Although Erhardt was born in Hawaii, you could assume he graduated from a Dayton area high school and has been here his entire life. He speaks with authenticity and passion about Dayton and the region, and he clearly sees the “sky’s the limit” potential for our community. That level of personal commitment is notable, especially coming from the leader of a $20 billion organization that choose to make Dayton its home. It is something our community should recognize and value.
Dayton’s history offers clear lessons about the importance of connected leadership. In the past, we have seen companies such as NCR Corporation; led by executives who lived in New York City and personally lacked strong ties to the region, contributing to decisions that ultimately resulted in relocation. Similarly, General Motors’ departure from Moraine was shaped by decisions made by leaders in Detroit and had profound local consequences.
Today, we have a different model. We have the CEO of a multibillion-dollar organization who lives in our community, and is publicly directing his company to deepen its commitment and double down on Dayton. That type of leadership is critical. CEOs who choose to invest personally and professionally in this region are the leaders who help transform it. Collective commitment from private-sector leadership is the catalyst for economic investment and long-term prosperity.
While CareSource employs thousands of people locally, it is also important to remember that roughly 90 percent of businesses in the Dayton region are small businesses. Economic growth is not driven by company size, but by leadership. Every business leader, large or small, has a responsibility to use their influence and resources to help grow our region. When Dayton grows, our businesses succeed, our workforce thrives, and our community wins.
Erhardt closed his column with a simple but powerful statement: “I’m all in.” Public commitments like that are rare, and they matter. The Dayton business community stands ready to walk shoulder to shoulder with leaders like Erhardt as we pursue shared economic prosperity. Together, we are all in!
Chris Kershner
President and CEO Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce
Imperative to look at all the causes of the affordability crisis
Affordability is the latest political buzz word and a reasonable concern for all people but it remains rather unclear what exactly is unaffordable. Accordingly, knowing what is truly unaffordable will then allow us to focus on how that has happened and what to do about it. This requires some historical perspective.
It is perhaps useful to not look at raw prices but rather the percentage of income that is spent on individual types of household expenses over the past fifty years. For example and surprisingly, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Congressional Budget Office, the percentage of household income spent on groceries over the past fifty years has remained stable or even slightly decreased. It currently averages around 15% although, as in all these statistics, the lower the income, the higher the percentage of income consumed. Overall the price of most groceries has risen about 3% annually and that’s really just what is expected.
Another affordability concern is medical care and medical insurance. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, the cost of health insurance has significantly outstripped the rise in household income. In the 1970s it consumed a small percentage of household income, approximately 2-5%. Today it averages 10-12%, roughly tripled.
The single highest expense for most households is housing, either mortgage or rent. In the 1970s households spent on average around 20-25% of income on housing. In the 2020s the percentage of income spent on housing, which is recommended to be no higher than 30%, has risen to 30-35% and probably closer to 45% for lower income households. Looking at it another way, one can see how household income has not kept up with home prices over time.
There is much talk about building new homes. The average price of a new home is about $450,000 and a thirty year mortgage at 5% (I’m being kind) would amount to about $29,000 annually. With the current average household income of $80,610, this would represent 36% of income – well over the recommended 30%. That would likely make roughly half of the population unable to afford a new home.
Another effect of rising prices and stagnating wages is how long it takes to save up for a 20% down payment on a home. In 1965 it was 4.8 years while in 2025 it is 14.8 years; so in essence it takes an additional ten years to be able to buy a home today, which explains that the age of first time home buyers being about forty. With a thirty year mortgage such buyers will not pay off their home until age seventy and it’s inconceivable to consider the briefly flown idea of a fifty year mortgage.
Finally, rather just looking at prices alone or even percentage of income spent, we need to look at the other side of the equation alluded to. There is no question that household income has stagnated over the past 50 years relative to inflation. It is even more stark when looking at individual income. There is hardly any household that is able to get by on just one income; that is common knowledge – witness the rising demand for child care. So it’s imperative to look at all these causes of the affordability crisis, rising prices and stagnating incomes, and come up with solutions that address as many as possible or that political courage will allow.
Wilbur R. Brooks
Dayton
Turner deserves some gratitude
While I am not a huge fan of Rep. Mike Turner, in fairness, I feel a need to respond to Jim Priest’s letter regarding Mr. Turner. I have found Mr. Turner to be responsive and have had several letters from him in answer to my emails over the time he represented some Springfield voters. He no longer does due to the re-drawing of Ohio maps.
I think we owe him gratitude for supporting the back payment of Social Security benefits to people whose payments were offset due to participation in other pensions. That helped a number of older Americans a great deal. I am grateful for his vote against clawing back the funds originally set aside for international aid and public television and radio. It still happened but I appreciated his vote.
I agree that he is very focused on Wright Patterson, but I also think the base is critical to our area economy and what happens to the base has a ripple effect on all of us.
Nancy Mahoney
Springfield
About the Author
