Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Post 66: The Impact of E-Commerce on Brick-and-Mortar Cities

 The older I get, the more out of step I become with current trends – and, quite frankly, the less I care about whether I’m in step or not.  When I need to buy something, for example, my inclination is almost always to drive to a local store.  Increasingly however, the typical consumer is finding ways to shop electronically without ever leaving their home (or office).  I do my share of online shopping because the convenience and value can be undeniable.  But it isn’t my default the way it is for many people.

Delivery Vehicle in a No Parking Zone

The problem is that cities have been built with retail space as a substantial and prominent element of the urban fabric.  As e-commerce reshapes the way we shop, it is concurrently reshaping the form of cities.  Shopping districts that used to be urban focal points are struggling, suburban malls that once were dynamos of sales tax generation are leaning on businesses that offer experiences instead of products, and many strip centers that used to be the bread and butter of urban shopping are finding vacancies hard to fill.  Some retail centers, of course, are doing just fine or even thriving, but there is a general malaise around brick-and-mortar retailing that should be worrisome for city leaders.  It might not be quite as dire as the continuing struggles of the office market, but it isn’t far behind and the secondary ripple effects may be more far-reaching.

My goal with this article is to examine the current state of e-commerce, the trends that are shaping its future, and the impact that all of this is having on cities.  As with many aspects of our society, change is happening so rapidly that it is straining our ability to adapt.  The retail industry has shifted dramatically in the past 20 years but our cities are populated with retail buildings designed to last 50 years or more and are served by public infrastructure designed to last 100 years or more.  Cities need a strategy for addressing that mismatch.


The Three Dimensions of E-Commerce


The practice of online shopping has become so ingrained in our lives that it is easy to forget how recently this technology began.  The general concept and early pilot implementations have been around since the 1970s, but it didn’t seriously take off until internet access was commonplace, electronic payment methods had been ironed out, and cell phones became ubiquitous.  All of that wasn’t really in place until the late 1990s or early 2000s, and even in 2010 e-commerce accounted for just over 4 percent of total retail sales.  But in the past 15 years, e-commerce has exploded.


Volume.  Aside from recessions, retail sales volume continues to rise steadily over time – up roughly 150 percent over the past 20 years.  E-commerce volume, however, has ballooned during that same time frame – up approximately 1,500 percent and now into the trillions of dollars.  The rapid increase in online sales can be partially explained by the fact that 20 years ago it was just picking up steam and the volume was relatively low, but if you look at e-commerce sales as a percentage of total sales the trend line is steeply upward.



It is common for a new technology to have a steep growth curve initially and then gradually plateau, but e-commerce shows no signs of slowing down.  The proportion of total sales spiked sharply during the early stages of the COVID pandemic and then dropped slightly afterwards as returning to stores felt safe again, but since 2022 the ratio has resumed its upward path.  E-commerce currently represents roughly 16 percent of total sales and seems likely to reach 25 percent of total sales within the next 8 to 10 years.  The latest indicator?  Amazon recently passed Walmart as the nation’s largest retailer.  


Breadth.  It now seems hard to believe, but when Amazon was founded a little over 30 years ago it was focused almost exclusively on selling books.  It turned out that selling books was an extremely logical entry point into the nascent field of e-commerce.  Avoiding expensive retail locations provided a price advantage, selling from a warehouse meant that many more titles could be in stock than any bookstore could carry, books were an unambiguous commodity (no one needed to test drive or try on a book), and the ability to read reviews from other customers presaged the addictive rise of social media.  It didn’t take long, however, for the company to diversify into music, electronics and other consumer goods.  In just six years books were less than half of the company’s revenue and eight years later they weren’t even the largest product category.  


Amazon (and its integrated roster of third-party vendors) now sell seemingly every product under the sun.  There have always been skeptics, of course, that believed that certain products would always be sold in person and be immune to the impact of e-commerce.  That list, however, is getting smaller and smaller.  For example, groceries (particularly fresh produce and meat) were thought to be safe from e-commerce but that has changed dramatically.  It is estimated that roughly 60 percent of all US households are either current users of e-commerce for groceries or are at least capable of doing so.  Walmart – the nation’s largest grocer – has made major inroads into online grocery shopping in recent years.  Sign up for a Walmart account and they will give you the option of having your groceries delivered within a couple of hours.  For those willing to share the code to their smart-lock or garage door keypad, Walmart offers the slightly creepy option (in my opinion) of coming into your home and putting the groceries away for you.


Buying and selling cars is another product category that seemed immune from e-commerce, but Carvana broke that barrier in 2013.  Now there are an assortment of businesses that sell both new and used cars online (including Amazon as of 2024).  Virtually every retailer of nearly every type and even modest size now has an online presence in order to survive.  Many people still enjoy the experience of in-person shopping, but it is rarely necessary to shop in person if you don’t want to do so.


Speed.  The Achilles heel of e-commerce has always been the time it takes for your purchase to be delivered to your door.  Sure, in-person shopping takes time as well, particularly if you have to go to multiple stores to find what you want, but it still beats waiting several days for your package to arrive.  E-commerce businesses are obviously aware of this issue and have invested billions to streamline the delivery process.  Average delivery time across the industry improved from approximately six and a half days in 2020 to just over 4 days by mid-2023. [1]  Shipping time is even shorter for the businesses that do the biggest volume of sales – Amazon is now down to an average of less than two days.  Delivery speed is a crucial perk for those willing to sign up for membership programs.  For example, roughly 75 percent of Amazon shoppers are members of Amazon Prime.  U.S. based Prime members received over 8 billion items in 2025 the same or next day, a 30 percent increase over the prior year. [2]


While faster is always better in general terms, things have become a little more nuanced in recent years.  In a 2024 survey, the importance of delivery speed was actually slightly below delivery cost and delivery reliability.  Ninety percent of consumers are willing to wait two or three days (at least some of the time) if it lets them avoid shipping costs. [1]


The Future of Retailing


You might be wondering why this section isn’t titled “the future of e-commerce.”  The reason is that brick-and-mortar retail and e-commerce retail are becoming more and more entwined.  Not only are brick-and-mortar businesses rolling out sophisticated online shopping sites, but e-commerce stalwarts such as Amazon, Chewy, Warby Parker, and Wayfair are opening physical stores in selected locations.  Amazon is building several 30,000 square-foot “department stores” and may even experiment with much larger “supercenters” similar to Walmart.


The official name for this trend is “omnichannel retailing” and it has been underway for the past 5 or 10 years.  The term basically means that every retail business is scrambling to connect with their customers using every conceivable communication channel possible.  Don’t want to come into our store?  Visit our website!  Prefer learning about new products through social media influencers?  Then checkout our presence in Facebook Marketplace, Instagram Shops or embedded product tags in Reels and Stories!  Even TikTok has an estimated global e-commerce impact of more than $30 billion.  Once a haven for small retailers, TikTok Shop now attracts major brands that are reporting huge year-over-year sales increases.  [3]


Predictably, the latest “channel” is artificial intelligence.  Instead of visiting multiple websites, comparing production selection and price, and then placing an order, simply describe what you need to your AI tool of choice and let it find the best product and the best price.  Within a few seconds, AI will have recommendations clearly explained and organized for your review.  According to a recent survey, nearly 60 percent of online consumers have used artificial intelligence to help with shopping decisions. [4]  AI has become a trusted friend to many people – a friend, it should be mentioned, that has instant access to almost unlimited information.  Nearly half of users trust AI more than their human friends to help make fashion decisions. 


I decided to test AI as a shopping channel when my old laptop shot craps the other day.  I told Google Gemini what I was looking for and asked it to find the best deal.  Almost instantly it identified what it thought were the best options and included links that took me directly to the respective websites with the product pre-selected and ready for check-out.  I used one of the recommendations for my purchase without searching to see if I could get a better deal.  I’m not sure I trust it enough to be a regular user, but the experience was eye-opening.  Speaking of trust, some people are reportedly empowering AI agents with payment information so that AI can not only find the best deal, but go ahead with finalizing purchase and delivery details.  I am definitely not there yet and may never be, but younger generations are unlikely to have the same reservations.


The rise of artificial intelligence is likely to hurt physical retail stores in two additional ways.  First, AI tools are likely to focus shopping decisions on value or fit which will weaken the impact of brand recognition – something that traditional stores tend to rely on heavily.  The exception may be at the very high end of the spectrum where value and function are less important than the social statement that is made by wearing a particular brand.  


Second, AI tools are going to enable what is often referred to as hyper-personalization.  Your favorite AI-bot will know so much about you that its recommendations will almost seem like an extension of your own mind.  Virtual shopping software will assist in this process by letting you “see” how clothes, eyeglasses or makeup will look on you.  Physical stores will try to replicate this ability with AI-powered kiosks or display panels that supplement sales associates, but for many people the online experience will be too convenient to ignore.


Impact on Cities


To my surprise, the more I looked into e-commerce the more I realized that the impact on cities was not uniformly bad.  Online shopping is forcing some uncomfortable transitions, but there are some positives as well which means that the overall impact is a mixed bag.  


The rise of warehousing.  From a construction standpoint, the big e-commerce winner has been warehousing space.  For each one percent rise in the share of retail purchases going online, there is a corresponding increase in warehouse demand of 50 to 70 million square feet. [5]  E-commerce fulfillment centers have been popping up all across the country in recent years and continue to be built at a rapid pace.


This isn’t, however, the type of warehouse space that most people are familiar with.  A traditional warehouse houses bulk quantities of goods shipped from one business to another.  A fulfillment center may receive goods in bulk, but they are quickly broken down into individual units that can quickly be shipped to individuals.  Although fulfillment centers come in a variety of sizes to suit a variety of purposes, they typically are very large (500,000 to 1,000,000 square feet), high ceilinged and very automated.  Many centers basically operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week.


From a local government standpoint, e-commerce warehousing has both pros and cons.  On the positive side, these facilities pay a moderate amount of property tax but demand relatively little in terms of public services (e.g. parks, schools or police services).  They often prefer to be located near railroad tracks or interstate highways – sites that generally aren’t great for residential neighborhoods – and they are relatively benign from an environmental standpoint.  


On the down side, fulfillment centers are out-of-scale aesthetic disasters that do nothing for the character or vibrancy of the city, and produce little sales tax or secondary economic benefits.  No one says “hey, let’s go hang out at the industrial park and watch the UPS trucks come and go.”  Fulfillment centers might be a useful part of modern life but they are not what makes a city great.


Somewhat more troubling is a recent trend spurred by the demand for same-day or two-hour delivery service which is leading to mini-warehouses stocked with frequently requested items.  These micro-fulfillment centers are often just 5,000 to 15,000 square feet in size and are typically located in the heart of urban centers.  They are great for meeting the needs of shoppers desperate for a bottle of Advil, a package of Huggies, or a bag of Purina Dog Chow, but they are a dead zone in terms of pedestrian activity.  They typically occupy street level space that might otherwise have been a shop or restaurant, but now is a warehouse with blacked out windows.  Fortunately, they tend to gravitate toward Class-B or -C commercial space that might otherwise be vacant for an extended time, but the facilities generate delivery and pick-up traffic that the buildings are ill suited for and which may disrupt other nearby businesses.


Shifting retail space.  You would think that e-commerce would be ringing the death knell for retail development but it isn’t quite that simple.  Keep in mind that retailers are constantly chasing disposable income and disposable income keeps moving, thus sustaining new retail development.  Retail shops particularly covet affluent young families with children, new houses, and unfulfilled ambitions because they want/need to buy lots of stuff on a regular basis.  In the past, affluent families congregated in sprawling suburban subdivisions accompanied by new parks, new schools and new shopping centers.  Demographic trends (i.e. fewer kids), high interest rates, long commutes and housing affordability issues have put a crimp in that pipeline, but it isn’t empty yet.  


Plus, many people still prefer in-person shopping in physical stores (at least part of the time).  After all, eighty percent of purchases are not made online.  Even though that number is dwindling, it means there is still demand for brick-and-mortar storefronts.  Hence, new retail centers are being built, but not as many as a decade or two ago.  The shifting retail demand pattern inevitably leaves some shopping centers or retail districts with declining sales, however, and the loss of business to e-commerce platforms simply makes things worse.  Particularly hard hit have been retail categories such as electronics, books, apparel and home furnishings.


The perceived k-shaped economy – where the top 20 percent of households thrive and the remainder struggle – has helped luxury brands and value retailers at the expense of mid-range stores.  Some chains have either closed many of their locations or gone out of business entirely.  The remainder are trying to find some hybrid middle ground that captures the “omnichannel” strategy discussed earlier.  Walmart, for example, is pushing hard into e-commerce and is using many of its 4,000+ stores as mini fulfillment centers.  Because of its wide geographic coverage, Walmart can deliver to nearly 95 percent of U.S. households in 3 hours or less.  Customers now expedite roughly a third of store-fulfilled orders so that they arrive in 1 to 3 hours. [6]


The final shift in brick-and-mortar retailing is an increased emphasis on making the experience of in-person shopping fun.  Many centers that were struggling are now jam packed with restaurants, bars, entertainment uses (e.g. arcades, putt-putt golf, etc.) or retail services (e.g. day spas, nail salons, etc.).  This shift was partly a desperation move to fill vacancies left by traditional retail stores that drastically cut back locations, but it has morphed into a sustained strategy for keeping rent income flowing and foot traffic high.  Fun is a valuable differentiator compared with online shopping.  This approach doesn’t work everywhere, however, which means that some older shopping areas have high vacancy rates and no viable turnaround plan.


Delivery traffic.  If the previous two sections showed the impact of e-commerce as less destructive than expected, then surely the thousands of delivery vehicles roaming every major city will make up for it by being unabashedly bad.  After all, it is a rare day when at least three or four UPS, FedEx or Amazon trucks don’t go down my quiet residential street.  But as it turns out, there are pluses and minuses here too and there is actually a surprising lack of definitive studies on the impact of delivery vehicles.  I suspect this is because the true answer is “it depends.”


So here is my two-part hypothesis.  First, in low-density residential neighborhoods the presence of delivery vehicles may be very visible but the overall impact is probably positive.  Keep in mind that the delivery route of a single Amazon truck replaces dozens of shopping trips taken by individual household residents.  And in contrast to the relatively random approach to shopping that I and many others take, every part of an e-commerce delivery has been ruthlessly optimized.  All of this doesn’t make a great deal of difference because most residential streets are well below capacity in terms of the vehicle trips they carry, but I am reasonably confident that e-commerce ends up reducing the total number of trips in low-density areas.


In addition, most of the large e-commerce businesses and delivery services are shifting to electric vehicles much faster than the general public.  Thus, total pollution levels are lower now or at least soon will be.


On the other hand, in dense, urban areas the impact probably flips to mostly negative.  There may still be fewer total trips, but other factors come into play that make e-commerce more problematic.  To begin with, many household shopping trips in heavily urbanized areas are likely to be completed using walking, biking or transit as the primary transportation mode.  Where a car is used for shopping, the trip typically ends in a parking garage or lot where it doesn’t obstruct traffic.  While there are some e-commerce deliveries by cargo bike, the vast majority use delivery vehicles and that is problematic for two reasons: (1) they increase total vehicle miles driven on streets that are near capacity, and (2) they have drivers who routinely double park during deliveries which obstructs the flow of traffic.


In a low-density setting a UPS delivery truck can almost always pull over to the curb so that traffic can easily go around and the delivery time frame is measured in seconds.  In a high density setting, drivers can almost never find a loading zone that takes them out of traffic and the time it takes to find the correct recipient or package drop-off location in a 30-story building can easily be several minutes.  Thus, traffic - which is already bad - is almost always made worse by the e-commerce delivery process.


Cities, of course, can address the problems caused by double-parked delivery vehicles by issuing tickets.  Most cities do just that, issuing tickets for double parking by the thousands.  Unfortunately, it has not had the desired effect.  Drivers have been instructed by their employers to double park anyway so that package delivery times can be kept as low as possible.  Paying tickets has become simply a cost of doing business. 


A recent study in San Francisco found that the city issued nearly 15,000 parking tickets in 2023 to the top delivery services. [7]  No city, of course, wants to deal with the administrative processing costs for 15,000 tickets if it can be avoided, so most have some form of consolidated payment option which allows bulk violators to pay a reduced fine amount in exchange for not contesting any of the tickets.  In the end, it is something of a win-win for both the city and the delivery companies but it underscores the fact that the e-commerce delivery system is incompatible with the urban form of most large cities.


The Bottom Line


E-commerce is changing the face of retail which, in turn, presents challenges for the urban form of cities, but it is not a complete disaster.  It is simply one more change agent that cities need to adjust for as future zoning and infrastructure decisions are made.  There is no magic wand, but I have a few suggestions for minimizing the pain.


Scale back new retail zoning.  As discussed above, there will still be a need for new retail development in growing cities, but it will be less than has historically been the case.  If e-commerce is siphoning off approximately 15 to 20 percent of retail sales, cities should plan for a roughly equal reduction in new retail square footage.  This is particularly true for large scale shopping centers aimed at a community-wide or regional market.  These centers have traditionally been supported primarily by department stores and apparel stores which have been particularly hard hit by e-commerce.  There will still be some demand but cities should be skeptical of grand plans that seem to harken back to the early 2000s.  Cities should be especially leery of developers requesting public subsidies or up-front public infrastructure commitments.  Over-zoning for retail development will simply cannibalize existing shopping districts causing premature decline.


Expand loading zones.  Everybody loves on-street parking because it is convenient to use and either free or wildly underpriced.  But it is arguably the least productive use of the public right-of-way, particularly in dense city-center locations.  Instead of parking, cities should block off at least 50 to 60 linear feet of loading zone space on virtually every block face.  This will lessen the congestion caused by double-parked delivery vehicles and facilitate the growing utilization of robotaxis and network transportation services (e.g. Uber, et al).  This is likely to be very unpopular politically – local businessmen will swear that any reduction in parking will force them into bankruptcy – but cities should at least start a pilot program to gather actual data on the impact on both business and traffic.


Encourage package delivery centers.   Cities should strongly encourage any large residential complex or high-rise office building to have a ground floor package delivery center that offers a convenient and secure way for packages to be delivered and stored.  Developers are already doing this voluntarily because it is a valuable amenity for tenants, but cities should push to make this practice as universal as possible.  Even suburban subdivisions should think about providing a secured package delivery station in order to thwart porch pirates.  The technology is already available to make this workable and it would cut down on the number of packages delivered to office locations simply because people don’t want packages left unattended on their doorstep.


Finally, several delivery companies are testing out delivery via unmanned drones, either airborne helicopter-type vehicles or sidewalk based robots.  I don’t think any of these delivery devices are ready for prime time and they all have major potential pitfalls.  If cities are approached by companies wanting permission for this kind of service, they should just say “no.”  Let some other city be the guinea pig until the technology is proven.






Notes:


1. Sandy Gosling, et al;  “What do US consumers want from e-commerce deliveries?”; McKinsey and Company; February 2025; https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/logistics/our-insights/what-do-us-consumers-want-from-e-commerce-deliveries


2. “Amazon sets new Prime delivery speed record in 2025”; Amazon News; February 2026; https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-prime-same-day-next-day-delivery-2025


3. Allison Smith; “Sales from major brands on TikTok Shop nearly doubled in 2025, drawing Ulta and Sally Beauty”; ModernRetail; March 2026; https://www.modernretail.co/technology/sales-from-major-brands-on-tiktok-shop-nearly-doubled-in-2025-drawing-ulta-and-sally-beauty/


4. Caroline Mackey; “Nearly 60 Percent Use AI to Shop – Here’s What That Means for Brands and Buyers”; University of Virginia, Darden School of Business; June 2025; https://news.darden.virginia.edu/2025/06/17/nearly-60-use-ai-to-shop-heres-what-that-means-for-brands-and-buyers/


5. “The E-Commerce Boom Isn’t Over:  Implications for Logistics Real Estate”; Prologis; March 2025; https://www.prologis.com/insights-news/research/e-commerce-boom-isnt-over-implications-logistics-real-estate#:~:text=E%2Dcommerce%20penetration%20growth%20translates,of%20net%20absorption%20by%202030.


6. Melissa Repko; “Walmart hikes sales and earnings forecast as it attracts shoppers across incomes”; CNBC; November 2025; https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/walmart-wmt-q3-2026-earnings.html


7. Noah Baustin; “One year, 14,000 tickets:  How delivery giants shrug off fines and flout SF’s parking laws”; The San Francisco Standard; July 2024; https://sfstandard.com/2024/07/31/ups-fedex-delivery-parking-tickets-2023/


Sunday, March 8, 2026

Post 65: Cities and the K-Shaped Economy

 I’m not sure why, but whenever I read about the U.S. economy, images of the Titanic flash in my brain.  On the surface, things look pretty good.  The stock market is near record highs, the growth of GDP has been solid, and inflation is only a percentage point or so above the target rate.  So why do I sense that danger is lurking just below the surface?


RMS Titanic


Perhaps my anxiety stems from Captain Edward Smith who dismissed warnings about sea ice from other ships and maintained his course at full speed.  The “captain” of our economy seems equally determined to ignore warning signs and blast ahead as if our economy were unsinkable.  As history has repeatedly taught us, however, there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship or an economy immune from recession.


As it turns out, there are a variety of economic icebergs that could sink the economy if they are left unaddressed.  I’m going to touch on a couple of the more ominous ones, but then focus on the one factor that I think is particularly relevant to the development and prosperity of cities.  The national economy is so complex, of course, that charting a successful economic path is as much an art as a science.  Consequently, predicting economic collapse is a popular pastime among economists and financial pundits.  Those predictions are occasionally right but mostly wrong because the U.S. economy has proven to be remarkably resilient.


So while I am personally pessimistic about our country’s near-term economic outlook, I’m not going to make this article a prediction of the future.  Instead, I’m going to structure what I have to say on the economic trends that I find troubling as more of an exercise in scenario planning – if these trends continue, what would the impact be and how should cities respond.  Scenario planning is a tool that can prepare cities for bad events that might happen even if the exact timing and nature of those events can’t be accurately predicted.


The Labor Market


By several measures, the U.S. economy is booming.  The gross domestic product (GDP) for example, has more than doubled since 2010, and most of that growth has taken place in just the past 5 years.  In fact, GDP has grown consistently for a very long time.  Current GDP is more than 100 times larger than it was in 1950.  During that time, total employment has grown consistently as well, although not at the same rate since worker productivity increased at the same time.


The odd thing is that recent employment has under-performed compared with economic growth.  This is particularly true in the past two years.  Nonfarm employment fluctuates to some degree, but total U.S. employment has averaged nearly 150,000 additional jobs each month since 2010. That drops to just over 70,000 since the beginning of 2024 and roughly 23,000 since Trump took office in January of 2025.  In fact, total employment growth would have been negative in 2025 had it not been for robust expansion in the medical and social assistance sectors.




The current economy is now being called a “jobless boom” in contrast to the situation immediately following the pandemic when companies seemingly couldn’t hire people fast enough.  The current quit rate is nearing 10-year lows and the rate of layoffs is trending upward.  If 2021 and 2022 were characterized by “job hopping” because job openings were everywhere, 2025 and 2026 are being defined by “job hugging” – a term coined by Korn Ferry consultants. [1]  Job hugging is when people cling to their jobs due to economic uncertainty rather than due to fondness for their work or loyalty to their companies.


The current lack of hiring may largely be a reaction to what is now perceived as the over-hiring in 2021 and 2022, but it increasingly reflects the impact of Artificial Intelligence which is making many white collar jobs unnecessary.  Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI giant Anthropic, has warned that the technology could replace 50 percent of entry-level jobs before 2030.  He has stated that AI’s “cognitive breadth” will replace not just a single type of worker, but will eliminate jobs across a broad swath of white-collar industries, thus preventing laid-off workers from finding employment in related fields. [2]  The unemployment rate has remained fairly stable because of deportation efforts, immigration policy changes, and retiring baby boomers, but I expect the rate to increase significantly over the next year or two.


Debt


The total amount of U.S. national debt continues to surge to new record levels, now more than $37 trillion dollars.  Of course our country has always had debt starting from its very inception after the revolutionary war.  But the scale of debt is relatively new – it is now well in excess of GDP – and it has the potential to drastically alter our economic future.  Just 20 years ago total national debt was roughly 60 percent of GDP.  Recent presidents of both parties – from Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden and back to Trump – have piled on debt like there is no tomorrow.  It has become the cocaine of the federal government, highly addictive and ultimately destructive.


President Trump has promised to substantially reduce the Federal debt by relying on revenue from rapid economic growth, his “gold card” immigration program, and DOGE spending cuts.  So far none of those programs have had any significant impact on debt levels.  Debt in Trump’s first year actually increased by more than $2 trillion dollars.  His track record from his first term doesn’t inspire confidence either – debt rose more than $7 trillion during those four years.  I am not trying to pin the problem solely on Trump because this is a problem that neither party has been able to solve.  I just want to make it clear that there is currently no solution in sight.


The national debt qualifies as an economic iceberg for a variety of reasons:


High interest payments.  In 2026, the estimated interest payments on Federal debt will top $1 trillion dollars.  This level is three times higher than in 2020 and represents more than 18 percent of federal revenue.  Money spent on interest is money that could have been spent more productively elsewhere.


Slower economic growth.   Increased government debt hinders growth by reducing the capital available for private sector investments.  In effect, debt hamstrings the very strategy that offers the best chance to reduce debt levels (i.e. economic growth).


Higher interest rates.  As government borrowing increases, global financial markets are likely to increase interest rates which raises borrowing costs not only for the federal government, but for local governments, businesses and individuals as well.  Higher interest rates, of course, lead to higher interest payments which spark the need for more borrowing and starts a downward spiral that no one wants.


Less fiscal flexibility.  Increasing debt is like painting yourself into a corner.  There is simply less room to maneuver financially the next time there is an economic crisis, a pandemic or a global war.  


The K-Shaped Economy


There have been quite a few articles in the press in recent months about a phenomenon known as a k-shaped economy, although the definition of exactly what that term means is a little fuzzy and some debate is taking place as to whether we are really experiencing this phenomenon or not.  The term is generally used to describe an economy where the rich are getting richer and the rest of society is struggling to make ends meet.  Unfortunately, different writers describe “the rich” in different ways and the degree to which the rest of society is struggling might be more of a perception than actual reality.  Consequently, a deeper dive into the data seems warranted.


Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, recently posted about trends in personal outlays by income group. [3]  He found an interesting difference between U.S. households in the top 20 percent of all households, and those in the bottom 80 percent.  Thirty years ago, the two groups had roughly equal amounts of personal outlays but the relative shares have been diverging ever since.  Currently, the top 20 percent account for nearly 60 percent of personal outlays and the rest of society is down to just over 40 percent.  He sees this trend as a bad sign because it means the economy is increasingly dependent on a relatively small group of wealthy households.  This point is further backed up by a Federal Reserve research paper which found that since 2018 retail sales to households earning over $100,000 have increased by 16.7%, compared with 13.3% for households earning between $60,000 and $100,000, and just 7.9% for households earning less than $60,000 (all figures adjusted for inflation). [4]  Thus, while all groups are spending more, the rich are spending considerably more.


A recent Gallup poll found that only 59 percent of Americans gave high ratings when asked to evaluate how good their life will be in 5 years.  This is the lowest rating since Gallup started asking this question 20 years ago.  Current life satisfaction is also declining but future scores are falling nearly twice as fast. [5]  Jordan McGillis in a Wall Street Journal Editorial said that middle class families don’t feel as secure as they once did because of what he calls the Great Decompression – where incomes are rising across the board, but are rising much faster for families at the high end of the spectrum.


Families with income at the 80 percentile and above are pulling away in lifestyle and social status, opening a chasm that separates them significantly from families with median incomes.


For families with children, the household income of the 80th percentile in 1975 was 51 percent more than the median family.  By 2000, that difference had risen to 68 percent more, and last year the difference was 85 percent more.  McGillis references sociologist Richard Reeves as identifying this trend as allowing the upper classes to “hoard the American Dream.” [6]


Even more striking is the change in wealth as illustrated by the chart below which shows the trend in total household wealth over the past 25 years.  The first thing to point out is that the bottom half of all households have only a trivial amount of total wealth – currently just 2.5 percent of the total, down from 3.5 percent in 1990.  The second thing to notice is that the only group to move up substantially is the top 1 percent of households.  That small group increased their share of total wealth from 22.5 percent to 31.7 percent.  This increase came primarily at the expense of households that have historically been the heart of the American economy – the 50th percentile through the 90th percentile.  Even though their actual wealth increased

(even in inflation adjusted dollars), their share of wealth dropped by almost 20 percent.  



An Economic Conundrum 


What all of this boils down to is a situation in which many  people, while objectively better off than they were 10 or 20 years ago, feel subjectively worse off.  In my opinion, part of the problem is that expectations – fueled by popular culture and social media – have grown faster than average incomes or wealth.  We feel poorer than we actually are.  


This may seem like a moment when I should write something like “don’t worry, everything is fine” but I’m not going to for two primary reasons.  The first is that perception is reality.  It doesn’t matter if average household income has risen in inflation-adjusted dollars, our behavior is determined by how wealthy we feel and right now many people are feeling like they are losing ground relative to where they think they should be in society.  In a recent poll by ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said that a new car was unaffordable given their current budget.  Taking a weeklong vacation (60%) and healthcare costs (56%) were also seen as unaffordable by a majority of people.  The new reality is that a large chunk of our society feel they can no longer afford purchases that used to be taken for granted by many middle class households just a few decades ago. [7]


The second reason is that both income and wealth inequality is growing.  Our economic success isn’t being shared as evenly as it once was.  Increasing inequality is real, not just perceived, and it seems counter to what our country has historically stood for.  The growing gap between the rich and the middle class may lead people to believe that the economy is rigged against them and that they can’t succeed no matter how hard they work.  If that happens, our society is in real trouble.


Part of the issue is that the parts of the economy that are doing especially well are not evenly distributed across wealth classes.  The stock market is near historic highs, for example, but the ownership of stocks and mutual funds is heavily skewed toward the top ten percent of households by wealth.  A booming stock market simply doesn’t matter to most families.


A second issue is that companies are figuring out that star employees – the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the strategists, the specialists and the big producers – are the real source of profits.  Middle managers, bean counters, and other worker bees are either necessary in far smaller quantities or can be replaced with AI agents.  Salary and employment decisions are being made accordingly.  Big bucks for some, minimal raises or layoffs for many.  The fintech company Block, for example, recently laid off 4,000 of its 10,000 employees.  That is probably an anomaly, but the fact that a company that recently reported a Q4 profit increase of more than 20 percent can find a way to operate with 40 percent fewer employees is scary.


What is potentially more worrisome is that the societal split embodied in the K-shaped economy may get worse before it gets better.  The job destruction potential of artificial intelligence may just be ramping up.  As with many disruptive technologies throughout history, the jump in productivity and the availability of excess labor will likely cause new types of jobs to be created that were not previously foreseen.  Eventually, the overall impact of AI on society may well be positive.  The problem is that job destruction happens first which means that there is a period of time when lots of people who thought they had dependable careers are suddenly unemployed and very angry.


A big economic shock like a jump in unemployment typically elicits a strong economic stimulus from the federal government.  Witness, for example, the actions that followed the 2008 housing crisis or the 2020 COVID pandemic.  That response, however, might be muted in the future because borrowing may be constrained by a heavy debt load (due to a middle east war, perhaps?) or by rising interest rates (due to tariff induced trade disputes?).  I’m not predicting that these things will happen, but it is a scenario with odds well above zero.


The Impact on Cities


It may be a bit of a longshot, but what if the k-shaped economy continues to the point where there is a clear break between the top 10 or 20 percent and everyone else?  What if legions of mid-level accountants, paralegals, sales managers, researchers, and software coders with years of experience are suddenly out of a job and unable to find work?  What if the middle class decide that capitalism is not a meritocracy, but rather a system that is rigged so that the rich get richer and everyone else has to fight over the scraps?  


Sorry, I’m getting too dystopian.  Society isn’t likely to flip-flop into a new reality overnight.  But what if society shifts in that direction?  Would people elect politicians who promise to return things to a nostalgic past (make America great again)?  Would people blame immigrants for job market woes?  Would people reject science for internet conspiracy theories?  What if the fringe become a potent political force?  It might not take much of a shift for things to get weird.  Particularly at the local level, our democracy depends upon a large block of society being level headed and relatively united in working toward a shared future vision.  It is worth thinking about how cities should respond if disillusionment spreads and the ‘silent majority’ shatter into a dozen splinter groups.


Take care of the basics.  This may sound overly simplistic, but when people are economically stressed, cities need to fill the potholes, keep people safe, fix the playground equipment, and keep utility systems running smoothly.  Households that are worrying about making the next mortgage payment shouldn’t have the added stress of worrying whether their kids are safe walking to school or whether the water system is going to shut down because neglected pipes are breaking.  When times are good, cities often expand into programs that are nice but not essential.  If times turn bad, cities need to pare back or pull the plug despite the constituencies that have built up around them.


Don’t swing for economic home runs.  If the local economy is struggling, every politician wants to be at the ribbon-cutting for the new factory (or office campus, or medical center) that is going to create a thousand new jobs.  The problem is that economic development staffers can spend years trying to land the splashy new employer only to have the whole project go up in smoke or have it shift to some other city.  Even the successes can have such an enormous cost in terms of economic incentives and tax breaks that the new jobs are an overall drain on the community.  Community boosters like to claim that lavish incentives are needed to “prime the pump” for more growth in the future, but that approach can turn into a ponzi scheme if cities aren’t careful.


Cities would be better off nurturing home-grown economic expansion that might take the form of a thousand small entrepreneurs.  How many people have started a “side hustle” that became a significant contributor to household wealth?  The so-called gig economy will be a particularly useful safety valve if layoffs become commonplace.  Twenty years ago, who would have thought that people could make a good living as a podcaster or social media influencer?  Cities should reexamine their home occupation ordinances to make sure they are as flexible as possible and should think about sponsoring training resources for people wanting to start their own business.


Enable economic returns on existing assets.  I am amazed that someone with a cellphone and a car – two of the most widely owned assets – can make a living as an Uber driver.  No college degree, office building or special equipment needed.  I don’t even really need the car.  In many cities, an e-bike and a phone are all I need to do deliveries for Doordash, et al.  These are examples of a secondary economy that is unexpectedly blooming because of technologies invented over just the past decade or two.  Will a software developer laid off because AI made him redundant be happy with a career delivering pizza on an e-bike?  Probably not, but my point is that economic growth can take place in surprising ways. A couple of cobbled together side hustles might make a second career or at least serve as a stop-gap until a more traditional job appears.


Real estate is an example of a local asset where significant economic returns are often locked away by unnecessary city regulations.  Most cities have neglected neighborhoods filled with houses that are literally falling apart and in recent years developers have made decent money rehabbing and “flipping” those houses to buyers desperate for a reasonably priced place to live.  That activity has unlocked value, boosted the local tax base, and reinvigorated neighborhoods that were headed toward blight.  


The problem is that cities have unintentionally put a cap on how much can be accomplished by enacting a myriad of regulations and fees connected with almost any form of construction work.  These regulations and fees may make perfect sense in the context of large scale projects or new subdivisions on the edge of the city, but for a small developer rehabbing just one or two properties a year they can be the difference between success and failure.  Instead of spending a hundred million on expanding the convention center for conventions that may never appear, perhaps cities should spend money streamlining construction processes for small projects, and even subsidize infrastructure costs for builders willing to produce affordable housing.


In previous posts, I have written about the falling size of the average household and yet many cities have thousands of 4-bedroom, single-family homes on large lots.  The houses were built for families of four, five or six people but are increasingly occupied by an elderly person or couple wanting to age in place in a familiar home in a familiar neighborhood.  They are not only “over housed,” they are often overwhelmed by maintenance tasks they can no longer perform and expensive maintenance projects they can no longer afford.  Cities should modify their zoning regulations to allow homes to have an accessory apartment or a freestanding accessory dwelling unit in the back yard.  The existing owner is able to tap into a new source of revenue, the tax base grows, and new forms of affordable housing are created.


Keep debt levels low.  Earlier I wrote about the iceberg of federal debt, but local governments frequently have their own debt problems.  At least in theory, the federal government can print their way, inflate their way, or grow their way out of debt, but cities have far fewer options.  A city mired in debt can significantly raise taxes, drastically cut budgets or declare bankruptcy – none of which are good options if the economy is depressed and the citizenry feels underwater.  Spending on glitzy projects that promise a big return on investment can seem like progress, but the people doing the cost-benefit analysis are prone to exaggeration because they have a vested interest in getting the project built.


Even projects financed with federal grants should be examined with a jaundiced eye if the operational and maintenance costs are going to fall to the city.  In particular, projects designed to support future growth may backfire during an economic slowdown because the “growth” turns out to be either nonexistent or simply a reshuffling of existing economic activity.  The spigot of federal money seems like manna from heaven but it can lure cities into reckless spending and it can be unexpectedly shut down leaving cities holding the bag.


The Bottom Line


The point of this article, and scenario planning in general, is to highlight actions that can be taken in the near term which expand the range of future events that can be handled without disastrous results.  A little planning during unsettled times can be a form of insurance against future risks.  Unfortunately, cities often have a type of inertia that makes even minor adjustments in direction difficult until disaster is imminent – which brings me back to my analogy with the Titanic.  In hindsight, it seems obvious that the disaster could have been avoided.  As it turns out, the sinking of the Titanic did result in changes to the way ocean liners were built and operated, but at a terrific cost.  My fingers are crossed that municipal captains will be able to steer clear of the financial icebergs that are looming ahead.







Notes:



  1.  Matt Bohn, et al.; “Job Hugging for Dear Life”; August 2025; Korn Ferry; https://www.kornferry.com/insights/this-week-in-leadership/job-hugging-for-dear-life

  2. Sawdah Bhaimiya; “Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warns AI may cause ‘unusually painful’ disruption to jobs”; January 2026; CNBC; https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/27/dario-amodei-warns-ai-cause-unusually-painful-disruption-jobs.html#:~:text=Anthropic's%20CEO%20Dario%20Amodei%20warned,humans%2C'%22%20Amodei%20wrote.

  3. Mark Zandi; Moody’s Analytics; February 2026; https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-zandi-667086350_the-k-shaped-economy-is-becoming-steadily-activity-7418691133180112896-Wz7h/

  4. Sinem Hacioglu Hoke, et al; “A Better Way of Understanding the U.S. Consumer:  Decomposing Retail Spending by Household Income”; October 2024; Federal Reserve System; https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/a-better-way-of-understanding-the-u-s-consumer-decomposing-retail-spending-by-household-income-20241011.html

  5. Linley Sanders; “What a new Gallup poll shows about the depth of Americans’ gloom”; February 2026; AP; https://apnews.com/article/poll-gallup-optimism-future-republicans-democrats-4dc287cdbbaefb077895746613fea4e4

  6. Jordan McGillis; “Why the Middle Class Feels Poor”; February 2026; Wall Street Journal; https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-the-middle-class-feels-poor-cdb17587?mod=hp_opin_pos_4

  7. Emily Guskin; “Over half of Americans say health care, a weeklong vacation and a new car are unaffordable”; February 2026; ABC News; https://abcnews.com/Politics/half-americans-health-care-weeklong-vacation-new-car/story?id=130538412