Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Real wages for the bottom 50% of earners have risen 9.6% since 2017, adding an estimated $150bn in annual spending power, or $250bn including income sources such as social security. Because lower-income consumers spend more of each extra dollar on goods, goods consumption has remained elevated rather than shifting back toward services.

Ethan Wu Financial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Spencer Hill @GoldmanSachs find bottom 50% wage gains reshape spending patterns: +9.6% real wages since 2017 adds $150-250bn annual purchasing power—sustained goods consumption surge signals structural shift in consumer behavior.

Are rising real wages for low earners keeping goods spending elevated?

Core argument: Real wages for the bottom 50% of earners have risen 9.6% since 2017, adding about $150bn in annual spending power, or $250bn including other income sources such as social security.

Real wage levels for the bottom 50% of earners have increased by 9.6% since 2017, translating to an additional $150bn in annual spending power, rising to $250bn when including other income sources like social security. This increase in disposable income supports higher consumer spending, particularly on goods, as lower-income consumers tend to spend more of each extra dollar earned on goods. Despite expectations of a shift back to services spending post-pandemic, goods consumption remains elevated due to these stronger consumer finances. The sustained increase in disposable income and muted financial distress suggest that the current level of goods spending is sustainable, with implications for economic growth and inflation dynamics.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Real wages for the bottom 50% of earners have risen 9.6% since 2017, adding about $150bn in annual spending power, or $250bn including other income sources such as social security.
  2. Goods consumption remains elevated rather than rotating back toward services after the pandemic, supported by stronger finances among lower-income consumers, who spend more of each extra dollar earned on goods.
  3. The sustained rise in disposable income and muted financial distress suggest the current level of goods spending is sustainable, with implications for economic growth and inflation dynamics.

A research note from GS’s Spencer Hill, which finds that real wage levels for bottom 50 percent earners were almost 10% higher than in 2017, supporting sustainably higher levels of consumer spending.

Why goods spending isnt falling: Extended Excerpt Image 1


“…In a note to clients published on Sunday, Spencer Hill of Goldman Sachs argues that something has changed. “Sustainably stronger consumer finances” have created fresh spending power for people at the bottom of the income distribution. After adjusting for composition effects, Hill estimates that real wage levels for the bottom 50 percent of earners were 6.2 percent higher in the first quarter of this year than in 2019 — and 9.6 percent higher than in 2017. That implies something like $150bn per year in additional spending power for the bottom half. The number rises to $250bn once you throw in other disposable income sources such as social security payments. This matters for two reasons: lower-income consumers spend more of each extra dollar earned, and they spend more of each extra dollar earned on goods, specifically. So long as bottom-half consumers have money to spend, goods consumption should stay high….”

Robert Armstrong and Ethan Wu, "Why goods spending isn’t falling,"Financial Times, April 25, 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/47002aa9-18b3-4db4-ba34-3bac45d82268

Why goods spending isn’t falling

There is an enigma at the centre of the US economy: what’s up with goods spending?

The conventional story is well known. Fearing a pandemic depression, Congress and the Federal Reserve unleashed enormous fiscal and monetary stimulus. Everyone was afraid of in-person services businesses, so all that money flooded into the goods sector. At the peak, in March 2021, inflation-adjusted goods consumption had shot up 21 percent from pre-pandemic levels, and goods inflation wasn’t far behind. This, though, was transitory. Eventually everyone had their fill of buying dressers and air fryers. Much ink was spilled about the great goods-to-services rotation: goods spending should return to trend as services spending rises. In the last year or so, it’s been all about inflation and spending in services.

But what if that’s wrong? What if real goods spending never falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but instead plateaus at a higher level? It’s now been three years since lockdowns began and any trend-reversion is hard to spot:

Why goods spending isnt falling: Extended Excerpt Image 2


In a note to clients published on Sunday, Spencer Hill of Goldman Sachs argues that something has changed. “Sustainably stronger consumer finances” have created fresh spending power for people at the bottom of the income distribution. After adjusting for composition effects, Hill estimates that real wage levels for the bottom 50 percent of earners were 6.2 percent higher in the first quarter of this year than in 2019 — and 9.6 percent higher than in 2017. That implies something like $150bn per year in additional spending power for the bottom half. The number rises to $250bn once you throw in other disposable income sources such as social security payments.

This matters for two reasons: lower-income consumers spend more of each extra dollar earned, and they spend more of each extra dollar earned on goods, specifically. So long as bottom-half consumers have money to spend, goods consumption should stay high.

Is it sustainable, though? Comparing detailed (but less timely) consumer survey data for 2021 to 2019, Hill argues that it is. Consumer financial distress looks muted by historical standards. More than $1tn in excess savings is still out there. On top of that: "While the $1.6tn increase in consumer goods spending over three years is enormous in absolute terms, it may indeed be sustainable in the context of the $3.3tn rise in disposable income and the proportionately smaller spending increases for services categories on net. The increase in goods spending also does not look as outsized when one considers the strong disposable income growth of the bottom 3-4 income quintiles — recall that data imply a high marginal propensity to consume goods for lower- and middle-income consumers."

In other words, consumers are broadly spending no more than what they’re earning. After stripping out certain (misleading) imputed costs, Hill finds that nominal spending has risen by $3.5tn and nominal income by $3.3tn:

Why goods spending isnt falling: Extended Excerpt Image 3


We’ve spent time laying out Hill’s argument because it highlights an important point: the distribution of post-pandemic income gains has macroeconomic implications. If he is right, we’d expect both growth and inflation to be stickier — sharpening the policy trade-off the Fed faces. We’ll have more to say tomorrow, but as a first pass, his case fits with other research finding that inequality hurts demand. This is in part because the rich mostly save their money, and in part because such a “savings glut of the rich” is linked to burdensome consumer debts. That curtailing inequality juices demand seems not too far a leap.

Showing 218 database articles primarily about Business Cycle