The Indy Metro Area is comprised of Marion County plus the 7 surrounding “donut” counties. Marion has grown throughout the half-century, adding 175,000 people (22%). Rural Morgan and Shelby counties have not grown much. Hancock, Boone and Johnson counties have doubled their populations. Hendricks has grown from 50,000 to 175,000. Hamilton has grown exponentially from 50,000 to 350,000. This relatively rapid growth has made the metro area grow from 21% to 28% of the state total, adding state senators and representatives and causing increasing tensions between the one large, growing area and the slower growing, largely rural, rest of the state. There are suburban Chicago, Louisville and Cincinnati counties that have shown decent percentage growth, but they are a small share of the state. Lake County (Gary) is a special case, declining in population decade after decade.
The Indy Metro counties started 1970 with slightly higher per capita personal incomes, so the share of the state total was 24%, a bit above the 21% population share. By 2020, the Indy Metro area had captured one-third of the state’s personal income (34%), much higher than its 28% share of the population. Per capita incomes and population had both grown in the capital region.
Gross Domestic Product, the value of goods and services produced in Metro Indy, was one-third of the state total in 2001, the first year of available statistics. This measure increased to 38% by 2020. Nearly 2 out of every 5 dollars of statewide value-added output was generated by the Indy Metro area in 2020.
Indiana is a mostly rural state with Indy, a dozen small cities, a cluster of northern Indiana manufacturing counties, Gary (Lake County), Ft. Wayne (Allen) and Evansville (Vanderburgh). The Indy Metro Region has 9 times the density of people, income and production as the most rural counties. For example, it takes the 67 lowest population counties to equal the 1.9 million people living in the Indy Metro area.
The Indianapolis Metro area grew by a respectable 72% during this period, above the national average of 63%. The other Indiana counties grew by only 19%, about one-fourth as fast.
The Indy Metro area added 900,000 people, the same growth as the rest of the state.
With population and per capita income gains, the Indy Metro area’s real personal income grew almost four-fold, while the rest of the state grew by roughly 150%.
Indy Metro per capita income was 15% above the rest of the state in 1970 and twice as high (30%) by 2020.
The Indy Metro area has improved its per capita income versus the US average by 4 points, from 101 to 105. The other-Indiana counties have declined from 88% to 81% of the national average.
While the per capita income in the Indy Metro area is 30% higher than the rest of the state, the value of goods and services produced (GDP) per person is more than 50% higher than the rest of the state.
These wide, and growing, disparities in economic results may lead to increasing tensions between the relatively prosperous center and the largely “left behind” periphery. Fortunately, the real personal income per capita in the “other” counties did increase by 95%, from 24 to 48K during these 5 decades, even though the Indy folk’s income grew by 120%, from 28 to 62K.
“Many challenges are associated with drought, wildfire, invasive species, and outbreaks of insects and disease—all made worse by climate change. Warming temperatures mean more energy in the atmosphere, which is consistent with severe weather events, such as floods, tornadoes, blizzards, ice storms, and hurricanes.”
The US population increased by 61%, from 205 to 330 million.
Indiana population increased by 30%, from 5.2 to 6.8 million. Indiana added nearly 1.6 million people during these 5 decades. It would have added another 1.6 million if it grew as fast as the US average.
Indy Metro Area Grew by a Strong 72%.
The 8-county area grew from 1.1 to 1.9 million, adding 800,000 people and accounting for one-half of the whole state’s growth during this period. Growth has been consistently strong in each of the last 3 decades, adding 230,000, 220,000 and 220,000. The Indy Metro area has grown from 21% to 28% of the state’s total population.
6 Other Suburbs Grew by 76%
Porter (CHI) added 84K. Dearborn (CIN) added 20K. Warrick (EVN) added 35K. Harrison (20K), Floyd (23K) and Clark (43K) added to the metro Louisville population. In total, these 6 counties added 226,000 people to their 296,000 base, reaching 523,000 in 2020. They grew from 6% to 8% of the Indiana total.
Indiana and Purdue University Counties Grew by 79%
Monroe (76%) and Tippecanoe Counties (81%) displayed very similar growth rates. Their combined population increased by 153K, from 194K to 348K. Their share of the Indiana total increased from 4% to 5%.
These 18 counties out of Indiana’s 92, accounted for 76% of the population growth, increasing by 1.2M, from 1.6M to 2.8M people! Their share of the state total grew from 31% to 41%!
Northern Indiana Tier (South Bend, Elkhart, Ft. Wayne) Added 38%
The 10 counties stretching from St. Joseph (South Bend) to Allen (Ft. Wayne) showed modest, but consistent growth throughout the period. Elkhart was most successful, adding 81,000 people (64%). Ft. Wayne added 101,000 people, but just 36% growth. St. Joseph managed to add 27,000, but just an 11% growth rate. Marshall, Kosciusko, LaGrange, Noble, Whitley, Steuben and DeKalb counties each added at least 10,000 residents.
In total, this section added 326,000 citizens, growing from 860,000 to 1,190,000. It’s share of Indiana’s population shaded up from 16% to 17%.
Lake County (Gary) Lost 11%
Population dropped by 62K, from 546K to 484K. Lake County reduced its Indiana population share from 10.5% to 7.2%.
8 Small City Counties Lost 5%
These stand-alone counties each had at least 75,000 citizens in 1970. Together, with 902,000 people they accounted for 17.4% of Indiana’s total. Their population fell by 48,000 to 855,000, representing just 12.4% of the Indiana total in 2020. From best to worst population growth, using their main city for easy identification: Evansville (+13K), LaPorte (+1K), Kokomo (-1K), Terre Haute (-8K), Anderson (-9K), Richmond (-14K), Muncie (-15K) and Marion (-19K).
57 Rural Counties Added 13%
These counties all started with populations of less than 60,000 in 1970. The average county had 23,000 residents. This increased to 25,000 by 2020. 17 counties actually lost population across 50 years. Another 24 counties added less than 5,000 people. Just 16 counties added 6,000 people or more (including the next 5). Jaspers, Dubois, Jackson and Putnam each added more than 10,000 people. Bartholomew (Columbus) was the outlier, adding 28,000 people, growing by 48%, from 57,000 to 85,000 people.
In total, this group added 167,000 people, growing slowly from 1.283 to 1.449 million. Their share of the state total population dropped from 24.7% to 21.4%.
These 3 slower growing areas represent 66 counties, or 70% of the Indiana total. Their combined population increased by 2% in a half-century, edging up from 2.7 to 2.8 million. Their share of the Indiana total has declined from 53% to 41%, so possible future slow growth will have a relatively lesser impact on the state total.
Summary
The Indianapolis area, 6 other suburban counties and the homes of Indiana and Purdue Universities grew nicely at 75%, above the 61% national growth rate. 10 counties in the northern tier and Columbus showed modest growth. Two-thirds of Indiana’s counties grew at close to zero percent across 50 years. The 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 periods showed the same overall results.
Indiana shares these stagnant rural and old tech manufacturing county challenges with its neighboring states.
Hotel capacity increased by 50% from 1995 to 2019.
Demand grew at the same 50% rate, although not always in lockstep.
Occupancy averaged a healthy 63% (almost two-thirds) through this period, with significant differences due to changes in construction and the economy.
The price per room averaged about $125 per night in real 2020 dollars, again varying based on supply and demand, but overall, relatively constant.
Total hotel industry real revenue ($2020) for the 21 years from 1998 through 2019 increased by a little less than 50% according to Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) figures.
Real consumer only (leisure) sales increased by nearly 100% during this period.
Real consumer sales per person increased by about two-thirds.
Hotel industry operating statistics before 1995 are not readily available. The tremendous growth of the industry in the last 30 years of the twentieth century is illustrated by the more than three-fold growth in industry employment, from one-half million to 1.8 million. Note that employment did not follow the growth of rooms during the first 20 years of the next century.
Oxford Economics developed an industry promotion brochure in 2019 that has some longer-term data. Total real (inflation adjusted) revenue is up more than 4 times in 40 years. Our 1995-2018 data shows relatively small changes in average hotel prices. I suspect that there were “real” increases from 1978 – 1995 as the industry was growing quickly in response to consumer demand.
A similar measure, gross domestic product (GDP), or production value added, net of the cost of inputs, increased 3-fold in 40 years.
Consumer spending on accommodations has increased about 3 times as fast as GDP overall in the last 40 years.
Hotel purchases as a share of total consumer spending has increased by more than 80% in these 40 years.
Overall demand for hotel rooms per citizen for all uses (personal, business, government and foreign travelers) has increased by 20% across 30 years. Personal and foreign travel have grown at a faster rate.
The short-term rental market (personal vacation rentals, Airbnb) has grown from zero to 10% of the hotel room volume and appears to have years of growth ahead of it. This growth is not included in the industry summary figures.
Occupancy is forecast to return to the historical average of 63% for 2022 and increase further in the following years. The industry “lost” more than $100B of revenues due to the pandemic, so analysts estimate that the industry will return to “normal” employment, prices, profitability and reserves by 2025.
Consumer access to hotels and private rentals has increased by 3 or 4 times in the last 50 years, at a faster rate in the first 25 years, and somewhat slower in the last 25 years. Hotel business models at 63% occupancy seem to justify continued capital investments in new supply. Prices have been relatively flat for 25 years. Competition between brands, pricing segments, corporations and private owners seem to be effective at providing adequate capacity and service options at competitive prices.
Ronald Reagan taunted Jimmy Carter with this question to voters in the 1980 debates. It helped him win.
Twelve years later, James Carville helped Democrats return from the political wilderness in 1992 with his advice to Bill Clinton that “it’s the economy, stupid”.
Politicians have used various measures, from unemployment to inflation to the “misery index” to jobs created to productivity to the stock market, to promote their success and detract from their opponents.
I want to focus on one measure, the ratio of the number unemployed to the number of job openings, to highlight the strength of the American economy in the last dozen years.
The Bush economy was widely criticized for its “jobless recovery” following the economically healthier Reagan and Clinton presidencies. The presidency started at close to 1 unemployed person per job opening. The recession pushed this up to 2.5x and then 3.0x. In labor market terms, this is a huge difference. At 1:1 or 1.5:1, unemployed workers expect to be re-employed quickly. At 3:1, some may enter the dark days of the “long-term unemployed”. After 3 years, the economy DID recover to 1.5:1, but it was unable to improve further. The “Great Recession” was a brutal job killer, pushing this measure of labor market tightness up four-fold, from 1.5X to more than 6X before its peak in the first half of 2010, as Obama and congress and the federal reserve bank wrestled with the situation.
Obama: Recovery and “New Territory”
Between April, 2010 and April, 2012, the economy cut this ratio in half, from 6x to 3x, a very solid performance. It took 3 years, until April, 2015, to complete the next 50% reduction, from 3x to the historically “very solid” 1.5X. The economy continued its growth for the next 2 years, but at a slower pace, reducing this ratio to 1.3X.
Trump: Even Better
The Trump economy continued to improve for the first 18 months of his term, reducing this ratio from 1.3X to 0.8X by September, 2018. This was a time of record low unemployment and economists recalculating their standard of “full employment”. While the economy continued to grow, the unemployment rate continued to decline and the stock market continued to climb, THIS measure had reached its minimum before the 2018 mid-term elections. It remained steady at the very positive level of 4 job seekers for every 5 jobs (0.8) for the next 17 months, until the pandemic disrupted everything. The ratio quickly shot up to 5X, not as high as the 6X that Obama faced, but very high. It quickly recovered to 1.4X by the end of Trump’s term. This was partly job recovery and partly fewer job seekers, but it was an amazing recovery in historic terms. Recall that 1.5X was “a good as it got” during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Biden: Even Better, Again !
In the first 6 months of the Biden presidency, this ratio dropped from 1.4X back down to the prior record level of 0.8X. Yes, by July, 2021, there were 5 jobs available for every 4 job seekers. This was as low as the ratio had previously fallen, even as the Trump economy piggybacked on the Obama economy and continued its extraordinary run. The ratio continued to fall in the next 6 months to 0.6X, an unheard-of level. 5 jobs for every 3 job seekers. It’s “no wonder” that voluntary job quits are at unprecedented levels. For, perhaps, the first time in American history, “everyone who wants to work, can find a job”. Whether you are right or left, Dem or Rep, this is “good news”. This is “great news”. Wages for the “bottom 20%” are rising in real terms. Income inequality is declining, a bit. The economy seems to be able to digest this new condition. And, the economy is not done growing, innovating, creating businesses, creating jobs, exporting, etc. About 2% of Americans are likely to be attracted back into the workforce in the next year or two, keeping the headline unemployment rate from going much below 4%, but pushing US real GDP growth to 4% in 2022 and close to 4% in 2023.
Summary
The “Great Recession” and the “once in a century pandemic” have been unable to disrupt the ongoing progress of the American economy and labor market. As a nation, IMHO, we have cultural and political challenges, but we “aught” to appreciate the power of the American economy to move forward.
Cable TV subscribers and networks grew rapidly through the 1980’s and 1990’s reaching near universal availability. US subscribers plateaued from 2009-2014 at 100 million before rapidly declining to 74million in 2021. As the first graph shows, much of the decline has been a substitution of internet for cable access to media content. This is “good news” because everyone that wants it has access, but a new, better product has started to rapidly displace this 50 year-old technology.
Ownership of a home desktop or laptop computer also remains near universal, at 77% in 2021. The ownership of tablet computers has risen from 14% in 2012 to a majority of homes (53%) in 2021.
Broadband internet access has rapidly grown from 1% of homes in 2000 to 58% in 2008 to 77% in 2021. The retired generation (65+) lags behind at 64% connectivity. Black (71%) and Hispanic (65%) homes are below the average. Rural residents are also less connected (72%).
Internet Users
Pew Research also reports that the percentage of individuals that are internet users has nearly doubled from 52% in 2000 to (near universal) 93% in 2021. About three-fourths of older individuals (65+) are “surfing the web”. 97% of others are connected. There is no major difference between racial categories. Rural citizens are little less engaged (90%).
Mobile phone ownership has grown from 62% in 2002 to 97% today. Seniors (65+) have slightly lower ownership rates (92%). Racial groups have the same ownership. Rural residents have slightly lower ownership rates (94%).
Smart phone ownership has grown rapidly from 35% in 2011 to 77% in 2016 to 85% in 2021. Ownership rates vary by age: 18-49 (95%), 50-64 (83%) and 65+ (61%). There is no racial ownership gap. Rural residents have an 80% ownership rate.
Summary
Although we saw news coverage during the pandemic which highlighted the imperfect access to electronic devices and network required for effective on-line learning, the US is approaching a state where nearly everyone has access. Cable TV access is now post-peak. TV network access is increasingly through the internet. Broadband access is the weakest measure at 77% ownership. Cell phone ownership is universal and smart phone ownership will reach that level before the end of the decade.
Postscript: Economic Impact = 10% of GDP
Industry associations, journalists and consultants wrestle with each other to capture and communicate the economic value added by personal computers, smart phones and the internet. In rough terms, about 10% of GDP is due to the direct and indirect value of these technologies that did not exist in any economically material amount in 1980, just 40 years ago. Good news? No, GREAT NEWS.
At the height of the cold war, in the year on my birth (1956), Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev warned the US that “we will bury you”. Agriculture was still a very large share of the USSR and US economies. He couldn’t have been more wrong.
US statisticians have long separated the farm and nonfarm economies. A “census of agriculture” is conducted every 5 years to complement other economic statistics collected. The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) does a great job of compiling statistics for the narrow (farming), moderate (fishing, timber) and broad (ag based production) agriculture industries.
I’ve chosen to examine the near 60-year period from 1959-2017 covered by the censuses of agriculture. During this time, Real (inflation adjusted) US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, increased from $3 to $18 trillion dollars, a near 6-fold increase, or 3% annually, year after year after year.
We don’t have an economic series that tracks wage and salary income back before 1979, but real disposable income per capita exists for this whole time period. This indicator or labor costs increased 3.4 times, from $12,600 to $42,900, or 2.1% annually. Given the strong growth of the US economy and its many new opportunities AND the increase in labor costs facing the oldest industry, one might have agreed with the Soviet premier back in 1956, at least regarding US agriculture. But, that prediction was wrong.
Index of Unit Outputs
The US agricultural economy grew to more than 2.5 times its 1959 base by 2017. It grew by 75% in the first 30 years and an additional 50% on top of that new base. The consistent pattern of growth is striking.
Real Market Value Produced
The Ag economy grew (based on variable market prices) 5-fold from $80B to $390B during these six decades, increasing by 110% in the first 30 years and a compounded 130% in the most recent 30 years.
Land Input (Acres)
The amount of land dedicated to production agriculture has decreased by 20% during our period of focus, from 1.1B to 0.9B. The decline was faster in the first 30 years (14%) than the second 30 years (7%). Despite this reduced demand for agricultural land, the value of such land has increased in real terms as its productivity has grown.
Labor Inputs FTE
The full-time equivalent labor force in the ag industry, as best as the USDA can measure it, dropped by nearly two-thirds in our six decades, from 2 million to about 700,000. It fell more rapidly in the first 30 years (50%), but a solid 25% in the most recent 30 years.
Total Factor Productivity
Economists try to measure land, labor and capital as inputs to the agricultural production process. As noted above, land and labor have declined. Capital – equipment, improvements, patents, inventory, etc. has increased. Overall, the total inputs have remained roughly flat for 60 years. Hence, almost ALL of the increased unit output is due to increases in productivity. Better crops, better labor skills, better processes, better methods, better irrigation, better crop rotation and selection, etc. Economists call this “total factor productivity”. After accounting for measurable increased inputs, the remaining improvement is called “productivity”.
The oldest industry in the world, increased its productivity in the US by 150% in these six decades; by two-thirds in the first 30 years and by one-half on the higher base in the second 30 years.
Output per Labor Unit (Labor Productivity)
The strong increase in production combined with the two-thirds reduction in FTE labor required resulted in a 7-fold measure of improved labor productivity. The land input was down by 20% and the capital input increased significantly, but in simple terms, each hour of labor in 2017 delivered 7 times as much output as the labor in 1959. The increase was 2.5x in the first 30 years and a solid 2x in the more recent 30 years.
US Agriculture Output Price Index
The index of agricultural industry output prices has increased by 3-4x versus 8x for the consumer price index or GDP price index.
Real Market Value Produced Per Acre
The real market value of ag goods produced increased 5-fold. The land acres required declined by 20%. The output value per acre figure improved 6-fold. Again, labor inputs declined and capital inputs increased. This measure of land productivity improved by 150% in both of the first and second 30-year periods.
Real Agricultural Exports
Real ag exports increased 4-fold in these 6 decades, doubling in the first and second 30-year periods.
Summary
Less land and labor. More capital (equipment). Much better R&D and processes. Total factor productivity up by 150% across 6 decades, an average of 1.6% year after year after year.
The US ag industry faces many challenges today. Environmental issues and climate change. Water shortages. Lower public and private R&D investment. Brain drain. Political polarization. Concentration of key property rights. Low wage labor access. Changing trade rules. Nonetheless, the last 60 years indicates that this industry is capable of delivering further increases in production and productivity for the next 60 years.
US GDP/Capita remains the world leader among large countries in 2018. I’ve extracted comparison data for a dozen representative countries covering the period of 1900 through 2018.
Kuwait/Qatar/Brunei, Singapore/Hong Kong and Iceland/Norway/Luxembourg have higher GDP/Person. For reference, Saudi Arabia is just below the US, while other potential key comparison countries are much lower: South Korea ($39), Russia ($26) and China ($17).
Taking the long view (120 years), this above (table) set of countries grew their real (inflation adjusted) GDP per person 9-fold, from just $4,000 to $36,000. The US increased 7-fold, from an $8,000 initial position (twice as high) to $55,000 (still 60% higher).
Sweden (14x), Brazil (16x) and Japan (18x) lead the way in century long growth. Argentina (4x) and the UK (5x) were the only countries with slower percentage growth than the US. The US was the world-leader in 1900, providing an advantage for generating growth dollars and a governor on generating percentage growth. The history of the twentieth century was one of less developed countries using technology transfer and increased trade to “catch up” with the historic leaders.
Prior to WW II, most countries grew by the average 60%. Germany and Brazil grew a little faster (80%). Japan and Sweden grew much faster (130%).
Growth from 1960 until 2018 averaged a remarkable 240%! Japan grew 5-fold, leading the way for the “Asian Tigers”. Brazil, Hungary and Germany grew 4-fold. The UK continued its subpar performance (180%), despite the alleged Thatcher revolution and Argentina fell even further behind (110%). US growth was a little slower than average (210%) in the last 60 years, from a starting base of $18,000 versus the average of $10,000 (80% higher).
On a percentage basis, the US growth in output per person was slower than average. On a dollars basis, it remained the market leader overall and added more value than all other countries.
For the whole 120 year period, the US added $47,000 to its GDP/person, growing from $8,000 to $55,000. Australia (43), Germany (41), Sweden (41) and Canada (40) were solid competitors. Japan, France, UK and Italy added more than $30,000 per person. Hungary, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil lagged, adding just $10-20,000.
In the last 60 years, the US added $37,000 to $GDP/capita, tripling its $18,000 base. Australia (36), Germany (34), Sweden (31), Canada (31) and Japan (32) were close competitors. France, UK, Italy and Hungary added $20-27,000. Argentina, Mexico and Brazil grew more slowly ($10-12,000).
Per Capita GDP as % of USA
Another way to place the US performance in perspective is to use it as the baseline and plot other countries’ per capita GDP as a percentage of the US level.
There are different ways to compare GDP across countries. There is not a full consensus among economists. I’m using data from the Maddison Project Database. The data shown on the Worldometer website uses a different method, but the basic results are comparable.
First, we see that the US has had the highest $GDP/capita throughout the 120 year period. In 1900, the US was at $8,000 and second place UK was at $7,600, beginning its long relative decline from being THE imperial power to a mid-level (nuclear armed) European country. In 2018, the US produces $55,000 per person versus second place Australia at $50,000 and third place Germany at $46,000. Adjacent Canada generates 20% less value at $45,000. Formerly high-flying Japan now rests at $39,000 per person.
Argentina is an outlier, dropping from 60% to just 35% of US income per person for various political, financial, economic and trade reasons. Hungary is representative of smaller eastern European nations that remained at just 35% of US levels until the fall of the Berlin wall and subsequent integration into the European economy, allowing them to grow towards 50% of the US level. Mexico has slowly grown from 20% to 30% of the US level, but not been able to accelerate further. Brazil has grown from just 10% to nearly 30% of the US level, with significant volatility.
The UK fell from 90% to 70% of the US value added per citizen level by 1970, where it has remained. France weathered the 2 world wars at 55% of the US income level. It recovered nicely to 75% by 1970, peaked near 80% and then drifted back to 70% with its 4-day work weeks. Italy remained at just 40% of the US level through the war years. It grew remarkably to 70% of the US level by 1970, where it remained, before falling back somewhat in the last decade. Japan also struggled through the war years, averaging 30% of the US level. It rocketed to 80% of the US level by 1990, riding total quality management, manufacturing, peacetime and expanded trade. It has dropped back to 70% of the US level.
Australia level pegged the US at 80% for much of the period, until the China lead commodities demand boom pulled it up to 90% recently. Canada grew from a rural, thinly populated, commodities-oriented country at 60% of the US up to 80% by 1970 and has remained in the low 80 percents since then. Germany began the century at 60% of the US level. Following two failed wars, it attained 70% of the US level by 1960. Digesting East Germany was a challenge, but Germany was at 75% of US levels in the early 2000’s and exceeded 80% soon thereafter, riding its manufacturing export capabilities.
Summary
US $GDP/Capita continues to lead the world, as it has done for more than a century. The US percentage growth rate has slowed, but the incremental value added has remained first among large countries. Some other countries have shown periods of relatively strong growth, but none has demonstrated an ability to challenge the US. A number of European countries have found a “mixed” market approach that is competitive with the US, leveraging lower trade barriers within the EU and across the world.
China Postscript
China $GDP/capita (000’s) numbers for 1950 through 2018 are 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.9, 3.0, 4.7, 9.7 and 13.1. Low scoring Argentina (19), Mexico (16) and Brazil (14) each have higher productivity per person. China per capita GROWTH per decade figures are 0.3, 0.3, 0.5, 1.1, 1.6, 5.0, and 3.4 (thousands). The percentage figures are very impressive. Considering China’s 1.4 billion population, they are very impressive. Comparable US decade growth (thousands/person) figures are 3, 6, 5, 7, 9, 3 and 6.
The US has a century-long track record of generating an extra $5,000 per person of value-added output each decade. China has leveraged its low-wage labor, a young work force, manufacturing technology transfer, willing investors, willing importers and an international free trade system to drive its growth. The country has maintained political stability and invested in its economic infrastructure, using economic progress and some level of economic freedom to offset the risks of its political and social restrictions. It faces a flat population and shrinking working-age population before it transitions its remaining rural work force into the manufacturing or urban environment.
It is facing what economists call the “middle income trap”, where countries with rapid economic growth based upon manufacturing or resource extraction need to transition a large part of their economy to higher value-added services and advanced manufacturing. Many countries have failed to make this transition. Some have done so.
I’ve worked closely with Chinese electronics firms for more than 25 years. Their capabilities are much greater than what is recorded in the US media. They have solid manufacturing capabilities, including Japanese-style process improvement. They have very strong sales, marketing and account management capabilities, focused on their global business-to-business customers. They have strong product development engineering capabilities and growing project management skills. They have modern MBA management skills and business styles. Their “clusters” of manufacturing, parts, R&D, resources and logistics skills point to long-term competitive advantages in many industries.
I believe that China will continue to be a manufacturing powerhouse, despite trade restrictions. China is well positioned to deliver products to growing markets in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
That being said, I am not concerned that China will eclipse the US in total productivity per citizen in the next 50 years. The gap is simply too large. In 50 years, the US will very conservatively grow from $55,000 to $80,000 of output per person (8%/decade). Mathematically, this requires 3.7% growth in China each year for 50 years, or 44% growth per decade compounded to reach 6.2 times the current level. The historical data contains 1 or 2 decades of 40% growth for some exceptional countries, but not 8 (3 in the bank, plus 5 in the future). If China can grow by 6% annually for one decade (79%) and 5% annually for the next decade (63%), it COULD then grow by just 2.5% annually (28%/decade) to catch the US in 2070.
China has 1.4 billion people versus 330 million in the US. Even including Canada and Mexico, the North American population is just 0.5 million. Europe has roughly 750 million people. Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand have just over 200 million people. Indian has 1.4 billion people, Africa 1.2 billion and Latin America 0.7 billion. China will be a growing world economic and military power, even with its population peaking in 2025-30. The US should consider China to be its primary global rival, perhaps with less “us versus them” posturing. China aims to protect its economic, political and military interests, never again to be dominated and humiliated by outsiders. But, China truly considers itself to be the “center of the universe” and has no “need” to dominate the rest of the world or export its ideology. There are low confrontation options available.
Real (inflation adjusted) Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced in the US reached $20.8 trillion in 2020, compared with only $0.7 trillion in 1900. This is a nearly 30-fold growth across 120 years.
Year
Real $GDP (T)
Added $GDP
Percent
1900
0.7
1910
1.0
0.3
46%
1920
1.3
0.3
21%
1930
1.5
0.3
22%
1940
1.8
0.3
20%
1950
2.7
0.8
45%
1960
3.7
1.1
41%
1970
5.6
1.9
50%
1980
7.8
2.1
38%
1990
10.6
2.9
37%
2000
14.9
4.3
40%
2010
17.6
2.7
18%
2020
20.8
3.2
18%
It’s difficult to “digest” 20.8 trillion dollars. But, it is true that the US economy in 2020 was ten (10) times as large as it was in 1952, well into the post-war economic boom period. The population had more than doubled and the productivity of the economy had increased more than three-fold across this period.
The economy is 3 times as large as it was in 1975, when it was entering a challenging period of stagflation, foreign competition, high interest rates, energy shortages, environmental concerns and divided politics.
The economy is twice as large (in real terms) as it was in 1990.
The economy grew by an average of 42% per decade from 1940 through 2000. The last two decades have grown by 18% each, similar to the growth from 1910 through 1940.
However, the amount of growth, measured in real dollars, has continued at a very strong pace. The economy averaged growth of $2.8 trillion per decade from 1970 through 2020. That is roughly the size of the whole economy in 1950! The latest decade recorded a $3.2 trillion increase, larger than the output of the whole economy in 1950, and the second largest growth ever.
US Population
Year
Population (M)
Added (M)
Percent
1900
76
1910
92
16
21%
1920
106
14
15%
1930
123
17
16%
1940
132
9
7%
1950
151
19
14%
1960
179
28
19%
1970
203
24
13%
1980
227
23
12%
1990
249
22
10%
2000
281
33
13%
2010
309
27
10%
2020
331
23
7%
The US population has increased by 4.3 times since 1900, from 76 to 331 million people.
The population doubled from 1900 to 1950 and then doubled again since 1955.
The US added an average of 25 million new residents per decade from 1940 to 2020 (12%).
In the last 30 years, the US has added 85 million residents; the same number as its total population in 1905!
Despite many challenges in the last century, the US population has grown consistently and significantly.
Real $GDP Per Capita
Year
Real $GDP/Capita
$ Added
Percent
1900
9,300
1910
11,200
1,900
20%
1920
11,800
600
5%
1930
12,400
600
5%
1940
13,900
1,500
12%
1950
17,600
3,700
27%
1960
20,900
3,300
19%
1970
27,700
6,800
33%
1980
34,300
6,600
24%
1990
42,800
8,500
25%
2000
53,100
10,300
24%
2010
57,100
4,000
8%
2020
62,700
5,600
10%
Real (inflation-adjusted) output per person has grown 6.7 times since 1900!
It has doubled since 1975, tripled since 1960 and quadrupled since 1945. Yes, today’s economy produces four times as much, per person, as the supercharged Word War II winning “arsenal of democracy”. It produces twice as much per person as the 1975 economy which then appeared to plateau in the face of Japanese import competition.
From 1960 through 2020, the economy has added an average of $7,000 more output per American for each decade.
While improved output/productivity in the last 2 decades has not matched that of 1960-2000, it still added $9,600 of output per resident, more than the total output per resident in 1900. In the last 3 decades combined, the economy has added nearly $20,000 of output/income per person, an amount equal to the total output/income per person in the late 1950’s.
Good News 