Where the Millionaires Are

March 12, 2017March 13, 2017 Phillip Nones Demographics, Economics, Employment, Social Commentary Affluent Market, Affluents, Demographics, Millionaires, Phoenix Marketing International, Wealth & Affluent Monitor, Wealth Distribution, Wealth Gap

Look to the states won by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Proportion of “millionaire households” by state (darker shades equals higher proportion of millionaires).

Over the past few years, we’ve heard a good deal about income inequality in the United States. One persistent narrative is that the wealthiest and highest-income households continue to do well – and indeed are improving their relative standing – while many other families struggle financially.

The most recent statistical reporting seems to bears this out.

According to the annual Wealth & Affluent Monitor released by research and insights firm Phoenix Marketing International, the total tally of U.S. millionaire households is up more than 800,000 over the past years.

And if we go back to 2006, before the financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession, the number of millionaire households has increased by ~1.3 million since that time.

[For purposes of the Phoenix report, “millionaire households” are defined as those that have $1 million or more in investable assets. Collectively, these households possess approximately $20 billion in liquid wealth, which is nearly 60% of the entire liquid wealth in America.]

Even with a growing tally, so-called “millionaire households” still represent around 5% of all U.S. households, or approximately 6.8 million in total. That percentage is nearly flat (up only slightly to 5.1% from 4.8% in 2006).

Tellingly, there is a direct correlation between the states with the largest proportion of millionaire households and how those states voted in the most recent presidential election. Every one of the top millionaire states is located on the east or west coasts – and all but one of them was won by Hillary Clinton:

#1 Maryland
#2 Connecticut
#3 New Jersey
#4 Hawaii
#5 Alaska
#6 Massachusetts
#7 New Hampshire
#8 Virginia
#9 DC
#10 Delaware

Looking at the geographic makeup of the states with the highest share of millionaires helps explain how “elitist” political arguments had a degree resonance in the 2016 campaign that may have surprised some observers.

Nearly half of the jurisdictions Hillary Clinton won are part of the “Top 10” millionaire grouping, whereas just one of Donald Trump’s states can be found there.

But it’s when we look at the tiers below the “millionaire households” category that things come into even greater focus. The Phoenix report shows that “near-affluent” households in the United States – the approximately 14 million households having investable assets ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 – actually saw their total investable assets decline in the past year.

“Affluent” households, which occupy the space in between the “near-affluents” and the “millionaires,” have been essentially treading water. So it’s quite clear that things are not only stratified, but also aren’t improving, either.

The reality is that the concentration of wealth continues to deepen, as the Top 1% wealthiest U.S. households possess nearly one quarter of the total liquid wealth.

In stark contrast, the ~70% of non-affluent households own less than 10% of the country’s liquid wealth.

Simply put, the past decade hasn’t been kind to the majority of Americans’ family finances. In my view, that dynamic alone explains more of 2016’s political repercussions than any other single factor. It’s hardly monolithic, but often “elitism” and “status quo” go hand-in-hand. In 2016 they were lashed together; one candidate was perceived as both “elitist” and “status quo,” and the result was almost preordained.

The most recent Wealth & Affluent Monitor from Phoenix Marketing International can be downloaded here.

Cross-Currents in the Minimum Wage Debate

March 8, 2017March 8, 2017 Phillip Nones Business, Economics, Employment, Employment, Marketing Research, Social Commentary

This past November, there were increased minimum wage measures on the ballet in four states – Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington. They were approved by voters in every instance.

But are views about the minimum wage actually that universally positive?

A survey of ~1,500 U.S. consumers conducted by Cincinnati-based customer loyalty research firm Colloquy around the same time as the election reveals some contradictory data.

Currently, the federal minimum wage rate is set a $7.25 per hour. The Colloquy research asked respondents for their views in a world where the minimum wage would $15 per hour — a figure which is at the upper limit of where a number of cities and counties are now pegging their local minimum wage rates.

The survey asked consumers if they’d expect to receive better customer service and have a better overall customer experience if the minimum wage were raised to $15 per hour.

Nearly 60% of the respondents felt that they’d be justified in expecting to receive better service and a better overall experience if the minimum wage were raised to that level. On the other hand, nearly 70% believed that they wouldn’t actually receive better service.

The results show pretty clearly that consumers don’t see a direct connection between workers receiving a substantially increased minimum wage and improvements in the quality of service those workers would provide to their consumers.

Men feel even less this way than women: More than 70% of men said they wouldn’t expect to receive better service, versus around 65% of women.

Younger consumers in the 25-34 age group, who could well be among the workers more likely to benefit from an increased minimum wage, are just as likely to expect little or no improvement in service quality. Nearly 70% responded as such to the Colloquy survey.

One concern some respondents had was the possibility that a dramatic rise in the minimum wage to $15 per hour could lead retailers to add more automation, resulting in an even less satisfying overall experience. (For men, it was ~44% who feel that way, while for women it was ~33%.)

Along those lines, we’re seeing that for some stores, labor-saving alternatives such as installing self-service checkout lanes have negative ramifications to such a degree that any labor savings are more than offset by incidences of merchandise “leaving the store” without having been paid for properly.

Significant numbers of consumers aren’t particularly thrilled with the “forced march” to self-serve checkout lines at some retail outlets, either.

Perhaps the most surprising finding of all in the Colloquy research was that only a minority of the survey respondents were actually in support of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. In stark contrast to the state ballot measures which were supported by clear majorities of voters, the survey found that just ~38% of the respondents were in favor.

The discrepancy is likely due to several factors. Most significantly, the November ballot measures were not stipulating such a dramatic monetary increase, but rather minimum wage rates that would increase to only $12 or $13 – and only by the year 2020 rather than immediately.

That, coupled with concerns about automation and little expectation of improved service quality, and it means that this issue isn’t quite as “black-and-white” as some might presume.

All those narratives about Amazon? They’re not exactly accurate.

March 1, 2017 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Direct Marketing, Economics, Marketing Communications, Sales, Social Commentary Amazon, Atomic Direct, BloomReach, Doug Garnett, E-Commerce, Online Retail, Retail Industry, Retail Marketing, Retail Strategies, Retailing

I doubt I know a single person under the age of 75 who hasn’t purchased at least one item of merchandise from Amazon over the years. And I know quite a few people whose only shopping experience for the holidays is a date with the Amazon website.

Still, some of the breathless stories and statistics that are put forward about Amazon and its business model seem almost too impressive to be true.

I’m not just talking about news reports of drone deliveries (a whole lot of “hat” and far less “cattle” there) or the idea that fully-robotic warehouses are just around the corner – although these stories do make for attention-grabbing headlines. (Despite the continued need for human involvement, the way that robots are being used inside Amazon warehouses is still quite impressive.)

Moreover, a study published recently by BloomReach based on a survey of ~2,200 U.S. online consumers finds that Amazon is involved in most online shopping excursions, with nine out of ten online shoppers reporting that they check Amazon’s site even if they end up finding the product they want via another e-commerce resource.

More than half of the BloomReach survey respondents reports that they check on the Amazon site first — which is a new high for the company.

But are all of the reports about Amazon as credible?

Recently Doug Garnett, CEO of advertising agency Atomic Direct, penned a piece that was published in the December 2016 edition of Response Magazine. In it, he threw a dose of cold-water reality on some of the narratives surrounding Amazon and its business accomplishments.

Here are several of them that seem to contradict some of the commonly held perceptions:

“Amazon is a $100 billion retailer.”

Garnett notes that once subtracting Amazon’s non-retail revenue for 2015 (the last year for which financial data is available), the worldwide figure is more like half of that.

In the United States, Amazon’s retail sales are closer to $25 billion, which means it makes up approximately 6% of total retail sales.

That’s still very significant, but it isn’t the dominating presence as it might seem from all of the press hype.

“Amazon is profitable now.”

Yes, it is – and that’s after many years when the company wasn’t. However, approximately three-fourths of Amazon’s profits are due to selling cloud-based services, and the vast majority of the remaining profit dollars come from content delivery such as e-books plus music and video downloads. So traditional retail hard-goods still aren’t generating profits for Amazon.

It turns out, just as retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart have discovered, that replicating a retail store online is almost always a money-losing proposition.

To underscore this point, Garnett references this example of a merchandising campaign in 2016 as typical:

“When one unit was sold on Amazon, eight were sold at the retailer’s website and 80 were sold in the brick-and-mortar stores. The profit is in the store.

For mass-market products, brick-and-mortar still dominates. Amazon is a nice incremental revenue stream, [but] not a valid alternative when you’re playing in the big game.”

It also means that companies that are looking to Amazon as a way to push their products into the marketplace should probably think twice.

At the very least, they should keep their expectations realistically modest.

ATMs look to the future … except that the future’s already been around for a while.

February 26, 2017February 26, 2017 Phillip Nones Banking, Business, Economics, Social Commentary ATMs, Automated Teller Machines, Automatic Teller Machines, Banking, Cash Deposit Machines, CDMs, NCR, Passbook Savings, Passbook Update Machines, PUMs, SelfServ 80, Thailand

Last week, the Yahoo newsfeed republished a trade article from BGR News titled “This Futuristic ATM Means You’ll Never Have to Go into a Bank Again.”

It was a rather breathless piece reporting that NCR (once called National Cash Register) will be introducing a new ATM dubbed the SelfServ 80 to a number of major banks as well as several community banking organizations.

In addition to dispensing cash, the SelfServ 80 machines have large touchscreens and video conferencing capabilities that will enable banking customers to do “virtually anything” they’d normally go into the bank to transact, according to the news article.

This includes applying for loans or credit cards – or any other communications that would typically occur with a bank officer.

It sounds quite intriguing – and major step forward for ATMs, which haven’t changed that much since they were unveiled decades ago.

It’s easy to forget that ATMs were among the very first devices to “automate” activities previous carried out by humans, because they’ve seemed rather “old hat” for a while. They haven’t quite kept up with the times …

… Or maybe they have?

Reading this news piece my brother Nelson Nones, who has lived and worked outside the United States for more than 20 years, was amused. Here’s what he wrote to me:

Those new machines from NCR may seem “futuristic” in the United States, but they are nothing new in the Far East. In Thailand, for instance, you can go to just about any bank branch and you’ll see three types of machines lined up in a row:

ATMs (Automatic Teller Machines)

Unlike in the United States, these ATMs aren’t only for withdrawing cash and depositing checks. With your debit card you can also use these machines to transfer funds to other bank accounts within Thailand, and you can also pay bills, too – either on-the-spot or in advance. Other functions are also available as well. [See the image to the right.]

Most consumer-facing businesses which send out monthly statements to customers put a barcode on the bottom of the statement. The ATMs have barcode scanners and so, when paying a bill, you just scan the barcode at the ATM. All transactions take effect instantaneously.

These services are available at any ATM – not just the ones at bank branches. As an example, every single one of Thailand’s approximately 9,400 7-Eleven stores has full-service ATMs for all the country’s banks.

CDMs (Cash Deposit Machines)

These machines allow you to deposit cash straight into your bank account – with or without a debit card. The machines come with money counters; just put your bank notes in the slot (local currency only) and the machine will count them for you.

PUMs (Passbook Update Machines)

Passbook accounts might be a thing of the past in the United States, but they are still widely used in Thailand. Want to update your passbook? Just go to any PUM and insert your book. The machine will read it and then print all the transactions needed to bring it fully up to date.

Of all the places I’ve ever visited, Thailand has the most automated banking machinery I’ve ever seen.

Imagine that: United States banking and commerce trying to keep up with … Thailand!

tatm — My brother providef this photo of an automated banking kiosk located in the lobby of a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. (My sister-in-law is also in the picture, looking elegant and happy.)

What about you? If you’ve encountered similarly sophisticated financial services automation in other countries that makes the U.S. system seem hopelessly outmoded, please share your experiences as well.

America’s shopping malls struggle to avoid becoming dinosaurs.

February 8, 2017June 23, 2019 Phillip Nones Business, Economics, Marketing, Sales, Social Commentary Consumers, Jan Kniffen, Mall Advertising, McKinsey & Co., Online Retail, Retail, Retail Industry, Retail Trends, Retailers, Retailing, Shopping Malls

America’s department store chains – and anchor stores at countless shopping malls across the country – are reporting another rounds of disappointing sales and profit figures following the 2016 holiday season.

It underscores what we’ve been seeing all over the country – dead or dying malls.

In fact, retail industry analyst Jan Rogers Kniffen predicts that about one-third of malls in the United States will shut their doors in the coming years.

That’s about 400 of the ~1,100 enclosed malls.

Equally startling, of the ~700 that remain, all but around 250 are expected to continue to struggle.

The problem is multi-faceted. At an estimated 48 sq. ft. of retail space for every man, woman and child in America, that’s a footprint that gotten too big.

“On an apples-to-apples basis, we have twice as much per-capita retail space than any other place in the world,” Kniffen says, adding that the United States is “the most over-stored” country anywhere.

The oversupply of retail space is challenged by changing customer tastes, too. Online shopping is a huge problem for malls, as is the rising popularity of off-price stores in lieu of the department stores like Macy’s and Penneys that have served as important anchors for mall properties all over the country.

Now we hear reports that Macy’s is planning to close numerous store locations during 2017, joining Sears and Penneys which have been doing the same thing over the past several years.

How will malls survive in the future? Recently, the McKinsey & Co. consulting firm issued a report that highlighted five ways malls can remain relevant to consumers today and in the future:

Mall of America (Bloomington, MN): Expansion Rendering

Entertainment – Even in the age of “interactive everything,” consumers – particularly younger ones – continue to seek out gathering places and “experiences.” It’s one reason why some shopping malls have had to deal with large numbers of young people flooding their spaces – not always with pleasant results. Malls seeking out tenants that provide entertainment hubs — such as theme parks and gaming parlors, edutainment, and even virtual-reality content and immersive experiences — will be able to draw customers from a wider geographic area who crave social interaction.

Food and drink – “Food is the new fashion,” some people like to say. Successful malls are getting in on that action, incorporating popular dining options along with unique ones as a way of becoming destination locations.

Retail – Still a core aspect of malls, but with new twists, such as creating retail centers that are also learning zones that bring together consumers, retailers and entertainment. McKinsey uses the example of a sporting goods store that also includes a fitness studio, or offline showrooms for online retail players. More reconfigurable spaces that can be used for pop-up stores, special product launches and seasonal offerings are also options with potential.

Transportation – Getting to and from mall properties with ease is growing in importance, and where some creative thinking might go a way towards making some malls more attractive than others.

Technology – The more that malls can create a “seamless chain” between online and on-site shopping, the better their chances are for staying relevant in the new retail environment. McKinsey posits a number of initiatives, such as creating “virtu-real” formats that provide consumers with a more interactive retail experience through the use of touchscreen navigation portals, virtual fitting rooms, allowing smartphones for e-checkouts, and click-and-collect services to help blend the offline and online shopping experience.

In sum, for shopping malls it means fundamentally rethinking their role — and then adapting their strengths to those of the virtual/interactive world.

If we check back in another five years or so, we should have a pretty good idea which tactics have been successful – and which mall properties, too.

Hopefully, the shopping mall closest to your home won’t look like the one at the top of this article.

Some good news for the U.S. Postal Service for a change …

January 22, 2017 Phillip Nones Business, Economics, Government Business, FedEx, FirSmallBusiness.com, Postal Rates, Postal Service, Rasmussen Reports, U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service, UPS, USPS

The U.S. Postal Service has just implemented a price adjustment on first class letter mail – the first rate increase in quite a few years. Some other pricing adjustments have been implemented as well, but on the whole they are modest.

Hopefully the rate increases won’t throw water on the good news that the USPS experienced over the holiday season. According to a Rasmussen Reports consumer survey of ~1,000 American adults age 18 and over conducted at the end of December, Americans used the USPS more in the most recent holiday than in the 2015 season.

The public also continues to give the USPS higher marks than its major competitors – FedEx and UPS – on the way it handles their packages.

For the record, ~21% of the respondents surveyed by Rasmussen reported that they used the U.S. Postal Service more this holiday season than they have in previous years, while ~18% reported they used it less. The remaining ~61% kept their USPS usage at around the same level of activity.

On the commercial side, for many businesses who do not have the kind of high volume shipping needs to qualify for special pricing from FedEx or UPS, the USPS also appears to be a far more lucrative choice from a price-to-value relationship.

In mid-2015, FitSmallBusiness.com undertook apple-to-apples comparisons of the three big package delivery firms, and found some startling differences. For example, to ship a 3-lb. package overnight-delivery from New York City to Los Angeles, using FedEx would set the sender back $83. UPS was even worse, at $84.

The USPS price? Just $24.99.

Comparing short-haul rates as well as heavier 10-lb. packages found similar major discrepancies — all in favor of using the U.S. Postal Service. On top of that, the USPS provides free packaging materials, complimentary pick-up service, free insurance and tracking — not to mention flat-rate boxes for packages that weigh up to 70 lbs.

Sealing the deal further, while FedEx’s 50,000+ and UPS’s 63,000+ locations worldwide are certainly nice to rely on, the number of USPS locations dwarfs those figures by a country mile. Those myriad USPS locations also mean that packages can be shipped to P.O. boxes in addition to physical addresses – something that’s out of the reach of either FedEx or UPS.

People love to beat up on the United States Postal Service. But say what you will about the USPS, its problems and its financial challenges, they’re still a major-league bargain for many consumers and businesses.

2016 says goodbye to some iconic American brands …

December 21, 2016December 21, 2016 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Economics, Social Commentary American Apparel, AP, Brand Casualties, Branding, Brands, Business Failures, marketing, Office Max, Olympic Gardens, RadioShack, Sears, SimplyHired, Sports Authority, Trends, US Airways, Vine

As in every year, 2016 has seen the fall of famous brands; some are young upstarts that flamed out quickly, but others are venerable names that have been with us for decades.

Here are ten of the more notable casualties of the year – albeit a few of them still kicking but for all intents and purposes, going lights-out:

A&P – This brand name goes back 150 years … but eventually even venerable A&P couldn’t survive in the cutthroat grocery market. Actually, this brand’s been on life support for a while now, but has always managed to scrape by. No longer. Albertstons Companies – itself facing big competition in the grocery segment – has purchased the remaining 600 A&P outlets and will re-brand those it keeps open under its Acme brand name. Nevertheless, at a century and a half it’s been quite a run – one that only a very few other brands can match.

American Apparel – When a once high-flying apparel company has its equally high-flying chief executive fending off salacious reports of secretly recorded sex videos – yes, they’re on the Internet – coupled with spiraling debt levels and plummeting sales, can Chapter 11 be far behind? You already know the answer.

Office Max – Sales at the big three U.S. office supply chains have struggled for a number of years, but Office Max was the one to fall victim first. Its merger in 2013 with Office Depot began the brand’s slide, and now the final nail is in the coffin with the merger of Office Depot and Staples. What’s the rationale for continuing to have three store brands under one company umbrella? Answer: No reason at all … which is why the weakest of the three brands is now becoming history.

Olympic Garden – In a development that some might characterize as divine retribution, the Las Vegas “adult” establishment colloquially known as “The OG” couldn’t handle its myriad legal battles even as it continued to attract big crowds.

RadioShack – OK, we still see RadioShack outlets in certain locations around the country – typically in small- to medium-sized markets. But they’re co-branded locations with Sprint. The reality is that this nearly 100-year-old brand is fading away; the only question is whether we’ll cease seeing the name in five years or just one or two.

Sears – Another iconic brand name has been struggling mightily in the past decade or so, despite its merger with Kmart. The company has lost more than $1 billion in each of the past three years. Now it appears that the Sears name is the one that will disappear as its store locations continue to dwindle – nearly 250 in 2015 and close to another 100 this year. At that rate, there’ll be none left before long.

SimplyHired – An international job search engine with upwards of 30 million active users that once sparred with the likes of Monster.com, ultimately this HR resource was unable to successfully compete in the space, shutting down in mid-year.

Sports Authority – A cautionary tale of what happens to a big retailer when it fails to keep its operations and product offerings fresh and appealing. This retailer has been absorbed into Dick’s Sporting Goods, which has been far more nimble – and successful – in the “big box” sporting goods niche.

US Airways – We knew this had to be coming eventually; in 2013, this airlines’ merger with American Airlines was finalized. Now that its operating systems are fully consolidated, one of the brand names was bound to disappear – and it’s US Airways. Just like we all knew that Southwest Airlines would eventually consign the AirTran brand name to the dustbin, the same thing is happening with US Airways now.

Vine – In October, Twitter shut down this video-sharing app so it could refocus on its (also struggling) core business. Vine was definitely a flash-in-the-pan brand – barely a half-decade old.

So, now it’s time say a fond farewell to these brands. For a good many of them, the names may soon disappear, but they won’t be forgotten …

Do you have other 2016 brand casualties you’d add to the list? Please share your choices with other readers here.

What Millennials Have in Common with their Grandparents (or Great-Grandparents)

November 27, 2016November 28, 2016 Phillip Nones Banking, Demographics, Economics, Social Commentary Depression-Era Money Views, Matthew Sadowski, Millennials, Millennials and Money, Personal Finance, Saving and Investing, Silent Generation, TD Ameritrade

When it comes to attitudes about personal finances, millennials appear to have more in common with their Depression-era grandparents or great-grandparents than with anyone else.

That’s a key takeaway finding from research conducted recently by TD Ameritrade and published in its Millennials and Money Research Report.

Headlining the TDA results is this interesting finding: More than three-quarters of the millennials surveyed would place an extra $1,000 in a savings account rather than invest it in the stock market.

Concurrent with that conservative financial worldview, two-thirds of the respondents in the TDA survey consider themselves to be “savers.” Even more have established personal budgets for themselves and their families.

Helping to explain the similarities in characteristics between millennials and the Depression-era generation, Matthew Sadowsky, director of retirement and annuities at TD Ameritrade, put it this way:

“The Silent Generation and Millennials [both] came of age during a major financial crisis, which increases the propensity to save and financial conservativism. Further adding to Millennials’ financial anxiety is the economy, student debt, and escalating peer influence from social media.”

Social media could partially explain one finding in the Ameritrade field research – the notion that the vast majority of the survey respondents don’t feel financially secure now.

Being active on social media is much more likely to cause Millennials to compare themselves to others: Nearly two-thirds of Millennials admitted that fact (64%), whereas with Baby Boomers the percentage is less than half of that (29%).

Despite Millennials’ awareness of their financial limitations, it doesn’t seem to translate into seeking out the counsel of professional financial advisors. Instead, they’re more likely to rely on parents (38%) and/or friends (28%).

As for their financial goals, most Millennials have bought into the idea that home ownership is a good thing – and something most of them aspire to achieving by the age of 30.

They also appear to have pretty realistic attitudes about retirement, too, as about half are concerned about running out of money during retirement, and hence are open to retiring at an older age in order to maintain a decent lifestyle in retirement.

Does this mean that Millennials will be better-prepared to handle the challenges of living and growing old in our society? The TD Ameritrade survey suggests so. Still, life has a way of playing tricks on people, so the question remains as to whether this generation will actually do any better than the preceding ones.

Time will tell.

Saving for college: Millennial parents seem to have figured it out better.

October 10, 2016October 10, 2016 Phillip Nones Demographics, Economics, Education, Social Commentary College Debt, College Saving, Demographics, Education, GenX, Millennials, Sallie Mae, Saving for College, SLM Corp.

Recently SLM Corp. (aka Sallie Mae) released the results of a survey of parents that asked about how they’re saving for their children’s college education. The survey, which was conducted for Sallie Mae by research firm Ipsos Public Affairs, uncovered some pretty interesting stats.

Here’s something that surprised me: When it comes to saving for kids’ college tuition, it turns out that Millennial parents – those age 35 and younger – have already saved significantly more than their GenX counterparts.

Millennial parents reported having saved more than $20,000 toward kids’ college, whereas GenX parents – those between the age of 36 and 51 – have saved only around $18,000.

What’s up with that?

The report lists several possible explanations. First, Millennials are more likely to have started saving earlier for their kids’ college education because of their expectation of having paying a higher share of college costs compared to older generations of people

Likely, their remembering their own (more recent) college experiences.

Here’s another contributing factor: Many GenX parents tended to be hit harder financially than Millennials during the recent recession. They’re the ones who were more likely to have lost a job further into their careers, when it’s can be more difficult to bounce back quite as easily and at the same level of salary.

At the same time, it’s often the GenXers who have higher mortgage and other debts already racked up when compared to Millennials.

Under those circumstances, saving for children’s college is a commitment that’s much easier to place on hold until other, more pressing financial matters are dealt with.

On the other hand, for Millennials the recession caught them at the beginning of their careers when fewer financial commitments (other than student loans) were yet made, and their flexibility more fluid.

It’s easier to roll with the punches when you don’t have a pile of fixed financial obligations already hanging over your head.

Another factor the Sallie Mae/Ipsos report cites is that GenX parents are more likely to have become over-leveraged in their personal finances — a situation exacerbated by income stagnation, declining stock investment values and declining home values (even being underwater on home mortgages in some cases).

It seems that all of these factors have colored GenX attitudes about saving for kids’ college education in ways that go beyond what the raw numbers show. When asked how confident they feel about being able to meet the college financial obligations for their children, 32% of Millennials stated that they felt quite confident.

But among GenXers, it was just 17%.

Overall, this doesn’t paint a very pretty picture for GenX parents. But it seems that the Millennial generation has figured out the “college cost recipe” a little more successfully.

For more “topline” statistical findings from the survey, click or tap here.

The Top Ten U.S. Cities for Stretching a Dollar

September 21, 2016September 21, 2016 Phillip Nones Demographics, Economics, Employment, Human Resources, Social Commentary

… They’re pretty nice in other ways, too.

A few months ago, my eldest daughter received her graduate degree in higher education academic counseling, and immediately thereafter started a new career position at a university located in a medium-sized city in the state of Wisconsin.

Of course, the main attraction was the job position itself and the potential it offers for professional growth.

But another important factor was the cost-of-living dynamics in an urban area where real estate and other costs are clearly more “friendly” to a career person just starting out.

Along those lines, the recent publication of CareerCast.com‘s newest “Ten Best Cities for Return on Salary” is revealing.

What it shows is that for young professionals just beginning in their careers – and likely saddled with student loans that are a significant chunk of change – the top cities for “stretching a dollar” aren’t particularly known for being the hippest places around.

By the same token, they aren’t the dregs, either.

Here’s CareerCast’s “Top 10” listing in order of the most budget-friendly cities:

#1 most budget-friendly: Wausau, WI
#2: Tucson, AZ
#3: Pittsburgh, PA
#4: Midland, TX
#5: Lincoln, NE
#6: Houston, TX
#7: Fort Worth, TX
#8: Durham, NC
#9: Columbus, OH
#10: Austin, TX

Scanning the roster, you might see a few surprises.

One shows up as #10 on the list; certainly no one is going to accuse Austin of being anything less than trendy. Houston and Fort Worth (#6 and #7 on the list) are major metropolises.

Affordable, livable housing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

And more people are falling in love with the charms of Pittsburgh, PA (#3 on the list) – especially when compared to its old, worn-out and unsafe urban counterpart on the other side of the state.

The Midwestern cities on the list might not be the end-all in trendiness, but one can’t complain about quality-of-life factors like friendly neighborhoods and lower crime rates in places like Lincoln, Columbus and Wausau.

And if nothing else, Midland is the city that played host to President George W. Bush in his formative years …

Overall, I think it can be said that these ten cities aren’t a bad set of choices for young working professionals. The fact that they also happen to be the best ones for stretching a dollar is just icing on the cake.