A lackluster U.S. economic recovery and declining consumer sentiment often get blamed for weak sales at restaurants. However, another important factor has emerged: Fewer women are working outside the home.
Weaker consumer spending U.S. consumers continue to curb spending in the wake of the recession because they remain worried about losing their jobs in today’s environment of persistently high, if moderately improving, unemployment. Compounding the problem: changes in spending trends, such as diverting from buying clothing to making larger purchases such as cars and homes to take advantage of low interest rates. All of these factors add up to weaker consumer spending.
Plenty of open tables Some retailers, notably those in the casual dining segment of the restaurant industry, have been feeling the pinch.
In addition, a survey of restaurant traffic for the first half of 2013, compared with the past two years, revealed persistent declines, particularly in casual dining and mid-scale — also considered “family” style — restaurants, according to industry tracker The NPD Group/CREST.
Fewer women are active in the labor market Generally speaking, women in the United States control most household budgets. The recent labor force trend of fewer women working for pay outside the home may be amplifying declines among restaurants, particularly in the area of family dining.
The labor force participation rate for women in the United States — that is, the number of working-age women employed or looking for work — slipped to 56.9% in October 2013, from 58.1% in 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women’s workforce participation peaked at 60% in 1999 and has since been steadily declining.
In prior years, with greater numbers of women in the workforce, household income rose along with the standard of living. This led to changes in spending patterns over the years as well as lifestyle changes, according to the Labor Department report. For example, the DOL found in the early 1970s that the average family allocated 72.4% of money spent on food expenditures to food eaten at home, while 26.4% was spent on dining out. By 2002, 58.1% was allocated to food eaten at home, while 41.9% went for dining out.
Workforce participation by women packs a powerful economic punch and has an influence on industry dynamics. If U.S. women participated in the workforce at the same rate as men, it could boost U.S. gross domestic product by 5%, according to the International Monetary Fund.
For informational purposes only. Not an investment recommendation.
This material is provided for limited purposes. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, or any Putnam product or strategy. References to specific asset classes and financial markets are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations or investment advice. The opinions expressed in this article represent the current, good-faith views of the author(s) at the time of publication. The views are provided for informational purposes only and are subject to change. This material does not take into account any investor’s particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status, or investment horizon. Investors should consult a financial advisor for advice suited to their individual financial needs. Putnam Investments cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any statements or data contained in the article. Predictions, opinions, and other information contained in this article are subject to change. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and Putnam assumes no duty to update them. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. As with any investment, there is a potential for profit as well as the possibility of loss.
Diversification does not guarantee a profit or ensure against loss. It is possible to lose money in a diversified portfolio.
Consider these risks before investing: International investing involves certain risks, such as currency fluctuations, economic instability, and political developments. Investments in small and/or midsize companies increase the risk of greater price fluctuations. Bond investments are subject to interest-rate risk, which means the prices of the fund’s bond investments are likely to fall if interest rates rise. Bond investments also are subject to credit risk, which is the risk that the issuer of the bond may default on payment of interest or principal. Interest-rate risk is generally greater for longer-term bonds, and credit risk is generally greater for below-investment-grade bonds, which may be considered speculative. Unlike bonds, funds that invest in bonds have ongoing fees and expenses. Lower-rated bonds may offer higher yields in return for more risk. Funds that invest in government securities are not guaranteed. Mortgage-backed securities are subject to prepayment risk. Commodities involve the risks of changes in market, political, regulatory, and natural conditions. You can lose money by investing in a mutual fund.
Putnam Retail Management.