“People get income for doing stuff, and they get income for owning stuff. Increasingly the latter. And the ownership share of income goes to a small slice of households that own almost all the stuff.”
This is a quote from a recent article by Steve Roth over at Evonomics, where he breaks down the share of US household income that is derived from “labor” vs. “capital.” In other words, how much money do households make from working (trading their time for money) and how much do they make from their existing wealth (that is, owning stuff)?
If I were to oversimplify how he calculates this (you can read all of the details, here), it is: (Income - Labor Compensation) / Income. Take all of the household income. Subtract the money made from doing stuff. And then divide it by total income to get the percentage made from “unearned property income.” There are gray areas and others things to consider, but that’s the gist of it.
“People get income for doing stuff, and they get income for owning stuff. Increasingly the latter. And the ownership share of income goes to a small slice of households that own almost all the stuff.”
This is a quote from a recent article by Steve Roth over at Evonomics, where he breaks down the share of US household income that is derived from “labor” vs. “capital.” In other words, how much money do households make from working (trading their time for money) and how much do they make from their existing wealth (that is, owning stuff)?
If I were to oversimplify how he calculates this (you can read all of the details, here), it is: (Income - Labor Compensation) / Income. Take all of the household income. Subtract the money made from doing stuff. And then divide it by total income to get the percentage made from “unearned property income.” There are gray areas and others things to consider, but that’s the gist of it.
What he discovers and argues is that basically 50% of household income comes from simply being wealthy and owning stuff. He also reminds us that approximately 60% of US wealth is… “earned the old-fashioned away: it’s inherited.”
Here is an interesting discussion paper on the Toronto region’s economy, demographic outlook, and its land use. It was recently published by IBI Group and Hemson Consulting to support the 10-year review of our regional transportation plan.
I wanted to share a couple of charts from the report that I thought were interesting. If you’re not in the Toronto region, I would be very curious to hear how your city might compare in terms of the way it is trending.
The first chart is net migration by age group. Like Vancouver – similar chart posted here – people have been moving into the city/Toronto when they’re young and then moving out to the suburbs once they start having families.
Will that continue? The oldest Millennials are now hitting their mid-30′s and I am very interested to see if there will be any reversal in this.
Charlie Gardner (aka the Old Urbanist) recently published an interesting pair of posts (here and here) about the decline of homeownership in the United States.
What really stood out for me, though, was this chart (showing the percentage of household real estate equity):
And this conclusion:
“The implied conclusion here, that a dramatic expansion of debt has been necessary just to maintain the illusion of a stable homeownership rate (setting aside the explosion of debt in the 2000s necessary to support
What he discovers and argues is that basically 50% of household income comes from simply being wealthy and owning stuff. He also reminds us that approximately 60% of US wealth is… “earned the old-fashioned away: it’s inherited.”
Here is an interesting discussion paper on the Toronto region’s economy, demographic outlook, and its land use. It was recently published by IBI Group and Hemson Consulting to support the 10-year review of our regional transportation plan.
I wanted to share a couple of charts from the report that I thought were interesting. If you’re not in the Toronto region, I would be very curious to hear how your city might compare in terms of the way it is trending.
The first chart is net migration by age group. Like Vancouver – similar chart posted here – people have been moving into the city/Toronto when they’re young and then moving out to the suburbs once they start having families.
Will that continue? The oldest Millennials are now hitting their mid-30′s and I am very interested to see if there will be any reversal in this.
Charlie Gardner (aka the Old Urbanist) recently published an interesting pair of posts (here and here) about the decline of homeownership in the United States.
What really stood out for me, though, was this chart (showing the percentage of household real estate equity):
And this conclusion:
“The implied conclusion here, that a dramatic expansion of debt has been necessary just to maintain the illusion of a stable homeownership rate (setting aside the explosion of debt in the 2000s necessary to support
Given the above trend, people in this region are not surprisingly also swapping apartments for ground-related housing as they get older. The crossover point seems to be (or at least has been) when people hit their mid-30′s. Again, I am curious how this may evolve as the city matures.
Because if you look at housing completions from 2001 to 2016 (chart below), the only municipality that was able to meaningfully increase its housing supply was Toronto.
Every other municipality – except for Hamilton, which posted modest gains – experienced significant declines in the number of new homes delivered to the market over the last census periods.
Of course, the only reason Toronto was able to increase its housing supply was by building up – in other words by building condos and apartments. (Shown in the purple below. For some reason the legend is incomplete in the report.)
If you look at the share of housing completions, over 80% of new homes in Toronto are now in apartment form.
Intensification is a deliberate policy choice. And we can certainly debate whether it’s a good or bad thing (I believe it’s a good thing).
But putting that aside, the above charts are a great answer to the perennial question: “How is it that Toronto is building so many condos?” This is why.
an increase in homeownership
), puts an even more negative spin on the figures from the preceding post. In short, a decline in homeownership has until the past few years been masked by shifting demographics and an increase in household debt.”
What I would now be curious to see is the above chart in terms of household equity value. Because I wonder to what extent rapidly appreciating home prices (as a result of cheap credit) are having an offsetting affect on declining equity percentages.
Given the above trend, people in this region are not surprisingly also swapping apartments for ground-related housing as they get older. The crossover point seems to be (or at least has been) when people hit their mid-30′s. Again, I am curious how this may evolve as the city matures.
Because if you look at housing completions from 2001 to 2016 (chart below), the only municipality that was able to meaningfully increase its housing supply was Toronto.
Every other municipality – except for Hamilton, which posted modest gains – experienced significant declines in the number of new homes delivered to the market over the last census periods.
Of course, the only reason Toronto was able to increase its housing supply was by building up – in other words by building condos and apartments. (Shown in the purple below. For some reason the legend is incomplete in the report.)
If you look at the share of housing completions, over 80% of new homes in Toronto are now in apartment form.
Intensification is a deliberate policy choice. And we can certainly debate whether it’s a good or bad thing (I believe it’s a good thing).
But putting that aside, the above charts are a great answer to the perennial question: “How is it that Toronto is building so many condos?” This is why.
an increase in homeownership
), puts an even more negative spin on the figures from the preceding post. In short, a decline in homeownership has until the past few years been masked by shifting demographics and an increase in household debt.”
What I would now be curious to see is the above chart in terms of household equity value. Because I wonder to what extent rapidly appreciating home prices (as a result of cheap credit) are having an offsetting affect on declining equity percentages.
