ADVERTISEMENT

Why Life Is Pretty Good But Doesn’t Feel So Great

But for some workers, this may be less about leisure and more about underemployment.

Why Life Is Pretty Good But Doesn’t Feel So Great
A surfer is silhouetted as he walks past a residential building at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia. (Photographer: David Gray/Bloomberg)  

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Oren Cass, director of the think tank American Compass and a former Mitt Romney adviser, sparked a debate recently when he published a chart illustrating what he called the cost of thriving index. The chart compares median income of men with the costs of four major spending items -- housing, transportation, health care and college -- and found that the typical man doesn’t earn enough in a year to cover those four costs.

Commentators on both the political right and left were quick to point out the problems with Cass’s graph. For one thing, most workers aren’t paying college tuition at any given moment. If college costs are spread out over someone’s lifetime, they are much lower than what Cass showed. And including scholarships and grants, which Cass leaves out, would lower the cost even more.

Cass also included insurance premiums in health-care costs but didn’t count employer contributions to those premiums as income. Accounting for only the portion of health costs that workers pay for out of pocket makes the graph look much less frightening. Of course, this is little comfort to those without employer-sponsored health benefits, but many of these people are covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs — which Cass’s graph also fails to include.

Finally, Cass only looks at the median male worker. This ignores the substantial income gains that working women have enjoyed:

Why Life Is Pretty Good But Doesn’t Feel So Great

Higher incomes allow women to be more independent and less reliant on men for their livelihoods. Men who marry or cohabit with women also benefit because their partners are able to contribute to the costs of housing, health, education and so on.

So Cass did overstate the affordability crisis. But this shouldn’t obscure the fact that changes in living standards over long periods of time are very hard to measure. When incomes are rising fast and new conveniences are becoming widely available, as in the 1950s and 1960s, it’s easy for people to see that their lives are materially better off than those of their parents. But in an age of slow income growth and rising inequality, it’s harder to see progress.

For example, consider the rise of dual-income couples, which I mentioned above. Some, including Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, have depicted this as a trap. Because the increased purchasing power of dual-income couples (and single women) has raised prices, it has made it harder for single-income couples and single men to thrive. It’s not clear how much the decreased viability of those lifestyle options should count against rising living standards.

Also, changes in the quality of what people consume can be hard to take into account. Inflation measures, which are used to calculate so-called real income and wages, include some adjustment for things like bigger houses, safer cars and better televisions. For example, the average new single-family home was about 40% larger in 2010 than in 1980:

Why Life Is Pretty Good But Doesn’t Feel So Great

Simply including house prices in the inflation numbers misses out on this important change. But to what extent do people actually want these bigger houses? Many certainly enjoy the extra space, but some might have little choice but to buy more space than they want because of restrictive zoning regulations.

Then there’s the issue of leisure. No one likes to work all the time, and many have imagined a future where people spend most of their time in enriching leisure activities. So the fact that employed Americans are working fewer hours might seem like a big rise in living standards that isn’t counted in the official data:

Why Life Is Pretty Good But Doesn’t Feel So Great

But for some workers, this may be less about leisure and more about underemployment. They may only be able to find part-time jobs, or their employers may not give them the hours they need.

And there are things that are even harder to quantify, such as so-called positional goods. Even though those in the middle class have bigger houses, more cars and better heart disease treatments than in the past, the set of goods that people feel like they need to be successful in life might be increasing even faster. If half of families go from one car to two, the other half might feel as if they missed out even though average living standards rose. Rising inequality could therefore be making lots of people feel poorer even if they’re richer on paper.

In the mid-20th century, none of this mattered much — inequality stayed low even amid brisk growth. But many middle-class Americans now find themselves in a world where income growth is tepid, double incomes and college degrees aren’t optional and the standards that define middle-class success in the popular imagination keep rising. Add to that increasing out-of-pocket medical costs, college tuition and rent. In a frustrating environment like this, telling people to look at real median income statistics isn't a great comeback.

So Cass might not have had the right numbers, but he had the right message. The costs of health care, college and rent need to be brought down. Otherwise, too many Americans will continue to feel squeezed.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Opinion
Housing to Get a Jolt With Virus Pushing Down Mortgage Rates