudy Guiliani, another former Dim and still quite a Lib in social policies himself, the murder totals in NYC plunged to under 550 a year.

It will be interesting to see how Ar-Nold attacks the budget, waste, corruption, and crime in California.

T4

"He'll be back"!
18 posted on 07/05/2003 1:04:24 PM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
"It's no secret that the U.S. has been on a rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer track for several years. "

This ought to give the reader a good view of the political view point of the author. Of course he leaves out that many families have switched from 2 incomes to one and that as with any mature economy, there are going to be times when growth slows especially when the boomer generations kids are waiting 4-5 years later in life to marry, have children and buy homes. This story could have been written by Jayson Blair.

19 posted on 07/05/2003 1:11:33 PM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Sarcasm's chart in post #15 shows an average annual increase of .2% for American salaries / wages during the very worst period of its data.

That's not falling behind. That's not being stagnant. That's slowly getting better off even during the worst periods of wage rates and inflation.

20 posted on 07/05/2003 1:14:57 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson