> the people who have captured the gains from that growth have been the capital class in the developed nations (i.e not blue collar workers or the professional class)
Wrong. Middle-class Americans have captured gains through cheaper, higher-quality products than would have otherwise existed without trade and development. Are you using a phone made in China, or wearing clothes made in Bangladesh, or eat fresh fruit in the winter? Then by definition, you've captured gains from trade.
Sure, we can say that there has been some benefit to the middle class in the West through reduced price on some of the goods but certainly not on big bill items such as housing and education. It's great that I can buy a cheap jacket and keep some of my income, it sucks that my housing expanses went from 1/5 to 1/2 of my income (as an example).
Overall an American worker who lost his well paying manufacturing job and replaced it with a job at walmart lost massively.
> It's great that I can buy a cheap jacket and keep some of my income, it sucks that my housing expanses went from 1/5 to 1/2 of my income (as an example).
Maybe they went from 1/5 to 1/2 precisely because trade made everything else so affordable? In the world without international trade, housing, education and health care could still be expensive, but cheap jeans would be $100 and cheap jackets $200.
> but certainly not on big bill items such as housing and education
On average, housing expenditures only makes up about 25% of American household income. And education expenditures are nearly a rounding error at 1.8%.
Adjusted for inflation the median cost per square foot of a new home in the US actually fell by 8% from 1992 to 2018. It's true that Americans are spending more on housing than in the past, but that's mostly because they're buying significantly bigger houses.
The median new home saw its square footage increase by more than 50% since 1985. Despite a decline in the average household size. And that doesn't even cover the significant increase in quality in things like central AC, attached garages, fire safety, higher ceilings, high ampere electrical circuits, better insulation, etc.
The HN community is biased on this topic because they tend to live in HCoL metros like the Bay Area and to only recently be out of school.
But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of middle America in flyover states has not seen any significant loss of affordability in housing. That should tell you that the problem isn't globalization, it's the San Francisco zoning board.
> Overall an American worker who lost his well paying manufacturing job and replaced it with a job at walmart lost massively.
Since 1980 the decline in manufacturing employment have been more than offset by growth in high-paying jobs in healthcare, education, professional services, real estate, and financial services.
American manufacturing output is at an all-time. There's huge job shortages in the industry, and American factories are desperate for workers. That should tell you that manufacturing jobs were never "replaced", rather Americans workers decided to move to other industries.
Manufacturing jobs are good-paying, but dangerous, physically demanding and unpleasant. Most workers who left decided to either go to skilled construction trades or natural resource extraction, where pay is significantly better. Or they decided to become skilled professionals like nurses, teachers, or realtors, where pay is still good but working conditions are significantly better.
Healthcare expenditures only makes up 6.3% of the average income of an American household. Education only makes up 1.8%.
Vehicles and apparel alone, without even breaking out any other tradable sector, make up the same percent of household expenditures as healthcare and education.
Housing makes up 25%. But the cost of housing, as measured by the median inflation-adjusted cost per square foot of a new house has actually fallen by 8% since 1992.
> But the cost of housing, as measured by the median inflation-adjusted cost per square foot of a new house has actually fallen by 8% since 1992.
That's a relatively meaningless statistic given that new houses don't account for a significant subset of the housing supply.
A better measure of true housing costs is BLS's annual Consumer Expenditure Survey [1], which shows that just from 2013-2018, average annual housing expenditure has risen from $17148 to $20091, an increase of 17%.
Using that same source shows that after tax incomes increased from $56k to $67k over the exact same period. So housing expenditures actually grew at a slightly slower rate than income (17% vs. 19%). That proves the opposite: housing is actually become more affordable.
Moreover, according to the source shelter only made up about half the increase in expenditures in the category. Expenditures on shelter grew even slower than housing as a whole, 16%.
From the source, Americans spent 32% more on furniture and appliances (including a whooping 50% increase on major appliances), 28% more on housekeeping services, 30% more on their cell phone bill (which is weirdly part of of the housing category), 23% more on household products, and 20% more on their water bill. In other words Americans are splurging on smart fridges, maid service, mobile data plans, organic cleaners and long showers.
That doesn't really sound consistent with the story of cash-strapped workers struggling in an overpriced housing market. That sounds a lot more consistent with the macroeconomic data, which is tells us that since 2013, the economy has been booming and unemployment is at post-war lows.
> So housing expenditures actually grew at a slightly slower rate than income
The point was that new home construction cost (the stat you used) isn't of significant magnitude to be relevant to overall housing price trends. I wasn't addressing price to income ratio.
But regarding that, averages can hide growing divergences between incomes and home prices. Instead consider the median home price to income ratios over time:
It is also correct to observe that the divergence is most strongly correlated to large metropolitan areas, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem, since that's where most people live, and where most people are moving.
Thanks for linking that, very interesting. But I think if you dig into the report cited you'll find that it's not as simple as looking at the ratio of home prices to incomes. The report you linked cites:
> In fact, the monthly payment for the median single-family home purchased in 2017, assuming a 30-year loan with a 3.5 percent downpayment at the average interest rate, totaled $1,620 in real terms—slightly below the $1,650 averaged in the 30 years from 1987 to 2016, but more than $900 below the real median in 1981 when interest rates were at an all-time high.
Moreover that doesn't even take into account the rising square footage or quality of the modern housing stock compared to thirty years ago.[1]
In terms of the relative comparison between high and low cost metros, the relevant division isn't large and growing metros. The report finds that two thirds of the 100 largest metros have price to income ratios below 4.0. Add in those outside the major metros, and the sizable majority of the American population lives in low cost housing markets.
Figure 19 of the report also shows that high-cost states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Hawaii have strong net outflows of young people. Whereas predominately low-cost states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Tennessee have strong net inflows.
Since 2010, high cost major metros New York, LA, and Boston have grown significantly slower than the US population. San Diego and San Francisco have barely outgrown the US as a whole. Miami, Seattle, and Denver are the only high-cost major metros to grow faster than the rest of the country.
Can you please make your point directly instead of snarking about regulation instead? It contributes little to the conversation if your don’t put forth any arguments or discussion.
I am not a fan of making people guess what the point is, but I thought that dantheman's point was actually pretty clear. It becomes reasonable to suppose that government intervention and regulation play at least a role in the unaffordability crises in education, housing, and healthcare.
I think that's a consequence of pulling wealth from the future into the present to counteract the loss of wealth due to decreases in the price of labor due to increase in supply of labor from other countries and decrease in demand of labor due to automation.
Question is how far into the future are we going to keep pulling.
>Middle-class Americans have captured gains through cheaper, higher-quality products than would have otherwise existed without trade and development.
Cheaper products, sure, but higher quality? Retailers like Walmart and Amazon are essentially operating cartels, they dictate the prices they are willing to pay for manufactured goods. For manufacturers to meet these demands, cuts will have to come from somewhere--cheaper materials, less R&D etc. Consumers may benefit in a cheaper price for their widget, but that widget is not as likely to have the service life it would have in the past. Shorter service life results in buying 'cheaper' goods at a higher frequency (which is likely to result as a net loss for the consumer). This is rhetorical, yes, but not hard to defend. Clothing, appliances, electronics (in price-point verticals) all reflect this 'trend'. This is not even going in to 'Planned-Obsolescence', which is another symptom of the same problem.
Autos, which were the first major industry to globalize, have shown undeniably significant and sustained improvements in quality, reliability and safety over time.
I don't really hard data for any other major sector, and would be interested in anyone that does.
This is true, but there are 2 things to consider here. First, purchasing a new or gently used car is likely to be a person's second biggest monthly expense after housing. It is therefore in the best interest of the manufacturer to create a product that is reliable (at least reliable enough to last as long as the 6-7 year loan which are common today). Secondly, you have a couple of 'unicorn' manufacturers (to use a SV parlance) in Toyota and Honda that have historically been outliers in reliability within their market, and have subsequently dominated the market.
This is a huge difference from the sweat-shop in Bangladesh making t-shirts for Wal-Mart or H&M, or the electronics manufacturer in Shenzhen making toasters.
It's all about supply and demand, the demand for a reliable automobile creates a market for that product. Meanwhile, as lower and middle-class people have less purchasing power due to high housing prices, debt, medical expenses etc, the demand for cheap toasters is greater than the demand for a more expensive (but robust) alternative.
Wrong. Middle-class Americans have captured gains through cheaper, higher-quality products than would have otherwise existed without trade and development. Are you using a phone made in China, or wearing clothes made in Bangladesh, or eat fresh fruit in the winter? Then by definition, you've captured gains from trade.