Businessweek Archives

Wall Street Is Not Main Street


Economic Trends

WALL STREET IS NOT MAIN STREET

Most folks aren't in on the boom

To put it mildly, observers of U.S. financial markets and the U.S. economy over the past year have been experiencing cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, the stock market has posted its largest increase in recent memory, leaping by some 35% last year and still counting. On the other, the economy crept higher at a lackluster 1.4% pace, consumption has lagged, and economic anxiety is widespread.

To those who equate stock market booms with economic welfare, all of this is puzzling. With all of their added wealth, why aren't consumers spending with elan? And why is there so much malaise in the hinterland?

A new study by economists James M. Poterba of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Andrew A. Samwick of Dartmouth College throws some light on such issues. The study's focus is the so-called wealth effect, the theory that a rise in stock prices makes people with stock investments feel richer and thus leads them to spend some of their added wealth--boosting consumption and spurring economic growth.

A key question, of course, is the nature of stock ownership. Using Federal Reserve data, the researchers calculate that the household sector--both directly and indirectly, via mutual funds and defined-contribution pension and savings plans--currently owns nearly two-thirds of total U.S. equities. Moreover, the share of households with stock holdings grew from 19% in 1962 to 33% in 1992--and has undoubtedly risen since then.

A problem, however, is that a large number of such holdings are either negligible or relatively inaccessible for spending. In 1992, for example, only 17% of households had more than $2,000 in stocks or mutual funds outside of tax-favored savings and pension plans with penalties for early withdrawals.

Moreover, stock ownership is highly concentrated. Based on the Fed's 1992 survey of consumer finances, Poterba and Samwick estimate 5% of households own 77% of all shares held by individuals and families. And 80% of households own 2%. Subtracting holdings in tax-favored pension and savings plans, the equity share of the bottom 80% of households drops to a scant 0.5%.

Thus, any impact on consumption from rising stock prices is likely to be found among the wealthiest families--say, the top 10% who account for 90% of household equity holdings. Yet in analyzing past stock market and consumption patterns, the researchers find no significant relationship between rising (or falling) stock prices and subsequent sales of luxury cars and other items purchased by affluent families.

The findings suggest that anyone looking for a direct wealth effect from last year's stock boom is likely to be disappointed. Still, the authors note that market rises are usually followed by consumption increases--presumably because stocks, by reflecting earnings expectations, remain a good leading indicator of overall economic activity. So the boom still points to a likely consumption rebound in the months ahead.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the study is what it implies about wealth dispersion. Because substantial stock ownership is confined to relatively few households whereas most families' net worth is centered in home ownership, the latest stock market boom suggests that the wealth gap in the U.S. has inevitably widened.BY GENE KORETZReturn to top

Return to top

WHY WAGES ARE FINALLY RISING

Slowing benefit costs have helped

What's behind the modest 0.4% rise in inflation-adjusted wages in the past two years after a decade of stagnation? According to David S. Wyss of DRI/McGraw-Hill, it isn't the payoff from rising productivity, as some experts have claimed: Data revisions indicate productivity growth hasn't really accelerated. Rather, it's the sharp slowdown in the cost of fringe benefits, which rose just 2.7% last year--less than wages.

Fringe benefits and wages, of course, make up total compensation. And because fringes were rising almost twice as fast as wages in the 1980s, employers had less left over to put into pay envelopes. Fringe costs took off in the '80s partly because of soaring medical costs but mainly because of rising payroll taxes for Social Security, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation. In the '90s, though, fringe increases have slowed as payroll tax rates stabilized and health-care inflation subsided.

As Wyss sees it, real wages have started to edge higher because some of the benefit from slowing fringe cost hikes is finally being passed on to employees. And while businesses also have used some of the fringe cost dividend to boost profits, history suggests that labor will eventually reap the full benefit.BY GENE KORETZReturn to top


Coke's Big Fat Problem
LIMITED-TIME OFFER SUBSCRIBE NOW

(enter your email)
(enter up to 5 email addresses, separated by commas)

Max 250 characters

 
blog comments powered by Disqus