Author: Jeremy Horpedahl

Change in Homicide Rates from Pre-Pandemic in Large US Cities

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

We all know that homicides spiked in the US in 2020 and we all (hopefully) know that homicides have been falling across most of the country dramatically since the end of 2021. But have homicides started to get back to, or even below, pre-pandemic levels? Or is it merely reversing the 2020 increases?

The answer depends on the city and the pre-pandemic baseline! The chart below shows the 10 largest cities (with Fort Worth instead of Jacksonville, because the Real-Time Crime Index doesn’t include the latter) in the US, using a base of either January 2018 (the first month in the RTCI) or December 2019 (just before the pandemic, and murders had fallen nationally between these two dates):

The murder data comes from the Real-Time Crime Index, and it is a 12-month total so we shouldn’t have to worry about seasonality even though the months are different. I use Census annual city population estimates to calculate the rates (and estimate 2025 based on the growth from 2023-24).

As you can see, depending on the base timeframe used, about half of the cities saw declines, a few were roughly flat, and some definitely saw increases. New York, Houston, and Fort Worth are definitely still elevated. Los Angeles, Philly, Phoenix, and San Diego are definitely down. The others are either close to even or mixed depending on your baseline.

Keep in mind these data are only through March 2025. As both Billy Binion at Reason and Jeff Asher have both recently emphasized, if we use the most recent data for many cities, it’s entirely possible that 2025 will end up having some of the lowest homicide rates ever recorded for many US cities. The declines in early 2025 have definitely been big, but mostly they are just a continuation of the post-2021 decline.

Again, for clarification, all of these cities are down from their 2020-21 peaks: using September 2021 as the base (when the national murder rate roughly peaked), these 10 cities are down between 31% and 58%. Big improvements!

Montana’s New Property Tax System

Jeremy Horpedahl5 Comments

SPOILER ALERT if you are watching the TV Series Yellowstone: at the start of Season 5, John Dutton (played by Kevin Costner) is sworn in as Governor of Montana. One of his first proposals in his inaugural address is that the state legislature “double property taxes for non-residents” who have been buying up vacation homes in the state, and contributing to the increase in property values in the state (a fact which drives many plotlines throughout the series). This episode aired in November 2022.

This week, the real governor of Montana signed a pair of bills which effectively did what the fictional governor John Dutton proposed: significantly increasing property taxes on non-residents. Starting in tax year 2026, the property taxes for non-primary residences (which will include non-Montana residents and Montanans who own vacation homes) will be based on 1.9% of market value, while Montana residents will pay a graduated rate structure for their primary residence: 0.76% for property up to the state median (currently about $340,000), 0.9% up to two times the state median, 1.1% for the value between 2 and 4 times the state median, and 1.9% (the same as non-residents) for the value of homes above 4 times the state median ($1.36 million currently). Currently residential property is taxed at 1.35% of market value, meaning that while the rate hasn’t fully doubled for non-residents, most non-residents will be paying twice or more in property taxes than Montana residents.

I was a non-resident member of the Montana Property Tax Task Force, and served on the “Tax Fairness” subcommittee where the plan for HB 231 originated, so I have somewhat of a unique perspective on these changes to property tax rates. I will offer a few thoughts, some of which are critical, but let me first say that it was a great honor to be asked to serve on the Task Force by Montana’s Governor. Also, everyone on the Task Force was very friendly and receptive to ideas from outsiders (I was one of three non-Montanans on the Task Force), and so my comments here are not critical of the Task Force process nor anyone on it. As I did when I served on the Task Force, my goal in this post is to try, as best as I can, to objectively analyze how this proposal (now law) will impact Montana.

Continue reading →

Spending on Necessities Has Declined Dramatically in the United States

Jeremy Horpedahl8 Comments

Has it gotten easier or harder for Americans to afford the basic necessities of life? Part of the answer to this question depends on how you define “basic necessities,” but using the common triad of food, clothing, and housing seems like a reasonable definition since these composed over 80% of household spending in 1901 in the United States.

If we use that definition of necessities, here is what the progress has looked like in the US since 1901:

The data comes from various surveys that the Bureau Labor Statistics has collected over the years, collectively known as the Consumer Expenditure Surveys. The surveys were conducted about once every 1-2 decades from 1901 up until the 1980s, and then annually starting in 1984. Some of these are multi-year averages, but to simplify the chart I’ll just state one year (e.g., “1919” is for 1918 and 1919). The categories are fairly comprehensive: “food” includes both groceries and spending at restaurants; “housing” includes either mortgage or rent, plus things like utilities and maintenance; and “clothing” includes not only the cost of the clothes themselves, but services associated with them such as repairs or alterations (much more important in the past).

We can see in the chart that over time the share spent on these three areas of spending has declined dramatically, taken as a group. Housing is different, but it has been fairly stable over time, mostly staying between 22% and 29% of income (the Great Depression being an exception). There are two time periods when these costs rose: the Great Depression and the late 1970s/early 1980s. Both are widely recognized as bad economic times, but they are aberrations. The jump from 1973 to 1985 in spending on necessities was fully offset by 2003, and today spending on necessities is well below 1973 — even though for housing, it is a few percentage points greater.

A chart like this shows great progress over time, but it will inevitably raise many questions. Let me try to answer a few of them in advance.

Continue reading →

The Middle/Working Class Has Not Been “Hollowed Out”

Jeremy Horpedahl6 Comments

Claims that the middle class or working class has been “hollowed out” in the US have been made for years, or decades really. The latest claim is an essay in the Free Press by Joe Nocera. But these claims are usually lacking in data, while strong in anecdotes. Let’s look at the data.

One data point we might use is median weekly earnings for full-time workers with a high school diploma, but no college degree. That sounds like a reasonable definition of “working class.” Here’s what that data looks like adjusted for inflation with the PCE Price Index:

Notice that the latest data point is for 2024, which is the highest they have ever been in this data series, and likely higher than any point in the past. While many point to about the year 2000 as when troubles for the working class started (this is when manufacturing employment really fell off a cliff, and China joined the WTO in 2001), inflation-adjusted earnings have risen 11% for this group of workers since then. You might say that’s not a lot of growth — and you would be correct! But this group is better off economically than in the year 2000, which is a point that gets lost in so many discussions about this issue.

But that’s just a national number. Might some states that were especially hit by manufacturing job losses be worse off? Nocera mentions North Carolina and the Midwest. To answer this, we can use BLS OEWS data, which has not only median wages by state, but also the 10th percentile wage — the lowest of the working class. Here’s what median real wage growth (again inflation-adjusted with the PCEPI) since 2001 (the earliest year in this series with comparable data):

Continue reading →

GDP Forecasting: Models, Experts, or Markets?

Jeremy Horpedahl5 Comments

The 2025 first quarter GDP data came in slightly bad: negative 0.3%. I think the number is a bit hard to interpret right now, but it’s hard to spin away a negative number. A big factor pulling down the accounting identify that we call GDP was a massive increase in imports, specifically imports of goods. It’s likely this is businesses trying to front-run the potential tariffs (and keep in mind this was pre-“Liberation Day,” so probably even more front running in April), so the long-run effect is harder to judge.

But aside from the interpretation of the GDP estimate, we can ask a related question: did anyone predict it correctly? I have written previously about two GDP forecasts from two different regional Federal Reserve banks. They were showing very different estimates for GDP!

Both the Fed estimates ending up being pretty wrong: -1.5% and +2.6%. But there are two other kinds of forecasts we can look at.

The first is from a survey of economists done by the Wall Street Journal. The median forecast in that survey was positive 0.4%. This survey got the direction wrong, but it was much closer than the Fed models.

Finally, we can look at prediction markets. There are many such markets, but I’ll use Kalshi, because it’s now legal to use in the US, and it’s pretty easy to access their historical data. The average Kalshi forecast for Q1 (a weighted average of sorts across several different predictions) was -0.6%. Pretty close! They got the direction right, and the absolute error was smaller than WSJ survey. And obviously, much better this quarter than the Fed models.

But this was just one quarter, and perhaps a particularly weird quarter to predict (Atlanta Fed even had to update their model mid-quarter, because large gold inflows were throwing of the model). You may say that weird quarters are exactly when we want these models to perform well! But it’s also useful to look at past predictions. The table below summarizes predictions for the past 9 quarters (as far back as the current NY Fed model goes):

Continue reading →

Is Every Stock a Tariff Stock?

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

Not quite, at least not in the same way that every stock was a vaccine stock in 2020, as Alex Tabarrok put it.

Today the stock market does seem to move a lot on the news about Trump’s ever-evolving tariff policy. If you see the S&P 500 is up today, you can probably guess that Trump or his advisors slightly backed off some aspect of their previously announced tariff policy. And vice versa. That much is true.

But back in 2020, the implied correlation in the market was briefly over 80% in the spring of 2020, and was over 50% for almost all of the summer of 2020. Today, the correlation is closer to 40%. That’s a bit lower than 2020, but it is a significant jump from where it was 2-3 months ago.

Here is the Cboe’s implied 3-month correlation index:

In addition to the costs of tariffs themselves, investors should be worried about this correlation because “market returns are lower when correlations among assets are increasing.”

GDPNow: Still Negative on Q1, But Less So

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

Last month I wrote about the projected decline in GDP from the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model. Since then, they have released an alternative version of the model, which includes a “gold adjustment” to account for non-monetary gold inflows, which may be impacting the model to overstate the negative impact of imports (and it looks like this may be a permanent change to the model).

With those changes, and some more recent data, the GDPNow model is still pointing to a negative reading for Q1 of 2025, though only very slightly now: -0.1%.

It’s also worth noting that the New York Fed has a similar model, but one with very different estimates right now: about 2.6% for Q1.

We’ll still have to wait until April 30th to get the preliminary estimates from BEA.

Other “I, Pencils”

Jeremy Horpedahl2 Comments

When the owner of X.com, also the wealthiest man in the world, posted a video of Milton Friedman explaining how a pencil is made, many economists knew exactly where that reference came from: Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil.”

If you have never read “I, Pencil,” or if it has been a while since you last did, I encourage you to read it right now. It’s quite short and easy to read, as well as easy to understand. That’s what makes it a classic. But let me also summarize what I think are the two main points:

  1. No one can make a pencil on their own — it takes thousands of people to produce all of the inputs and assemble them into a simple pencil
  2. The activities of all those thousands of people are coordinated through subtle but miraculous social institutions, such as the price system, international trade, and property rights — rather than by force through government dictate, and even mostly outside of private firms (though firms are often part of the story)

Leonard Read communicated those ideas beautifully in an essay that is, somewhat humorously, written from the perspective of the pencil itself. But many other economists and economic communicators used other examples of goods to discuss similar themes. I’ll list a few of my favorites, but please comment with yours as well. Some of these essays and videos focus more on the production of the good, some focus more on the institutions, and not all are necessarily about international trade. But these “Other I, Pencils” are great introductory readings to remind us of the power of voluntary human cooperation.

Adam Smith’s “woolen coat” — this is a short discussion early in the Wealth of Nations, describing all of the people and trade needed to produce a woolen coat for a day laborer (at the link you’ll also see a comic version of the tale).

Harriet Martineau’s “plum pudding” — Martineau was a 19th century writer that popularized many of the ideas in Adam Smith. Less well known today, her discussion of international trade needed to bring many simple foods to our table, including plum pudding, is many ways superior to Smith’s discussion (start reading at the line “You mean machines”).

Thomas Thwaites “Toaster Project” — a book and Ted Talk explaining how to make a toaster from scratch — and fail miserably despite spending over $1,000 and spending hundreds of hours, all for something you can buy for a few dollars at the store.

Russ Roberts’ “It’s a Wonderful Loaf” — a poem set to video, explaining how a simple loaf of bread is always ready for you at the bakery when you want it in the morning.

T-Shirts — many examples!

Continue reading →

Freedom to Trade Internationally

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

How much does the US and our trading partners adhere to the principles of free trade? The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World report includes a category that helps to answer this question. Fraser’s measure includes not just tariff rates, but also non-tariff barriers, trade regulations, black market exchange rates, and controls on the movement of capital and people. Each country is assigned a score from 0 to 10, with 10 being the most freedom to trade internationally.

Overall, the US gets a pretty good score, slightly over 8 out of 10, which ranks us as the 53rd most free trading country in the world (data from 2022). That’s pretty good, but clearly not the most open: 52 countries have more trade freedom! Here’s how the US and our 10 largest trading partners look on that measure (I’ve truncated the axis to show roughly the current range of country scores worldwide):

Countries/regions with the highest scores on this measure are Hong Kong and Singapore, and almost every European country scores higher than the US.

What if we just look at tariffs? The US has a slightly higher score at 8.3 out of 10, but our rank on tariffs is slightly lower at 59th most free in the world (this includes not just tariff rates, but also the standard deviation of tariff rates and revenue from the trade sector).

Relative to our largest trading partners, the US does look better on this subcomponent for tariffs, but is still lower than some of our trading partners (note the axis is slightly different than the first chart, to once again roughly show the international range on this measure):

Finally, we might be interested in how much these scores have changed over time. You might sometimes hear that the US has opened up more to trade, while the rest of the world has moved in the opposite direction. This might be true on some margins, but not overall according to the Fraser scores. I use 1990 as the baseline, which is before a lot of the free trade agreements and WTO changes that would happen over the next decade or so (Fraser has no data for Vietnam in 1990, so they are excluded):

Overall, the US and our major European trading partners have reduced the ability of their citizens to trade internationally, while places like China and India have opened up massively to trade. In 1990 China had a mean tariff rate of 40% and India’s was a whopping 79%. Today their tariff rates are still higher than the US: 7.5% in China and 18% in India, compared with 3% in the US. But they are the ones who have massively opened up their economies to international trade, when we consider all aspects of international trade, even if this opening up isn’t as complete as the US. The US ranked as the 12th highest on Fraser’s freedom to trade internationally component in 1990, but is down to 53rd in the most recent data.