美国经济复苏数字谈

    行为金融学告诉我们，在跟金钱有关的问题上，美国人总会反反复复地去做两件事——适应和比较。他们不断地去适应自己现有财富水平。涨了工资后，是否在几周之后才想到，加薪之前自己是怎么过来的？这就是适应。同时，他们会拿自己跟别人相比。拥有多少财富往往不是那么重要，重要的是和隔壁办公室的同事或者邻居相比，我们的财富是多还是少。

    最新公布的《2013年美国消费者金融调查报告》（2013 Survey of Consumer Finances）给了我们充分和别人进行比较的机会。本周一，我有机会聆听那些参与本次调查的美联储（Federal Reserve）经济学家介绍情况。尽管大衰退在2009年就已经结束，但是为什么很大一部分美国人仍然觉得自己和经济复苏擦肩而过？深入了解这些经济学家的介绍后，这个问题的答案就一目了然了。以下是本次调查的一些要点：

    不是那1%，而是那3%。

    尽管占据新闻头条的总是美国人中最富有的那1%（以及相应的那99%），但本次调查表明，变化最大的是那3%最富有的人，至少从收入上来看是这样。按比例计算，这3%美国人的收入在大衰退期间及以后受到了重大影响。2007年，这部分人占美国人收入的31.4%。到2010年，这个数字降至27.7%。随后基本上又回到了原来的水平，反弹至30.5%。有意思的是，在最富有的那10%美国人中，剩下的那些人（也就是排在4%-10%之间的人）占美国人收入的比例从1989年开始就一直稳定在17%。在大衰退期间，那3%最富有的人所持财富比重没有出现起伏，而是从1989年的44.8%稳步升至2013年的54.4%。

    大学文凭的重要性超乎以往。

    平均而言，美国家庭的税前收入（剔除通胀因素）中位数在2010-2013年期间下降了4.7%。对于只有高中文化程度的家庭来说，这个数字的跌幅更大，达到了5.6%。实际收入出现增长的群体只有两个：一是收入水平最高的那20%的人，他们的收入上升了4.3%；二是拥有大学文凭的人，他们的收入提高了1.1%。美联储经济学家指出，由此可以看出，尽管总就业人数又超过了大衰退之前的水平，但是新出现的就业机会质量并不高，往往薪酬都较低。

    普遍对股市感到害怕。

    持有股票资产的美国家庭所占比重在2001年达到最高点，随后开始滑落。2007-2013年间这个数字一直呈下行态势。2013年，48.8%的美国家庭持有股票（但大多数都是通过退休金计划，而非直接持股）。在2007年的消费者金融调查报告（这项调查每3年进行一次）中，这个数字为53.3%。美联储经济学家认为，虽然股市强劲反弹，但这个持股家庭比重的变化表明，股票价格的波动也许大得让人难以承受，特别是对中等收入群体来说。股市投资高度集中在收入最多的那部分人中，进而帮助那10%最富有的人实现了财富回升（他们所持股票的平均价值从2010年的88.5万美元上升到了2013年的96.9万美元）。

    另一个发现是，拥有退休金账户[包括任何类型的账户，如个人退休金账户（IRA）、401(k)账户、个体户退休金账户（Keoghs）]的美国家庭所占比例在2013年跌至50%以下，这让人感到担心。美联储经济学家指出，这可能不光是因为市场中的忧虑情绪，同时也是就业大趋势使然。高报酬的好工作往往会提供401(k)退休金方案，而美国出现的就业机会并不属于这种类型。对于拥有退休金账户的家庭来说，情况较好——他们的退休金账户价值中位数从2010年的4.72万美元提高到了2013年的5.9万美元，平均账户价值从18.34万美元上升到了20.13万美元。

    消费者负债情况好转。

    最后，尽管美国人的收入可能不如以前，但至少美国人对收入的管理稍有好转。怎么做到的？减少借贷。美国人降低了信用卡透支水平。在整个2013年，美国的新车贷款增速都较低（不过，车贷在过去一年中已经出现上升势头）。学生贷款确实仍在增长，负债5-10万美元的美国家庭所占的比重从2001年的6%升至2013年的13%，负债超过10万美元的家庭占比从1%增长到了6%。但美联储经济学家指出，贷款最多的人是医生、律师等职业人士，他们可能有能力偿还债务，这让美国家庭的长期债务问题看上去不是那么令人担心。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    Behavioral finance teaches us that where money is concerned, Americans do two things over and over again. We adapt and we compare. We adapt to how much we have. Ever get a raise only to wonder a few weeks later how you ever lived on less? You adapted. And we compare ourselves to others. How much we have tends not to be as important as whether we have more or less than the colleague in the next office or the family next door.

    The newly released 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances offers ample opportunity for the latter. I had the opportunity on Monday to debrief with a group of Federal Reserve economists who worked on the research. Diving in, it’s easy to see why – despite the fact that the recession ended in 2009 — much of the country still feels as if the recovery passed it by. Here are high (and low) points:

    It’s not the top 1%, it’s the top 3%.

    Although the top 1% of wealthy Americans (and the corresponding 99%) dominate the headlines, the research shows that the top 3% is where the action is – at least as far as income is concerned. The top 3% took a huge hit, proportionately, in income during and following the recession. In 2007, this segment of the population represented 31.4% of the income in the U.S. By 2010, their share had fallen to 27.7%. It has since almost fully recovered, rebounding to 30.5%. Interestingly, the share of income of the rest of the top 10% (the top 4%-10%) has held steady at 17% since 1989. The share of wealth held by the top 3% didn’t swing during the recession. Rather, it has been on a steady climb from 44.8% in 1989 to 54.4% in 2013.

    More than ever, a college degree is a must.

    On average, median pre-tax income (adjusted for inflation) fell for all families by 4.7% between 2010 to 2013. It dropped even further – 5.6% — for those with a high school education only. The only two groups to show real income growth were the top 20% of earners, where income grew by 4.3% and those with a college degree, where income grew by 1.1%. This, the economists noted, was a reflection of the fact that even though total employment is back above it’s pre-recession level, the jobs created haven’t been quality ones. Rather, they’re of the low-wage variety.

    Fear of the stock market prevails.

    The percentage of American families that own stocks – which peaked in 2001 before beginning to decline – continued to trend down between 2007 and 2013. In 2013, 48.8% of families owned stocks (most through retirement plans rather than directly). That compares with 53.3% in the 2007 survey (the Survey of Consumer Finances is conducted every three years.) That this happened despite the strong rebound in the stock market is a sign, the economists noted, that the volatility in the markets may simply have proven too much to take, particularly for middle income people. Stock ownership is highly concentrated at the top of the income distribution – and contributed to the rebound in wealth among the top 10% (the mean value of their stock holdings rose from $885,000 in 2010 to $969,000 in 2013.)

    A worrisome ancillary finding shows that the percentage of American families with retirement accounts of all types (IRAs, 401(k)s, Keoghs, etc.) slipped below 50% in 2013. This is likely not just market fear, the economists noted, but part of the general jobs trend. Good high paying jobs tend to come with 401(k) options. Those are not the type being created in this country. For those with retirement accounts, the picture was rosier. The median value rose from $47,200 in 2010 to $59,000 in 2013; the mean from $183,400 to $201,300.

    Better news on consumer debt.

    Finally, although we may not be earning as much, at least we’re managing it a little bit better. How? By borrowing less. We’re paying down our credit card balances. Through 2013, we were slower to take out new car loans (however, that activity has picked up in the past year). And although student debt has indeed continued to grow, the economists point out that the people taking out the largest sums – the percentage of families with outstanding balances in the $50,000 to $100,000 range jumped from 6% in 2001 to 13% in 2013, those with balances of $100,000+ from 1% to 6% over the same time period – are doctors, lawyers and other professionals who are likely to have the wherewithal to pay that money back, raising less concern over the long-run burden on families.