| Durable Goods Decline Second Month; Key Take-Aways Posted: 28 Oct 2014 01:25 PM PDT Inquiring minds are digging into the Census Bureau Advance Report on Durable Goods Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders for September 2014 for hints at 4th quarter GDP. The headline data shows new orders for manufactured durable goods in September decreased $3.2 billion or 1.3 percent. This follows an 18.3 percent decline in August. However, transportation (especially commercial and military plane orders) are so large and volatile, the overall results are nearly useless. For example: In June, new orders were up 22.5% with transportation orders up 73.3%. Nondefense aircraft and parts orders were up a whopping 315.6%. Last month, nondefense aircraft and parts was down 74% and this month another 16%. Key Components Instead of focusing on the headline numbers, let's dive into the report to isolate key components. The report itemizes all the categories, but it's not easy to scroll through. This table I put together should help. | Item | Sep | Aug | Jul | Aug-Sep %Chg | Jul-Aug % Chg | Jun-Jul % Chg |
|---|
| Total New Orders | 241,633 | 244,864 | 299,862 | -1.3 | -18.3 | 22.5 | | Ex-Transportation Orders | 168,186 | 168,603 | 167,491 | -0.2 | 0.7 | -0.6 | | Ex-Defense Orders | 230,654 | 234,273 | 289,442 | -1.5 | -19.1 | 24.9 | | Transportation Orders | 73,447 | 76,261 | 132,271 | -3.7 | -42.4 | 73.3 | | Capital Goods Orders | 91,353 | 95,345 | 144,635 | -4.2 | -34.1 | 52.5 | | Non-Defense Capital Goods Orders | 81,985 | 86,625 | 136,323 | -5.4 | -36.5 | 60.9 | | Defense Capital Goods Orders | 9,368 | 8,720 | 8,312 | 7.4 | 4.9 | -17.9 | | Core Capital Goods Orders | 71,824 | 73,078 | 72,836 | -1.7 | 0.3 | -0.1 | | Core Capital Goods Shipments | 70,238 | 70,390 | 70,307 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 2.0 |
Line items (except the last line which shows shipments) are new orders, in millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted. Key Take-AwaysThe last two lines are the ones to watch. Core Capital Goods are non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft. It's a measure of business investment and business sentiment. The 1.7% decline in orders is the largest since January. Shipments factor into GDP estimates. Core capital goods shipments were down 0.2% this month. Core capital shipments and orders suggest that 4th quarter GDP is not off to a flying start. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause? Posted: 28 Oct 2014 12:47 AM PDT Here's an interesting article thanks to Jed Kolko, Chief Economist at Trulia Trends via Washington Post Wonkblog: The most expensive housing markets in the U.S. are also the most liberal. The relationship between housing affordability and politics in the US is startlingly strong as these charts by Jed Kolko shows.  Median asking price in dollars per square foot is on the vertical axis. Margin for Obama over Romney in the 2012 election is on the horizontal axis. With the exception of Orange County California, all of the high priced counties voted for Obama.  The Washington Post notes .... Nine of the 10 bluest markets had median home asking prices above $130 per square foot. All of the 10 reddest markets had prices below that. In the dark blue markets, housing cost almost twice as much ($227 per square foot) as in the red ones ($119). In metro Washington — this is not just the District — the average home asking price was about $177. Trulia notes ... Households in blue markets tend to have higher incomes. But those higher incomes are not enough to offset higher home prices. Our middle-class affordability measure, which reflects the share of homes for sale within reach of a median-income household, is significantly lower in bluer markets. Furthermore, blue markets have lower homeownership and greater income inequality than red markets. Sorted DataTrulia made the data available. I sorted by price per square foot high to low. Here are the results. | U.S. Metro | Vote margin: Obama vs Romney, 2012 (positive #s = blue markets; negative #s = red markets) | Price decline in housing bust, peak to trough (FHFA) | Year-over-year price change, Sept. 2014 (Trulia) | Median asking price per square foot, $, Oct. 2014 (Trulia) |
|---|
| San Francisco, CA | 58% | -23% | 9.9% | 613 | | Honolulu, HI | 39% | -11% | 4.1% | 439 | | San Jose, CA | 42% | -26% | 8.6% | 430 | | Orange County, CA | -6% | -33% | 4.8% | 363 | | Long Island, NY | 6% | -20% | 2.9% | 350 | | Oakland, CA | 50% | -39% | 11.9% | 342 | | Los Angeles, CA | 42% | -35% | 6.9% | 334 | | New York, NY-NJ | 49% | -18% | 4.3% | 320 | | Ventura County, CA | 7% | -39% | 12.4% | 305 | | San Diego, CA | 8% | -35% | 1.8% | 296 | | Fairfield County, CT | 11% | -21% | -0.5% | 237 | | Middlesex County, MA | 27% | -13% | 7.8% | 236 | | Boston, MA | 25% | -17% | 4.5% | 229 | | Peabody, MA | 16% | -18% | 4.0% | 212 | | Seattle, WA | 35% | -26% | 8.9% | 197 | | Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD | 34% | -22% | 2.6% | 189 | | Sacramento, CA | 9% | -48% | 10.1% | 188 | | Edison-New Brunswick, NJ | 3% | -22% | 6.2% | 180 | | Miami, FL | 24% | -47% | 14.0% | 180 | | Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV | 37% | -25% | 3.2% | 177 | | Riverside-San Bernardino, CA | 4% | -50% | 10.6% | 164 | | Providence, RI-MA | 25% | -26% | 2.8% | 162 | | Baltimore, MD | 18% | -22% | -1.1% | 161 | | Portland, OR-WA | 23% | -25% | 7.5% | 157 | | Denver, CO | 13% | -8% | 9.4% | 152 | | North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL | -10% | -50% | 9.6% | 150 | | New Haven, CT | 22% | -21% | -0.6% | 146 | | Worcester, MA | 9% | -23% | 4.9% | 146 | | Philadelphia, PA | 31% | -11% | 4.3% | 146 | | Fort Lauderdale, FL | 35% | -48% | 6.9% | 143 | | Hartford, CT | 23% | -14% | -0.4% | 143 | | West Palm Beach, FL | 17% | -49% | 11.7% | 138 | | Springfield, MA | 32% | -14% | 2.5% | 137 | | Albany, NY | 16% | -6% | -0.7% | 135 | | Tacoma, WA | 11% | -32% | 7.5% | 134 | | Charleston, SC | -5% | -21% | 7.7% | 134 | | Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL | -17% | -56% | 9.8% | 133 | | Newark, NJ-PA | 21% | -20% | 1.9% | 133 | | Fresno, CA | 2% | -49% | 8.5% | 133 | | Austin, TX | 7% | -4% | 9.9% | 130 | | Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI | 9% | -27% | 11.3% | 130 | | Chicago, IL | 32% | -28% | 10.0% | 129 | | Salt Lake City, UT | -21% | -22% | 4.7% | 129 | | Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC | 11% | -19% | 4.4% | 129 | | Bakersfield, CA | -17% | -52% | 8.2% | 126 | | Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI | 12% | -26% | 10.0% | 125 | | Phoenix, AZ | -11% | -51% | 3.8% | 123 | | Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ | 24% | -20% | 3.8% | 123 | | Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI | 3% | -37% | 7.8% | 117 | | Camden, NJ | 24% | -23% | 0.6% | 116 | | Richmond, VA | 5% | -20% | 2.7% | 116 | | Milwaukee, WI | 5% | -15% | 5.8% | 116 | | Pittsburgh, PA | -1% | -2% | 6.9% | 116 | | Allentown, PA-NJ | 2% | -21% | 2.6% | 114 | | Las Vegas, NV | 15% | -61% | 9.0% | 113 | | Raleigh, NC | 6% | -9% | 4.2% | 113 | | Dallas, TX | -10% | -6% | 7.7% | 112 | | Tucson, AZ | 7% | -38% | 1.4% | 111 | | Orlando, FL | 8% | -48% | 7.7% | 110 | | Albuquerque, NM | 13% | -17% | 0.6% | 110 | | Nashville, TN | -16% | -9% | 5.6% | 109 | | Jacksonville, FL | -19% | -38% | 7.0% | 109 | | Colorado Springs, CO | -21% | -12% | 4.0% | 107 | | San Antonio, TX | -8% | -4% | 4.5% | 107 | | Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL | 3% | -43% | 5.0% | 106 | | Houston, TX | -12% | -4% | 10.7% | 106 | | New Orleans, LA | 0% | -11% | 7.5% | 102 | | Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL | -13% | -50% | 13.1% | 100 | | Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | -16% | -10% | 9.0% | 100 | | Baton Rouge, LA | -12% | -3% | 1.3% | 100 | | Charlotte, NC-SC | 2% | -16% | 7.0% | 99 | | Oklahoma City, OK | -27% | -3% | 4.0% | 98 | | St. Louis, MO-IL | 7% | -12% | 4.3% | 98 | | Knoxville, TN | -34% | -8% | 2.1% | 98 | | Birmingham, AL | -20% | -13% | 11.5% | 96 | | Buffalo, NY | 14% | -2% | 3.1% | 96 | | Atlanta, GA | 1% | -26% | 11.1% | 95 | | Louisville, KY-IN | -3% | -6% | 11.0% | 94 | | Fort Worth, TX | -23% | -6% | 6.4% | 94 | | Columbus, OH | 7% | -10% | 6.5% | 94 | | Omaha, NE-IA | -10% | -5% | 5.4% | 93 | | Greenville, SC | -30% | -8% | 5.9% | 92 | | Kansas City, MO-KS | -3% | -12% | 6.6% | 92 | | Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL | -7% | -46% | 11.1% | 92 | | Gary, IN | 21% | -11% | 6.8% | 91 | | Little Rock, AR | -11% | -4% | -6.0% | 90 | | Tulsa, OK | -32% | -4% | 7.3% | 90 | | Syracuse, NY | 17% | -3% | 4.1% | 90 | | Memphis, TN-MS-AR | 12% | -14% | 4.6% | 89 | | Greensboro, NC | 1% | -10% | 2.6% | 89 | | El Paso, TX | 32% | -8% | -0.9% | 88 | | Rochester, NY | 11% | -2% | 2.0% | 87 | | Grand Rapids, MI | -9% | -22% | 9.1% | 87 | | Cleveland, OH | 24% | -18% | 4.1% | 86 | | Akron, OH | 13% | -16% | 6.9% | 84 | | Columbia, SC | 2% | -11% | -0.9% | 83 | | Toledo, OH | 21% | -20% | 12.5% | 81 | | Indianapolis, IN | -8% | -7% | 7.8% | 80 | | Detroit, MI | 47% | -40% | 11.4% | 75 | | Dayton, OH | -7% | -13% | 8.8% | 74 |
Congratulations to California- California has seven of the top-ten least-affordable metro areas.
- New York managed two top-ten least affordable spots.
- Massachusetts garnered three top-fifteen slots.
Congratulations (of sorts) go to California. Top 10 Cities by Population in 2013| City Rank | City | Population | Cost per Sq Foot | Cost Ranking |
|---|
| 1 | New York, New York | 8,405,837 | 320 | 8 | | 2 | Los Angeles, California | 3,884,307 | 334 | 7 | | 3 | Chicago, Illinois | 2,718,782 | 129 | 42 | | 4 | Houston, Texas | 2,195,914 | 106 | 66 | | 5 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 1,553,165 | 146 | 29 | | 6 | Phoenix, Arizona | 1,513,367 | 123 | 47 | | 7 | San Antonio, Texas | 1,409,019 | 107 | 64 | | 8 | San Diego, California | 1,355,896 | 296 | 10 | | 9 | Dallas, Texas | 1,257,676 | 112 | 57 | | 10 | San Jose, California | 998,537 | 430 | 3 |
I created the above table by combining City Size data with Trulia data. Top 10 Red vs. BlueOf the 10 largest Metro Areas in the US, five voted for Obama and five for Romney. Note: The above table shows city population not metro area. The Texas Metro Areas (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas) and the Arizona Metro Areas (Phoenix and San Antonio) voted for Romney. The highest ranking red Metro Area in the list was Phoenix. It placed 47 out of 100 in cost, with a median cost per square foot of $123 vs. San Jose, California with a median cost of $430 per square foot. Correlation or cause? Union work rules, land availability, and building restrictions (or lack thereof) are all likely in play. CorrectionI stated 5 of the top 10 cities voted for Romney. The Trulia data is for Metro Areas. The above paragraphs modified accordingly. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
