
Can the rich continue to prop up US consumer spending?: McGeever
ORLANDO, Florida - U.S. consumer spending's surprising resilience is the main reason the economy has not only avoided recession, but continued to grow at a solid clip. The big question now is whether American households can keep that going, especially with higher, tariff-fueled prices coming down the pike.
In the U.S., "the consumer" is king. Consumer spending accounts for around 70% of total economic output, so changes in people's propensity to spend have a direct, outsized influence on the health of the economy.
But "the consumer" is, of course, actually millions of people. And when you split them into groups based on income and wealth, it becomes clear that total spending disproportionately comes from the rich.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said earlier this year that the richest 10% of Americans, those earning at least $250,000 a year, now account for half of all consumer spending. That's a record. Thirty years ago, the richest 10% accounted for 36% of all consumer spending.
A Boston Fed paper last week backed up Zandi's findings, concluding that the strength of aggregate consumer spending in the last three years is due to high-income earners. But the authors suggest high-income consumers have a reasonable cushion because they haven't maxed out their credit cards.
While the lower-income and middle-income cohorts both saw their credit card debt soar past pre-pandemic totals in the last few years, wealthier Americans' credit card debt remains below the 2019 high and well below the level implied by the pre-pandemic trend. So, if necessary, they still have room to borrow to fund their spending.
EARNING POWER
Spending across the income deciles could also be supported by enhanced earning power.
While some indicators show that the U.S. labor market may be softening, annual average earnings growth still rose in July to 3.9%, meaning real wage growth is running at a 1.3% annual pace, depending on what slice of inflation you use. Real annual wage growth has been between 1.0% and 1.8% for over two years, above the average for the decade leading into the COVID-19 health crisis.
And overall workers' income may be growing at an even faster rate, according to economists at Bank of America. They calculate that aggregate labor income – number of jobs multiplied by wages multiplied by number of hours worked - increased 5.5% in July on a six-month annualized basis. Most of that growth was driven by higher wages.
With household delinquency rates, excluding student loans, cooling off this year, strength in labor income should continue to support consumer spending, they argue. This, in turn, should help the U.S. avoid the recessionary spiral of lower spending begetting layoffs, begetting even lower spending, begetting more job cuts.
This is one of the reasons BofA economists retain their out-of-consensus call that the Federal Reserve won't cut interest rates at all this year.
FLASHING AMBER?
Others are less confident.
Zandi at Moody's Analytics warns that a correction on Wall Street would hit the rich hard via the negative wealth effects, "and, given how weak the economy is, push it into recession."
The concentration of equity ownership at the top of the U.S. wealth ladder is extreme - the richest 1% in the country owns 50% of stock market assets and the top 10% holds around 90%.
Some measures of household spending are already flashing amber. Inflation-adjusted spending as measured by personal consumption expenditures flatlined in the first half of this year.
Yet figures on Friday showed that retail sales rose 0.5% in July after an upwardly revised 0.9% gain in June.
But then there are tariffs. Companies, not consumers, have borne the brunt of these levies so far. Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that consumers absorbed only 22% of tariff costs through June, but they reckon that figure could rise to 67% in the months ahead if the Trump administration's expected tariffs are implemented.
So there are grounds for both caution and optimism. Much will depend on whether the rich draw in their horns.
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters)
(By Jamie McGeever Editing by Paul Simao)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The National
7 hours ago
- The National
New York appeals court throws out $464m civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump
A US court on Thursday threw out a $464 million civil penalty against President Donald Trump imposed by a judge who found he fraudulently inflated his personal worth, calling the sum "excessive" but upholding the judgment against him. Five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court said the fine "violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution", which prohibits excessive or cruel punishments and penalties. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled against Mr Trump in February last year at the height of his campaign to retake the White House, which coincided with several active criminal prosecutions that the Republican slammed as "lawfare". Mr Trump celebrated the Thursday decision, calling the case a "political witch hunt". "A great win for America," he wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. In a subsequent post, he wrote: "This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely correct and, even, perfect." When Mr Engoron originally ruled against Mr Trump, he ordered the mogul-turned-politician to pay $464 million, including interest, while his sons Eric and Don Jr were told to hand over more than $4 million each. The judge found that Mr Trump and his company had unlawfully inflated his wealth and manipulated the value of properties to obtain favourable bank loans or insurance terms. Mr Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Mr Trump's appeal, and the President was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Alongside the financial hit to Mr Trump, the judge also banned him from running businesses for three years, which the President repeatedly referred to as a "corporate death penalty". State Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the initial case, can now appeal to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," one of the judges, appointed by a Republican governor to the bench, wrote. "The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Mr Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On January 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush-money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Mr Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Mr Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. The President is also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Ms Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.


Khaleej Times
9 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Donald Trump's fine of $464 million for civil fraud overturned by US court
A US court threw out Thursday a $464 million civil penalty against President Donald Trump imposed by a judge who found he fraudulently inflated his personal worth, calling the sum "excessive" but upholding the judgment against him. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled against Trump in February 2024, going on to order the mogul-turned-politician to pay $464 million, including interest, while his sons Eric and Don Jr. were told to hand over more than $4 million each. The judge found that Trump and his company had unlawfully inflated his wealth and manipulated the value of properties to obtain favourable bank loans or insurance terms. On Thursday, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the verdict, but ruled that the size of the fine was "excessive" and that it "violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution." State Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the initial case, could now appeal to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. Following the initial verdict, Trump subsequently sought to challenge the civil ruling as well as the scale and terms of the penalty, which has continued to accrue interest while he appeals. He has repeatedly condemned the case and the penalty as being politically motivated.


Zawya
14 hours ago
- Zawya
UK factories report new downturn and weak outlook, CBI says
British manufacturers have suffered a fresh setback with orders falling heavily in the three months to August and further weakness expected ahead, according to a survey published on Thursday by the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI's monthly balance for manufacturing new orders slipped to -33 in August from -30 in July, taking them back to June's low which was the weakest since the start of 2025. A gauge of output expected over the next three months slipped to -13 from -6, the lowest since May, adding to the sense of gloom over the sector which has been the uncertainty caused by U.S. President Donald Trump's trade tensions as well as a tax hike at home. "Manufacturers report that rising costs are squeezing margins and leaving customers more cautious, which in turn is hitting orders and weighing on output," CBI Lead Economist Ben Jones said. "With weak demand compounded by trade frictions and policy uncertainty, the outlook for UK manufacturers remains challenging," Jones said. Firms' expectations for the prices they charge fell to their weakest since October last year. Earlier on Thursday, a separate monthly survey also showed a fall in new orders and overall activity in the manufacturing sector, in contrast to an improvement for services firms. (Writing by William Schomberg; editing by David Milliken)