ReportWire

Tag: Americans

  • Majority of Americans more concerned about political violence than they were 6 months ago — regardless of political party

    WASHINGTON — A vast majority of Americans say they are more concerned about political violence right now compared to six months ago, especially after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at an event in Utah last week.

    About 63% of Americans said they were more concerned about political violence now than they were at the beginning of this year, according to a new poll conducted by Morning Consult for the Deseret News and Hinckley Institute of Politics. Of those, 40% said they were “much more” concerned, compared to 23% who said they were only “somewhat concerned.”

    That’s far higher than the 5% of respondents who said they did not have higher concerns about the state of political violence in the United States, the poll shows. Another 25% said they felt about the same as they did before.

    The heightened concerns were felt across the political spectrum, with each ideological group more likely to say they were more concerned now than six months ago.

    DN-Violence1

    About 67% of those who identified as liberal said they were more concerned about political violence compared to 72% of self-identified conservatives who said the same, according to the poll. Fifty-nine percent of moderates also said they had higher concerns.

    That baseline of concern was evident in other areas of the survey, as a majority of respondents also said they were more concerned about the security of political events after the shooting of Kirk at Utah Valley University on the first stop of his national college tour.

    About 78% of Americans say they are concerned about the security at political events, split between 47% who say they are very concerned and 31% who say they are somewhat concerned. Only 14% said they were not concerned, according to the poll.

    Part of those concerns also extend to the safety of elected officials, with 77% of Americans saying they are worried about their safety while attending these events compared to just 16% who said the opposite.

    Utahns concerned about rise in political violence

    Utahns were on par with national findings, according to the poll, with a majority of those in the state saying they were more concerned now about political violence than they were half a year ago.

    Some 73% said they were more concerned compared to just 4% who said they were less concerned, the poll showed. About 21% said they felt the same.

    When it comes to security at events, 83% of Utahns say they were concerned about the level of security when attending while only 11% said they had no worries. In terms of the safety of elected officials, 80% of Utahns said they were worried for lawmakers compared to 15% who said the opposite.

    Majority of Americans have rising concerns about civil unrest and political violence

    A vast majority of Americans are growing more concerned about political violence in the U.S., and those sentiments are true across age, gender and political ideology, according to the poll.

    More than 80% of Americans are concerned about civil unrest in the country, compared to just 11% who said the opposite, the poll showed. More Americans are concerned about political violence, with 86% who said they were worried about it compared to 8% who said they were not.

    When it comes to political polarization, 77% said it was a concern and 10% said it was not.

    Americans can’t decide who is responsible for rise in political violence

    When asked who or what is responsible for the rise in political violence, respondents couldn’t seem to agree on a single subject.

    Americans are split on whether politicians are the ones to blame, with 42% saying they bear the most responsibility, according to the poll. When it comes to which party is to blame, those who voted for President Donald Trump were more likely to blame the left while those who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris were more likely to blame the right.

    DN-Violence2

    DN-Violence2

    Other Americans also pointed to social media (22%), media outlets (25%) and activist groups (22%) as the factor behind political violence, according to the poll.

    The Morning Consult poll surveyed 2,239 adults across the country between Sept. 12-14. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

    Source link

  • A new era of American political violence is upon us. How did we get here? How does it end?

    Two assassination attempts on President Trump. The assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the wounding of others. The shooting death of a top healthcare executive. The killing of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington. The storming of the U.S. Capitol by a violent mob intent on forcing the nation’s political leaders to their will.

    And, on Wednesday, the fatal shooting of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative political activists — close Trump ally Charlie Kirk — as he spoke at a public event on a university campus.

    If it wasn’t already clear from all those other incidents, Kirk’s killing put it in sharp relief: The U.S. is in a new era of political violence, one that is starker and more visceral than any other in decades — perhaps, experts said, since the fraught days of 1968, when two of the most prominent figures in the civil rights movement, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, were both assassinated in a matter of months.

    “We’re very clearly in a moment where the temperature of our political discourse is extremely high,” said Ruth Braunstein, an associate professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University who has studied religion and the far right in modern politics. “Part of what we see when that happens are these outbursts of political violence — where people come to believe that violence is the only solution.”

    While the exact motives of the person who shot Kirk are still unknown, Braunstein and other experts on political violence said the factors shaping the current moment are clear — and similar to those that shaped past periods of political violence.

    Intense economic discomfort and inequity. Sharp divisions between political camps. Hyperbolic political rhetoric. Political leaders who lack civility and constantly work to demonize their opponents. A democratic system that many see as broken, and a hopelessness about where things are headed.

    “There are these moments of great democratic despair, and we don’t think the political system is sufficiently responsive, sufficiently legitimate, sufficiently attentive, and that’s certainly going on in this particular moment,” said Jon Michaels, a UCLA law professor who teaches about the separation of powers and co-authored “Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy.”

    “If we think there are no political solutions, there are no legal solutions, people are going to resort to forms of self help that are really, really deeply troubling.”

    Michaels said the country has been here before, but also that he worries such cycles of violence are occurring faster today and with shorter breaks in between — that while “we’ve been bitterly divided” for years, those divisions have now “completely left the arena of ideas and debate and contestation, and become much more kinetic.”

    Michaels said he is still shaken by all the “defenses or explanations or rationalizations” that swirled around the country after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City in December — which some people argued was somehow justified by their displeasure with UnitedHealthcare’s policies or frustration with the American healthcare system.

    That the suspect, Luigi Mangione, would attract almost cult-like adoration in some circles seemed like an alarming shift in an already polarized nation, Michaels said.

    “I understand it is not the beliefs of the typical person walking down the street, but it’s seeping into our culture slowly but surely,” he said — and in a way that makes him wonder, “Where are we going to be in four or five years?”

    People across America were asking similar questions about Wednesday’s shooting, wondering in which direction it might thrust the nation’s political discourse in the days ahead.

    How will Kirk’s many conservative fans — including legions of young people — respond? How will leaders, including Trump, react? Will there be a shared recognition that such violence does no good, or fresh attempts at retaliation and violence?

    Leaders from both parties seemed interested in averting the latter. One after another, they denounced political violence and defended Kirk’s right — everyone’s right — to speak on politics in safety, regardless of whether their message is uplifting or odious.

    Democrats were particularly effusive in their denunciations, with Gov. Gavin Newsom — a chief Trump antagonist — calling the shooting “disgusting, vile, and reprehensible.” Former President Obama also weighed in, writing, “We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy.”

    Many seemed dismissive of such messages. In the comments on Obama’s post, many blamed Obama and other Democrats for rhetoric demonizing Republicans — and Trump and his followers in particular — as Nazis or racists or fascists, suggesting that the violence against Kirk was a predictable outcome of such pitched condemnations.

    Trump echoed those thoughts himself Wednesday night, blaming the “radical left” for disparaging Kirk and other conservatives and bringing on such violence.

    Others seemed to celebrate Kirk’s killing or suggest it was justified in some way given his own hyperbolic remarks from the past. They dug up interviews where the conservative provocateur demonized those on the left, suggested liberal ideas constituted a threat to Western civilization, and even said that some gun violence in the country was “worth it” if it meant the freedom to bear arms.

    Experts said it is important to contextualize this moment within American history, but with an awareness of the modern factors shaping it in unique ways. It’s also important to understand that there are ways to combat such violence from spreading, they said.

    Peter Mancall, a history professor at USC, has delved into major moments of political violence in early American history, and said a lot of it stemmed from “some perception of grievance.”

    The same appears to be true today, he said. “There are moments when people do things that they know are violating their own sense of right or wrong, and something has pushed them to it, “ he said. “The trick is figuring out what it is that made them snap.”

    Braunstein said that the robust debate online Wednesday about the rhetoric of leaders was a legitimate one to have, because it has always been true that “the way our political leaders message about political violence — consistently, in public, to their followers and to those that don’t support them — really matters.”

    If Americans and American political leaders truly want to know how we got here, she said, “part of the answer is the intensification of violent political rhetoric — and political rhetoric that casts the moment in terms of an emergency or catastrophe that requires extreme measures to address it.”

    Democrats today are talking about the threats they believe Trump poses to democracy and the rule of law and to immigrants and LGBTQ+ people and others in extremely dire terms. Republicans — including Kirk — have used similarly charged rhetoric to suggest that Democrats and some of those same groups, especially immigrants, are a grave threat to average Americans.

    “Charlie Kirk was one of many political figures who used that kind of discourse to mobilize people,” Braunstein said. “He’s not the only one, but he regularly spoke about the fact that we were in a moment where it was possible that we were going to see the decline of Western civilization, the end of American society as we know it. He used very strong us-vs.-them language.”

    Particularly given the wave of recent violence, it will be important moving forward for politicians and other leaders to reanalyze how they speak about their political disagreements, Braunstein said.

    That’s especially true of Trump, she said, because “one of the most dangerous things that can happen in a moment like this is for a political leader to call for violence in response to an act of violence,” and Trump has appeared to stoke violence in the past, including on Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol and during racist marches through Charlottesville, Va., in 2017.

    Charlie Kirk speaks during a town hall meeting in March in Oconomowoc, Wis.

    (Jeffrey Phelps / Associated Press)

    Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis, agreed messaging is key — not just for responding to political violence, but for preventing it.

    Since 2022, Wintemute and his team have surveyed Americans on how they feel about political violence, including whether it is ever justified and, if so, whether they would personally get involved in it.

    Throughout that time frame, a strong majority of Americans — about two-thirds — have said it is not justified, with about a third saying it was or could be.

    An even smaller minority said they’d be willing to personally engage in such violence, Wintemute said. And many of those people said that they could be dissuaded from participating if their family members, friends, religious or political leaders urged them not to.

    Wintemute said the data give him “room for hope and optimism,” because they show that “the vast majority of Americans reject political violence altogether.”

    “So when somebody on a day like today asks, ‘Is this who we are?’ we know the answer,” he said. “The answer is, ‘No!’”

    The job of all Americans now is to reject political violence “out loud over and over and over again,” Wintemute said, and to realize that, if they are deeply opposed to political policies or the Trump administration and “looking for a model of how to resist,” it isn’t the American Revolution but the civil rights movement.

    “People did not paint over how terrible things were,” he said. “People said, ‘I will resist, but I will resist without violence. Violence may be done to me, I may die, but I will not use violence.’”

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • ‘Lap Of Luxury:’ Section 8 Covering Arizona Rents Up To $6,020



    Taxpayers are covering rents of up to $6,020 per month in Arizona, leading taxpayer advocates to question the growing duration of federal Section 8 housing choice voucher (HCV) usage.

    “Section 8 needs to focus on lifting people out of the trap of poverty, not putting them into the lap of luxury,” said National Taxpayers Union president Pete Sepp in an interview with The Center Square. “It’s unfair to ask taxpayers who can’t afford mortgages or rents of six thousand dollars per month to foot the bill for subsidies amounting to that much.”

    HCV recipients remain in the program for an average of 15.1 years — that’s up from an average of 12.4 years in 2000, according to a 2024 federal report.

    When asked about a 2026 budget proposal from the Trump administration that would limit Section 8 assistance to two years, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner recounted his meeting with a recipient whose family had been housed by the program for multiple generations.

    “She’s 52 years old, she’s been living there since 1973. She’s able-bodied, able-minded. She was raised there. She lived there. Now she’s raising her children there,” said Turner in a video his office posted to X on August 25, recounting a meeting with a multi-generational federal housing recipient. “That’s three generations living on government subsidies that are able bodied, able minded.”

    “Time limits are kind of an encouragement, like ‘hey, you can do this,’” continued Turner. “We’re not just telling you to work, we’re going to have workforce training around you, we’re going to have skill training around you to get out of government subsidies, to live a life of self-sustainability.”

    While the NYU Furman Center warns the change could push 1.1 million households out of the program, taxpayer advocates say some kind of time limits are necessary to prevent intergenerational dependency on the program. 

    “Congressional overseers are right to ask a question about whether there needs to be a rational time limit,” Sepp said. “It may not be two years, but it can’t be two or three generations.” 

    The federally funded Section 8 housing assistance program covers up to 110% of 40th percentile rents in the local area, with recipients’ out-of-pocket costs capped at 30% their aggregate gross income (with an additional 10% if the rental includes utilities). The income can include taxpayer-funded welfare payments. 

    Once admitted to Section 8, a household may use their vouchers for the program anywhere in the country, with the goal of providing recipients with “greater ability to move into ‘Opportunity Neighborhoods’ with jobs, public transportation, and good schools.”

    There are now 4.6 million housing units funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, including 2.4 million housing units in the HCV program, which houses 5.3 million Americans.

    In Arizona, the HCV program covers rents up to $6,020 per month for six-bedroom homes in the Maricopa County ZIP codes of 85298 and 85331. 

    Of the three available six or more bedroom homes listed for rent in these ZIP codes on Zillow, all were below the $6,020 payment standard. 

    In 85298, the sole six-bedroom home is on the market for $3,495 per month, and comes in at 3,266 square feet with its own swimming pool and a three-car garage. 

    In 85331, both available six-bedroom properties are on the market for $6,000 and are two-acre, horse stable-equipped, multi-structure, luxury compounds. 

    If a family with the average HCV household income — estimated by HUD to be $18,558 per year, or $1546.5 per month, including other welfare payments — were to rent this home, the household’s out of pocket cost for the home $463.95 per month. This would leave taxpayers on the hook for the other $5,536,05 per month in perpetuity, or until the recipient exits or is removed from the program. 

    According to Sepp, keeping out-of-pocket costs fixed, while allowing for portability encourages households to seek out the most expensive home they can secure, instead of trying to save taxpayers money, or choosing a home they could more easily afford on their own some day. 

    “By fixing the out of pocket exposure, the program is defeating one of its own purposes of encouraging responsibility in housing — if you’re going to pay the same amount of money, why bother with getting somewhere that costs less?” continued Sepp. 

    Should a household start to make more money than the area’s maximum Section 8 income limit — which for a seven-member household in Maricopa County is $69,600 per year — the family would be forced off the program. At $69,600 per year, a household that does not want to be rent-burdened — and thus spend no more 30% of its income on rent — could only afford rent of $1,740 per month, or significantly less than the up to $6,020 of taxpayer-funded value provided by Section 8. 

    As a result, earning more money could cost Section 8 recipients their housing. To not be rent-burdened while paying $6,000 per month on rent, a household would need to make $240,000 per year, or three and a half times the threshold at which a family would be removed from Section 8. 

    “It makes no sense,” continued Sepp. “There has to be a comprehensive, data-driven adjustment to all of these benefits.”

    HUD did not respond to requests for comment.

    Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

    Kenneth Schrupp – The Center Square

    Source link

  • Immigration to U.S. declines for first time in 50 years amid Trump crackdown, study shows

    For the first time in more than half a century, immigrants leaving the U.S. outnumber those arriving, a phenomenon that may signal President Trump’s historic mass deportation efforts are having the intended effect.

    An analysis of census data released by Pew Research Center on Thursday noted that between January and June, the United States’ foreign-born population had declined by more than a million people.

    Millions of people arrived at the border between 2021 and 2023 seeking refuge in America after the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, which ravaged many of their home countries. In 2023, California was home to 11.3 million immigrants, roughly 28.4% of the national total, according to Pew.

    In January, 53.3 million immigrants lived in the U.S., the highest number recorded, but in the months that followed, those who left or were deported surpassed those arriving — the first drop since the 1960s. As of June, the number living in the U.S. had dropped to 51.9 million. Pew did not calculate how many immigrants are undocumented.

    Trump and his supporters have applauded the exodus, with the president declaring “Promises Made. Promises Kept,” in a social media post this month.

    “Seven months into his second term, it’s clear that the president has done what he said he’d do by reestablishing law and order at our southern border and by removing violent illegal immigrants from our nation,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a USA Today column on Thursday. “Both actions were necessary for Americans’ peace and prosperity.”

    But some experts caution that such declines will have negative economic effects on the United States if they continue, resulting in labor shortages as America’s birth rate continues to drop.

    “Looking ahead in the future, we’re going to have to rely on immigrant workers to fulfill a lot of the jobs in this country,” said Victor Narro, project director at UCLA Labor Center. “Like it or not, the demographics are going to be changing in this country. It’s already changing, but it’s going to be more pronounced in the future, especially with the decline in native-born workers.”

    The Pew analysis highlights several policy changes that have affected the number of immigrants in the country, beginning during then-President Biden’s term.

    In June 2024, Biden signed a proclamation that bars migrants from seeking asylum along the U.S. border with Mexico at times when crossings are high, a change that was designed to make it harder for those who enter the country without prior authorization.

    Trump, who campaigned on hard-line immigration policies, signed an executive order on the first day of his second term, declaring an “invasion” at the southern border. The move severely restricted entry into the country by barring people who arrive between ports of entry from seeking asylum or invoking other protections that would allow them to temporarily remain in the U.S.

    Widespread immigration enforcement operations across Southern California began in June, prompting pushback from advocates and local leaders. The federal government responded by deploying thousands of Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. after the raids sparked scattered protests.

    Homeland Security agents have arrested 4,481 undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area since June 6, the agency said this month.

    Narro said the decrease in immigrants outlined in the study may not be as severe as the numbers suggest because of a reduction in response rates amid heightened enforcement.

    “When you have the climate that you have today with fear of deportation, being arrested or detained by ICE — all the stuff that’s coming out of the Trump administration — people are going to be less willing to participate in the survey and documentation that goes into these reports,” Narro said.

    Michael Capuano, research director at Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit that advocates for a reduction in immigration, said the numbers are trending in the right direction.

    “We see it as a positive start,” Capuano said. “Obviously enforcement at the border is now working. The population is beginning to decrease. We’d like to see that trend continue because, ultimately, we think the policy of the last four years has been proven to be unsustainable.”

    Capuano disagrees that the decrease in immigrants will cause problems for the country’s workforce.

    “We don’t believe that ultimately there’s going to be this huge disruption,” he said. “There is no field that Americans won’t work in. Pew notes in its own study that American-born workers are the majority in every job field.”

    In 2023, the last year with complete data, 33 million immigrants were part of the country’s workforce, including about 10 million undocumented individuals. Roughly 19% of workers were immigrants in 2023, up from 15% two decades earlier, according to Pew.

    “Immigrants are a huge part of American society,” said Toby Higbie, a professor of history and labor studies at UCLA. “Those who are running the federal government right now imagine that they can remove all immigrants from this society, but it’s just not going to happen. It’s not going to happen because the children of immigrants will fight against it and because our country needs immigrant workers to make the economy work.”

    The United States experienced a negative net immigration in the 1930s during the Great Depression when at least 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans left the country, often as a result of government pressure and repatriation programs. Not long after, the U.S. implemented the bracero program in 1942 in which the U.S. allowed millions of Mexican citizens to work in the country to address labor shortages during World War II.

    Higbie predicts the decline in immigration won’t last long, particularly if prices on goods rise amid labor shortages.

    “You could say that there’s a cycle here where we invite immigrants to work in our economy, and then there’s a political reaction by some in our country, and they kick them out, and then we invite them back,” he said. “I suspect that the Trump administration, after going through this process of brutally deporting people, will turn around and propose a guest worker program in order to maintain a docile immigrant workforce.”

    Hannah Fry

    Source link

  • The Fed’s Refusal To Cut Interest Rates Is Costing Americans



    It’s not every week that sees a Federal Reserve development set to shape America for years to come. But two such developments recently occurred two days apart: On July 30, the Fed’s board decided to hold interest rates at their current level, and on Aug. 1, board governor Adriana Kugler resigned.

    In its latest Federal Open Market Committee meeting, the Fed overruled the objections of two dissenting governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman (who favored a 0.25% interest rate cut).

    Instead, it decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at between 4.25% and 4.50%.

    That marks both the fifth consecutive meeting without a rate change and the most governor dissents since 1993.

    The Federal Open Market Committee cites concerns of rising inflation and long-term ambiguity around tariffs as the reason for leaving the target interest rate unchanged.

    The Fed is employing the “wait-and-see” approach before committing to a rate reduction, hoping that two more rounds of monthly job and inflation data will assist in its decision. Fed Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell claims he “remains focused on achieving [the Fed’s] dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people.”

    Yet Powell simultaneously points to tariff-driven market uncertainty and strong national economic performance as excuses for inaction. These contradictory justifications, coupled with the Fed’s decision to lower interest rates immediately prior to the 2024 election, suggest this might be a political decision, not an economic one.

    In his press conference address, Powell referenced several indicators of economic resilience: business investment increase, payroll job gains, low unemployment, wage growth, and reduced inflation. That’s an environment Donald Trump administration’s policies created in just seven short months, even in spite of the Fed’s refusal to lower rates.

    While annual inflation has steadily decreased, as of June, it continued to run above the 2% objective—hitting 2.7%. The high inflation of the Joe Biden era still has lingering effects on Americans who experience decreased purchasing power, making everyday essentials like groceries and gas more expensive.

    Trump claims that by keeping interest rates high, the Fed is “hurting people” and preventing Americans “from buying houses”—but the Federal Reserve has consistently resisted pressure to cut rates.

    This inaction has sparked debates regarding the Fed’s dominance and its future role, if any, in the U.S. economic system. Now congressmen, economists, and American citizens are all calling on the Trump administration to audit the Fed and eliminate its role in determining interest rates.

    Such calls find further support from the fact that, while the U.S. has seen positive changes in many economic indicators, others still show room for improvement. As Powell explains, “GDP has moderated, activity in the housing sector remains weak, and [Personal Consumption Expenditure] PCE prices rose 2.5% over the last 12 months ending in June.”

    Due to Bidenflation, housing affordability and availability have become increasingly important political issues. The housing market is currently characterized by high costs and high mortgage interest rates.

    However, as the federal government continues to run massive deficits now and deep into the future, pressures for both inflation and interest rates to climb even higher will only intensify.

    By maintaining the current federal funds rate, the Federal Open Market Committee perpetuates its current policy of passing the costs of the federal deficit on to the American public through higher borrowing costs for mortgages, credit cards, and small business and other loans.

    For prospective homebuyers, this can prevent them from achieving the American dream. For businesses, this can limit expansion and hiring—thus leading to slowed innovation and job creation.

    If the Fed were to reduce interest rates by just 25 basis points, mortgages would become more affordable, and competition among buyers would intensify.

    Lower target interest rates would reduce mortgage and business loan rates, making housing more affordable for Americans and incentivizing businesses to provide well-paying job opportunities.

    This would revive housing demand, bringing buyers back into the market, thus easing the housing affordability crisis.

    Not only that, but this interest rate reduction would decrease the cost of servicing the national debt.

    Despite the Fed’s decision to hold rates constant and Chairman Powell’s ambiguity about the future, economists predict a 25-basis-point cut at the Federal Open Market Committee’s September meeting.

    This prediction partly stems from the latest jobs report, which seems to indicate a slowing economic growth.

    That’s earned Powell the moniker “too late Powell” from Trump, who decries the chief’s reluctance to adjust interest rates.

    The same day that jobs report was released, Kugler, a 2023 Biden appointee, suddenly resigned her governor position (effective Aug. 8) without saying why.

    This vacancy offers Trump the chance to appoint a replacement, pending Senate confirmation, with monetary policy views that align closer to his values of low interest rates and low inflation.

    While it might be “too late” to lower interest rates for the August cycle, a newly appointed board member could give Trump another chance to advocate for Federal Reserve transparency and offer Americans more hope for a stable and robust economy.

    Syndicated with permission from The Daily Signal.

    The Daily Signal

    Source link

  • Nearly Half of Americans Are Absolutely Wrong About This All-Important Social Security Rule

    Nearly Half of Americans Are Absolutely Wrong About This All-Important Social Security Rule

    Social Security is the foundation for many Americans’ retirement plans. However, not everyone knows all of the details of how the government program works. There are a few foundational rules everyone should know, but many Americans’ knowledge falls short for even the most basic and important rules governing the program.

    If you don’t know the basics of how Social Security works, making an informed decision about when to claim your retirement benefits becomes impossible. Applying for benefits too early (or too late) can have serious long-term ramifications on your retirement goals. Unfortunately, almost half of Americans maintain an incorrect belief about how claiming benefits early will impact their monthly benefit, according to a recent survey from Nationwide.

    A stack of Social Security cards.

    Image source: Getty Images.

    A costly mistaken belief

    In the survey, 48% of Americans incorrectly identified the following statement as true: “If I claim benefits early, my benefits will go up automatically when reaching full retirement age.”

    Most readers will reach full retirement age at 67 despite becoming eligible to claim Social Security benefits at age 62. But there’s no free lunch when it comes to these benefits. The truth is claiming your benefits before you reach full retirement age will permanently reduce your monthly benefit.

    The following table shows just how much less you can expect to receive relative to your full retirement age if you claim early.

    Claiming Age

    % of Full Benefit

    62

    70%

    63

    75%

    64

    80%

    65

    86.7%

    66

    93.3%

    67

    100%

    For Americans with a full retirement age of 67 (born in 1960 or later).
    Table source: Author. Data source: Social Security Administration.

    Why is this misunderstanding so prevalent?

    There’s a reason why many people may maintain the mistaken belief that you’ll see a bump in benefits upon reaching full retirement age. That’s because sometimes you actually do. But that’s only due to another commonly misunderstood rule: the Social Security earnings test.

    The Social Security earnings test says if you earn over a certain amount while collecting retirement benefits before your full retirement age, the Social Security Administration will withhold some of your monthly benefits. The amount withheld is factored back into your monthly benefit once you reach full retirement age. At that point, the earnings test no longer applies, and the SSA no longer withholds any of your benefit.

    In this context, the ultimate size of your check is primarily determined by the age at which you initially apply for Social Security. If you never exceed the earnings test threshold in a given year, you’ll never see a change in the amount you collect besides the annual COLA.

    Many Americans are unaware of how the Social Security earnings test works as well. Just 56% of survey respondents correctly answered a question about it in Nationwide’s survey.

    The earnings test is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. It’s important to make that distinction to avoid confusion when making a decision about when to claim benefits.

    It pays to delay

    All things being equal, it’s typically beneficial to wait to claim your benefits, possibly even beyond your full retirement age.

    If you opt to wait to claim your benefits, the Social Security Administration will increase your monthly benefit by 2/3 of a percentage point for each month you delay beyond full retirement age. Those delayed retirement credits max out at age 70, which means someone with a full retirement age of 67 can receive a 24% boost to their monthly checks.

    A 2019 study from United Income found the majority of seniors (57%) would be better off by waiting until age 70 to claim their retirement benefits. Just 8% would benefit from claiming before age 65.

    There are plenty of good reasons to claim early, though.

    For one, if the quality of your life with the supplemental income is significantly higher than without, then it probably makes sense to claim it when you need it. There are steps you can take later if your situation improves to mitigate the impact of claiming early.

    Another situation is when you have a reasonable expectation that you’ll pass away earlier than your peers. Social Security is designed to pay out roughly the same amount in lifetime benefits for someone living an average life expectancy regardless of when they claim. But if you suffer from a condition that curbs your life expectancy, it might make sense to claim your benefits earlier.

    No matter when you decide to claim, be sure you do it with a complete understanding of how your claiming age impacts your monthly benefit and whether or not you should actually expect your benefit to increase in the future.

    The $22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook

    If you’re like most Americans, you’re a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known “Social Security secrets” could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more… each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we’re all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

    View the “Social Security secrets” »

    The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

    Nearly Half of Americans Are Absolutely Wrong About This All-Important Social Security Rule was originally published by The Motley Fool

    Source link

  • More Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck Despite Increased Budgeting

    More Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck Despite Increased Budgeting

    More Americans are living paycheck to paycheck despite increased budgeting, according to Debt.com’s 2024 budgeting survey of 1,000 Americans, which showed a mixed financial picture.

    While more people are budgeting and finding it beneficial to stay out of debt, the number of individuals living paycheck to paycheck has risen 10% over the past two years.

    In 2022 and 2023, 50% reported living paycheck to paycheck; this year that number climbed to 60%. Meanwhile, 90% of respondents say they budget, compared to 70% when the survey was first conducted seven years ago.

    “Debt.com’s newest survey indicates that while budgeting is becoming more common and beneficial, it hasn’t completely shielded Americans from financial hardship,” said Howard Dvorkin, CPA and Debt.com chairman.

    One bright spot is the percentage of people who say budgeting has helped them get out of or stay out of debt, increased to 89% this year from 73% in 2018. Millennials lead the way, with 92% reporting that budgeting has kept them out of debt, followed by 90% of Gen X, 86% of Baby Boomers, and 83% of Gen Z.

    The Debt.com survey also highlights the reasons people began budgeting:

    • 38% – Increasing wealth and savings
    • 21% – Tackling debt
    • 17% – Inflation and cost of living
    • 15% – Saving for retirement
    • 6% – Job loss
    • 2% – Divorce or loss of a spouse

    “The rising number of people living paycheck to paycheck indicates that economic factors may be driving the need for individuals to fine-tune their budgeting strategies,” continued Dvorkin.

    Of those who say they budget, 39% say their whole household works to stay on budget. The survey also shows that, overall men (94%) are budgeting more than women (87%). The top reason women cited for not budgeting was that they “don’t have much income,” while men primarily said it’s “too time-consuming.”

    Debt.com is a consumer website where people can find help with credit card debt, student loan debt, tax debt, credit repair, bankruptcy, and more. Debt.com works with vetted and certified providers that give the best advice and solutions for consumers “when life happens.”

    Source link

  • U.S. sues RealPage, alleging its software allows landlords to coordinate rent increases

    U.S. sues RealPage, alleging its software allows landlords to coordinate rent increases

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday sued a major real estate firm, alleging the company’s algorithmic software enables landlords across the country to set rent at artificially high rates.

    The lawsuit, joined by several states including California, focuses on software from Texas-based company RealPage. The software is used by many landlords to set rent prices for both vacant units and renewal rates for existing tenants.

    In a truly competitive market, authorities said, property owners would be forced to compete with each other, helping to drive down rental costs for Americans.

    However, according to the lawsuit, RealPage enabled the opposite.

    When becoming a client, supposedly competing landlords share nonpublic information — such as occupancy and rents on executed leases — with RealPage, which then uses that data to recommend rents at individual properties.

    “As Americans struggle to afford housing, RealPage is making it easier for landlords to coordinate to increase rents,” Assistant Atty. General Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.

    RealPage did not immediately return a request for comment.

    The company previously called similar allegations false and misleading, saying clients can decline its recommendations, which at times include dropping rent.

    But in its complaint, the Justice Department pointed to instances where RealPage described its software as a tool for maximizing rent and outperforming the market. Authorities also alleged the company made it more difficult for landlords to reject its recommendations than accept them.

    “There is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down,” a RealPage executive said, according to the lawsuit.

    At another point, RealPage described its tools as ensuring landlords are “driving every possible opportunity to increase price even in the most downward trending or unexpected conditions,” the complaint says.

    Antitrust enforcement has been a focus of the Biden administration. The Justice Department has sued major companies such as Google and Apple, alleged they engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

    Vice President Kamala Harris has also criticized the use of rent-setting algorithms while running for president.

    In a statement, Atty. Gen. Merrick B. Garland said the Justice Department would continue to aggressively enforce antitrust laws.

    “Americans should not have to pay more in rent because a company has found a new way to scheme with landlords to break the law,” Garland said.

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • Molokhia Is Comfort to Palestinian Americans in a Time of Profound Grief

    Molokhia Is Comfort to Palestinian Americans in a Time of Profound Grief

    Manal Farhan lost her appetite. It was November of 2023, more than a month since the October 7 attack by Hamas in Israel, killing 1,139 civilians and members of the Israeli military and taking more than 200 hostages. The violence that day sparked an Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip that had already killed more than 14,000 Gazans (the toll has climbed astronomically since), flattening buildings, and creating a dire humanitarian crisis. Farhan, a Palestinian American in the throes of intense grief, hand-stitched a Palestinian flag and hung it outside her home in Logan Square. Then, she says she received a call from the management company representing landlord Mark Fishman telling her to remove it — if she didn’t, she’d be evicted. “I said ‘I’m Palestinian and there’s a genocide.’ They said, ‘You have to remain neutral,’” Farhan recounts.

    Between anxiety about the eviction and the horror of witnessing Palestinians slaughtered and dismembered by bombs daily on social media, Farhan struggled to eat. “When you’re carrying that level of stress, your body stops responding to hunger. Hunger becomes a secondary concern,” she says. But hunger would often return when her mother Karima would make molokhia (ملوخية), a leafy stew with roots in Egypt that today represents a unifying dish across the Arab world. Molokhia, the national dish of Egypt, is ancient. The pre-Arabized roots of its name means “for the royals” or “for the gods.” The leaves, also called jute mallow, spread from Egypt across the Arab world with migration and trade. It’s seasoned simply with salt, garlic, and lemon, boiled in chicken broth, and often served with chicken or lamb.

    This humble soup, made with greens and often chicken broth, has become a soothing symbol of solidarity amidst violence in Gaza.

    In times of turmoil, we turn to the dishes that make us feel safe, and more and more these days, people in Chicago — home to one of the nation’s largest and oldest Palestinian immigrant communities — are seeking solace in a bowl of molokhia. As one count estimates at least 186,000 Palestinians may have been killed by Israeli forces — according to a letter published by researchers in the British medical journal the Lancet — Arab Americans are searching for comfort and solidarity by any means. In that climate, the dish is taking on a new political significance for many Arabs introduced to it for the first time. Almost every weekend, organizations like the U.S. Palestinian Community Network and Students for Justice in Palestine organize large protests downtown. On Thursday, August 22, groups assembled outside the United Center to protest the exclusion of a Palestinian American speaker at the DNC. Autonomous groups blockade streets in Wicker Park, protest weapons manufacturers like Boeing in the Loop, and even dyed Buckingham Fountain blood-red, spray-painting “Gaza is bleeding.” And now, as the Democratic National Convention descends upon Chicago, protestors march and disrupt politicians’ speeches, condemning them for funding Israel’s army. To ignore the political reality of the people who love this dish, then, would be to tell an incomplete story of molokhia’s place in Chicago.

    “I don’t know a Palestinian who doesn’t love molokhia,” Farhan says as we eat and discuss her case at the Palestinian-owned Salam Restaurant in Albany Park. The same Palestinian flag Farhan made in November remains hanging outside her home as she continues to fight what she contends is an unlawful eviction. (The landlord argues that a lease agreement bans any article from being displayed out of a window.) Palestinian Chicagoans and allies have protested the eviction, boycotting the Logan Theater, which Fishman owns. Being evicted here in Chicago for “expressing love and pride” for her heritage, as her federal lawsuit against Fishman states, is ironic for Farhan. Her maternal grandmother’s home in occupied Palestine is now inhabited by Israeli settlers. (Farhan’s lawsuit, which argued neutrality was never the objective — other tenants could fly Christmas and Hanukkah decorations out their windows, according to Farhan’s lawsuit — was dismissed in March and Farhan awaits an appeal.)

    Alongside graphic photos of corpses and rubble, I see displaced Palestinians making molokhia in Gaza on social media. “Mloukhieh is one of the most popular dishes loved and made by Gazans. Usually, it is made with chicken or chicken broth, but since no protein source is currently available, we are making it with processed chicken broth. As usual made with love, amidst the war,” Renad, a 10-year-old content creator from Gaza, writes in a caption. The lack of chicken is glaring; meat being nearly impossible to find or buy due to Israeli blockades of food, hygiene products, and medicine. Many, especially in North Gaza, have died of starvation. Still, the dish seems to retain its celebratory and comforting meaning, even in the depths of hell. “Palestinian food is one of the foundational aspects of socialization in our culture … regardless of the fact that [the refugees] were displaced and dispossessed,” says Lubnah Shomali, the advocacy director of Badil, a human rights organization for Palestinian refugees.

    Lubnah, a Palestinian Christian, was raised in the Chicago suburbs before moving her family, including her daughter, my friend Rachel, to the West Bank to connect with their culture, even though life was harder under occupation. Lubnah says refugees often pick up different methods of making molokhia from each other, the same debates I hear in Chicago melded. “Within the refugee camps, there persists this need to host, invite people, and make meals,” Lubnah says.

    For Mizrahi Jews, Jewish people of Middle Eastern descent, molokhia is part of their memory too, even though the Nakba severed these ties. Hisham Khalifeh, owner of Middle East Bakery in Andersonville, recalls meeting an 80-year-old Mizrahi Jewish man there in Chicago. “He still had his Palestinian ID in his pocket,” Khalifeh says. The man wanted to talk about the food he’d loved in Palestine and all that had changed since he was cleaved from his Muslim and Christian neighbors by Israel’s formation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. Khalifeh says the man told him in Arabic, their shared ancestral language, “Naaood lal tareekh.” Let us go back to history.


    “White people love tacos [and] enchiladas… but I remember being a kid, eating molokhia at school and everybody being like, ‘Ew, this is slimy green stew,’” recalls Iman, a Mexican Palestinian Chicagoan. Iman agrees molokhia is a core part of Chicago but is doubtful others will see it that way — which she doesn’t mind. “It’s one of those things I feel is so loved but hasn’t been claimed or taken over by white culture yet.”

    The first Palestinians arrived in Chicago in the 1800s, long before the modern Israeli state was established, according to Loren Lybarger, a professor at Ohio University and author of Palestine in Chicago: Identity in Exile. He recalls eating molokhia frequently at the homes of Palestinian community leaders in Chicago during his research.

    Molokhia, the national dish of Egypt, is ancient. The pre-Arabized roots of its name means “for the royals” or “for the gods.” A 13th-century Syrian cookbook lists four different versions; one that calls for charred onions ground into paste and another with meatballs. It’s a food that’s inspired myth and religious fervor, as it’s said that the soup nursed 10th-century Egyptian ruler Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah back to health — hence the name. (It’s also sometimes called Jew’s mallow, referring to a claim that Jewish rabbis were the first to discover and cultivate it.) The Druze, an ethno-religious group in West Asia, believed and still believe the caliph was God. So many Druze do not eat molokhia even now, obeying his command. For most people, though, molokhia is no longer solely for kings or gods anymore. But making it can be an affair fit for royalty.

    Cooked molokhia leaves have a “viscous quality, similar to nopales in Mexican cuisine,” Lebanese chef Sabrina Beydoun says. Molokhia is comfort food, something teeming and right in the deep greens, the grassy and earthy smell. “My mom would prepare it with a lot of pride,” she says. “As I’ve gotten older, I look back on [it] with fondness and nostalgia.”

    And everyone has a different way they like their molokhia — the variations and debates are practically part of the experience. “Everyone does it their way, and everyone is convinced their way is better,” Beydoun says, laughing.

    My friend Rachel, a former player on Palestine’s national basketball team, prefers molokhia leaves whole (Beydoun says this is common amongst Lebanese people), while my other Palestinian friend Rayean grew up with ground leaves. Farhan’s mother Karima’s special ingredient is a bit of citric acid.

    A bowl of molokhia with chicken and rice in the back.

    Molokhia is prepared differently depending on the household and restaurant.

    An adult father-and-son team wearing the same shirts and smiling while sitting down.

    The father-and-son team of Ahmed and Mohammed Saleh at their restaurant, Cairo Kebab.

    At Cairo Kebab, the city’s only Egyptian restaurant, molokhia became the second-most requested dish among its Arab diners since the spot began serving it daily in 2023 off Chicago’s fabled Maxwell Street in University Village, according to co-owner Mohammed Saleh. “Home foods ground us and make us into who we are,” he says. Molokhia is arguably part of a larger shift, where restaurants owned by marginalized ethnic groups are increasingly serving dishes once relegated to the home, due to both wider awareness through media, desire for the dishes among immigrant communities longing for familiar foods, and chefs feeling empowered to explore their identities in a deeper way.

    “A lot of our customers who are Palestinian or Jordanian will ask for a bunch of lemon, or will ask for us to not cook it with garlic,” says Mohammed.

    Ahmed, the owner and head chef of Cairo Kebab and Mohammed’s father, adds that unless they’ve had molokhia before, “Americans eat it however we serve it.”

    Ahmed makes the restaurant’s version with lots of garlic in sizzling butter, while Raeyan’s family goes light on garlic. I love the chicken with crispy, roasted skin, and frequently alternate between spooning the molokhia onto the rice and chicken, and spooning rice and chicken into the molokhia. Some like it skinless and boiled. Most of my friends eat it with rice; Ahmed says many prefer sopping it up with bread, and some eat it plain like soup, with a spoon or light sips from the bowl. Usually, it’s served with squeeze after squeeze of fresh lemon.

    Khalifeh has fond memories of molokhia with quail. Ahmed says in Egypt’s second-largest city, the port town of Alexandria, it’s often made with shrimp, and some use rabbit. In Tunisia, the molokhia is dried and ground into a powder, resulting in a silky, nearly black-colored stew with lamb. Sudanese people, because of their shared history with Egypt, also love molokhia. It’s spelled molokhia, mlokheya, molokhia… The differences are endless and dizzying.

    “When I was a kid in Egypt, molokhia wasn’t just a food, it was an event,” Eman Abdelhadi, an Egyptian Palestinian writer and sociology professor at the University of Chicago, wrote in an email. “A whole day would be spent in the arduous processes of washing, drying, and cutting it. It was something we all looked forward to.” Ahmed says that during Ramadan iftars, a time of gathering after fasting all day in the Muslim holy month, many customers request at least two plates of molokhia when breaking fast.

    A man in a red shirt holds up two pots and pours green soup into a bowl.

    Ahmed Saleh, who owns Cairo Kebab, moved to Chicago in 1990.

    For Arab Chicagoans who didn’t grow up with molokhia, Chicago is often the place they first tried it. “We don’t have molokhia in Morocco. But I heard of it because we used to watch old [Egyptian] movies,” says Imane Abekhane, an employee at Cairo Kebab. “Then I came to Chicago, tried the Egyptian molokhia, and I loved that.”

    When I first started investigating molokhia for this piece, so many of my Arab friends told me Cairo Kebab’s was the best place to try it in Chicago — a bowl made me understand why. Tender roasted chicken, bright green molokhia balanced with just enough garlic and salt, vermicelli noodles in the rice, and a side of homemade tomato-based hot sauce with chile flakes, chile pepper, and black pepper — all delicious. Ahmed made the molokhia at my table the way it’s sometimes made in Egypt, with flair and performance, a gloopy river of green cascading from one saucepan into another before pooling in my bowl. Mohammed notes that he’s seen more Palestinians and Arabs come into Cairo Kebab for home dishes like molokhia since the devastation began in Palestine last year.

    Even if everyone cannot agree on how to make it, everyone I spoke to agrees that molokhia is an Egyptian dish. But because of the large population of Palestinians in Chicago, many’s first meeting with molokhia — including mine — is at a Palestinian friend’s home, or at Palestinian-owned grocers like Middle East Bakery, where Khalifeh says non-Arabs often come in after seeing it online as part of a growing advocacy for Palestinian cuisine and the Palestinian cause — their resistance against Israeli occupation. That gives the dish a certain political significance.


    When we made molokhia, Rachel used dried leaves her grandmother brought her from Palestine, an experience Mohammed Saleh says is common. “When we go to Egypt, my parents are always gonna bring back at least one suitcase full of dry pre-packaged goods, including molokhia,” he says.

    Frozen and dried leaves are also readily available in Chicago, at Middle East Bakery, Sahar’s International Market, or Feyrous Pastries and Groceries in Albany Park. Both Raeyan and Rachel insist that dried — which produces a darker color than frozen — is better. Ahmed says dried has its merits, but frozen leaves preserve molokhia in its original state more effectively, the process of drying giving it a different taste and color. “Frozen is as close to molokhia leaves harvested in Egypt by hand as you can get,” he says. Khalifeh, in contrast, is adamant that dried is always better, saying it has a flavor and texture that frozen can never achieve. One of his tactics is to put a little bit of frozen leaves into the dried, helping with color and consistency. But he and Ahmed both say that not everyone can make dried molokhia correctly.

    And perhaps something is lost in the modernity of freezing, something exchanged when sifting through the molokhia leaves is forgone. “My mom and aunts sit on the floor, removing stems and remnants of other harvest[s] like tobacco leaves,” Beydoun says. “It’s a communal practice. It is a poetic thing to witness.” In dried leaves, I see survival — a way to transport ancestral plants for scattered diasporas. Frozen molokhia must be shipped. But dried can be carried; it is not dependent on any company, just those who have a relationship with the plant.

    Still, almost everyone agrees fresh leaves are best — if you can find them. Sahar’s has fresh molokhia leaves this summer, but “they go fast and we sometimes don’t know when they’ll come in,” a grocer told me over the phone. Hisham also directed me to Việt Hoa Plaza, where I found fresh leaves that the grocers there also said are rarely stocked due to the growing popularity of molokhia in East Asian cuisine. According to the Markaz Review, Japanese farmers started growing the plant after advertisements in the ’80s pushed molokhia with slogans like “the secret of longevity and the favorite vegetable of Cleopatra!”

    “[It’s] very popular in Japanese grocery stores as well as Korean grocery stores,” says Kate Kim-Park, CEO of HIS Hospitality, adding that their version is slightly stickier. “The plant is called 아욱 (ah-ohk) in Korean,” she says.

    Chef Sangtae Park of Omakase Yume in the West Loop has fond memories of cooking molokhia and eating it with friends and family. “I add it in traditional [Korean] miso soup or as side dishes [banchan] by blanching the leaves and sometimes mixing sesame oil, sugar, and Korean red pepper flakes,” Park says.

    A man in a red shirt holds a plate of a chicken and rice while standing in the middle of the his kitchen.

    Ahmed Saleh holds a plate of chicken and rice, which is one of many ways folks enjoy molokhia.

    You can also grow them yourself. Iman decided to start planting molokhia and other plants used in Palestinian cuisine like wild thyme (sometimes called za’atar, though it is applied differently than the spice mix of the same name) this March. “I felt like it was an act of preservation and resistance when people are trying to erase Palestinians,” Iman says. Globally, Indigenous cultures stress the importance of seed-keeping, and Palestinians are no different. But planting molokhia was difficult in cold Chicago. “[Molokhia] prefers temperatures between 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 degrees Celsius) and 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius) and well-drained, loamy soil rich in organic matter,” says Luay Ghafari, Palestinian gardener and founder of Urban Farm and Kitchen, adding that Chicagoans should start planting the seeds indoors under grow lights “four weeks before the last frost date,” transplanting them into the garden when the chance of frost is over and the soil has warmed.

    “It would get really hot and then it would get really cold again, so I was constantly running them in and out of the apartment when they were little seedlings,” Iman says. Now, the molokhia plants are healthy and mature, nothing like the yield Iman sees from Palestinian fields, but something she’s proud of. Ghafari says molokhia is an annual that can grow several feet tall in optimal conditions. “During harvest season, you often find it sold in large bales because it takes a large quantity of leaves to yield enough quantities for consumption.” But home plants in Chicago like Iman’s don’t yield enough leaves for much besides smaller pots of stew. Iman’s Mexican mother tends to the plants at their family home near the suburbs. “It’s our bonding thing,” Iman says.

    Raeyan’s mother Nancy Roberts, an Arabic translator, typed up Raeyan’s grandmother’s molokhia recipe — the recipe we cooked from — that was passed down through generations. This, too, is a kind of sacred seed-keeping.

    “I plan to pass [recipes] to my children until liberation,” Abdelhadi says. “Mahmoud Darwish said the occupiers fear memories, and Palestinians have made memory a national pastime.”

    After running around in the summer heat of Chicago in search of stories about this plant, what were my memories of molokhia? They weren’t Rachel’s, Raeyan’s, Iman’s, or Laith’s — memories of childhood, family, heritage. But I was building a relationship with molokhia.


    A colleague once said, “Palestine lines my mind.” I never forgot it because it so aptly described these past 10 months for me. Now, somehow, molokhia had settled there too, becoming part of my memory of this brutal time, intertwining with Palestine, with Gaza. “It was very bad today,” Hisham says quietly when I mentioned Gaza during our interview, referring to the Israeli airstrike that day in al-Mawassi, a designated “safe zone,” that killed over 100 people in a matter of minutes, most of them children. In every interview I did for this article, the genocide either kept coming up or the tension was thick as it was talked around. So how could writing about molokhia ever just be about food? How could researching, eating, and making molokhia not make Palestine fill my mind, and enter my dreams?

    One night I dreamt that Rachel, Raeyan, and I were bustling around my kitchen making molokhia, me sifting the leaves with henna-stained hands, Raeyan stirring by the stove, Rachel chopping garlic. My friend Omar was in the kitchen too, watching. It was almost an exact replica of how we had looked when we cooked it.

    Except Omar doesn’t live in Chicago. He is in Gaza.

    The day of the dream, Omar told me the bombing was heavy; he might not live through the night.I hope you live. May Allah protect you,I messaged back. The next sunrise, I got a reply. Alhamdulillah. Thank God. Omar was still alive. For months, this has been the cadence of our messages. I may not live through this night. I hope you live. May Allah protect you. Alhamdulillah.

    There was a night when, after we all saw yet another horrific image of a Palestinian person’s body mutilated by Israeli attacks and U.S. weapons, it was suggested, I forget by whom, that we go to Lake Michigan and scream. When we got there, we were silent for a long time. It wasn’t embarrassment, but the fear that God had stopped listening to our screams. What evidence did we have otherwise? Then, almost in unison, we screamed, the sound carrying over the water. And I have to believe we were heard.

    Naaood lal tareekh. Let us go back to history. Nataqadam lal horeya. Let us go forward into freedom.

    Nylah Iqbal Muhammad is a James Beard-nominated travel, food, and entertainment writer with bylines in New York Magazine, Travel + Leisure, and Vogue. You can follow her on Instagram, Substack, and Twitter/X.

    Nylah Iqbal Muhammad

    Source link

  • Rafael Nadal’s Olympics end in doubles loss with Carlos Alcaraz to Americans Krajicek and Ram

    Rafael Nadal’s Olympics end in doubles loss with Carlos Alcaraz to Americans Krajicek and Ram

    Rafael Nadal’s Olympics end in doubles loss with Carlos Alcaraz to Americans Krajicek and Ram

    Rafael Nadal’s Paris Games — and, almost certainly, his Olympic career — ended Wednesday night when he and Carlos Alcaraz were eliminated in the men’s doubles quarterfinals with a 6-2, 6-4 loss to the fourth-seeded American duo of Austin Krajicek and Rajeev Ram.The match was played at Court Philippe Chatrier, the same stadium where Nadal has won his record 14 French Open titles, part of his haul of 22 Grand Slam trophies. The full house roared and sang to support Nadal and Alcaraz — well, mainly Nadal — especially as they tried to stave off defeat in the final game.The 38-year-old Nadal has not announced anything about his plans or possible retirement, but given his age and recent history of injuries, an appearance at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics seems far-fetched. He might not even compete at all beyond the Paris Games, but that is far less clear.Nadal won gold medals for Spain in singles at Beijing in 2008 and in doubles at Rio de Janeiro in 2016. This time around, he was defeated in singles on Monday by rival Novak Djokovic.The doubles outcome seemed pretty much decided when Ram smacked a return winner off a serve by Alcaraz to break him at love and lead 4-3 in the second set. The Spaniards thought the ball landed out and bent down to get closer to the clay while arguing their case with French chair umpire Morgane Lara. But the call did not change. And soon, Krajicek was serving to close it out.Still, Nadal never has been one to concede a thing, and so it was fitting that he and Alcaraz earned a break point there, a chance to extend the evening. Didn’t happen, though, and soon Alcaraz and Nadal were hugging on one side of the net — and Ram and Krajicek were doing the same on the other.

    Rafael Nadal’s Paris Games — and, almost certainly, his Olympic career — ended Wednesday night when he and Carlos Alcaraz were eliminated in the men’s doubles quarterfinals with a 6-2, 6-4 loss to the fourth-seeded American duo of Austin Krajicek and Rajeev Ram.

    The match was played at Court Philippe Chatrier, the same stadium where Nadal has won his record 14 French Open titles, part of his haul of 22 Grand Slam trophies. The full house roared and sang to support Nadal and Alcaraz — well, mainly Nadal — especially as they tried to stave off defeat in the final game.

    The 38-year-old Nadal has not announced anything about his plans or possible retirement, but given his age and recent history of injuries, an appearance at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics seems far-fetched. He might not even compete at all beyond the Paris Games, but that is far less clear.

    Nadal won gold medals for Spain in singles at Beijing in 2008 and in doubles at Rio de Janeiro in 2016. This time around, he was defeated in singles on Monday by rival Novak Djokovic.

    Spain's Rafael Nadal reacts playing with Spain's Carlos Alcaraz against US' Austin Krajicek and US' Rajeev Ram during their men's doubles quarter-final tennis match on Court Philippe-Chatrier at the Roland-Garros Stadium during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, in Paris on July 31, 2024. (Photo by CARL DE SOUZA / AFP) (Photo by CARL DE SOUZA/AFP via Getty Images)

    The doubles outcome seemed pretty much decided when Ram smacked a return winner off a serve by Alcaraz to break him at love and lead 4-3 in the second set. The Spaniards thought the ball landed out and bent down to get closer to the clay while arguing their case with French chair umpire Morgane Lara. But the call did not change. And soon, Krajicek was serving to close it out.

    Still, Nadal never has been one to concede a thing, and so it was fitting that he and Alcaraz earned a break point there, a chance to extend the evening. Didn’t happen, though, and soon Alcaraz and Nadal were hugging on one side of the net — and Ram and Krajicek were doing the same on the other.

    Source link

  • Baby Boomer retirement wave means more job opportunities for younger Americans

    Baby Boomer retirement wave means more job opportunities for younger Americans

    NEW YORK — The retirement wave is about to hit. A whopping four million Americans are expected to turn 65 every year for the next four years, and that can mean opportunity if you’re in the job market.

    This wave of retirements will have ripple effects across the economy, and a big part of what’s at play here is demographics.

    The Alliance for Lifetime Income found that 11,200 Americans will turn 65 every day through 2027.

    That’s a record number, up from 10,000 per day over the past decade.

    Some economists are calling it “Peak 65.”

    Of course, not everyone who turns 65 retires right away. We know many households are working for longer as the cost of living has gone up.

    But the big picture is there are more older Americans leaving the workforce than there are younger workers, like recent high school or college grads, getting in.

    People who are on the job hunt might find that they have more options.

    Right now, employers nationwide have posted a total of 8 million jobs they’re trying to fill, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    That number of job postings is actually higher than the number of people who are looking for work, and it could stay that way for the next couple of years.

    The other important dynamic for workers is this could help boost their salaries. If employers are competing to fill open jobs, they might offer to pay higher wages.

    One industry that will be especially hit as baby boomers retire is health care; think doctors, nurses, and home aides.

    Almost one out of every four health care workers is over the age of 55, so as those workers retire, their jobs will need to be filled.

    Plus, our aging population means there will be more people who need critical health care services.

    Other industries that have a big share of older workers are government and education.

    This is a time for younger workers to think about how to maximize their opportunities and earnings in their careers.

    The biggest share of workers under the age of 40 is in retail and hospitality. They might want to consider how their skills from those jobs can translate into more in-demand industries like health care in this changing workforce.

    Copyright © 2024 ABC News Internet Ventures.

    ABCNews

    Source link

  • Opinion: Is Biden a YIMBY? He certainly has good reason to embrace a pro-housing agenda

    Opinion: Is Biden a YIMBY? He certainly has good reason to embrace a pro-housing agenda

    President Biden’s recent pro-housing pivot didn’t come a moment too soon. Even though the housing shortage is long-standing, well-known and worse in blue cities, high housing costs somehow sneaked up on Democrats.

    By facing the crisis head on, Biden and his fellow Democrats can show voters they’re committed to expanding and strengthening the middle class and dealing with its most serious concerns. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

    The housing shortage has generated deep economic resentment. Meanwhile, wealthy communities from Cupertino, Calif., to Milburn, N.J., have done everything they can to stifle construction, driving up the cost of renting or owning a home. These high prices chip away at paychecks and morale, pushing people into ever longer commutes as well as crowded and substandard housing.

    The housing shortage is a dark cloud over America’s otherwise sunny economic forecast, generating dissatisfaction and endangering Democrats in the coming election.

    By all the usual measures, the economy is rebounding. Inflation has fallen from the highs of the past few years to near 3%. Wages are growing, and unemployment is low. The pandemic’s worst economic consequences are over.

    And yet anyone trying to afford a home is stuck in the mud of high costs. Experts think inflated housing prices are part of the reason 8 in 10 Americans in key swing states see the economy as just “fair” or “poor.” The restricted housing supply keeps workers from feeling the benefits of higher wages and moving to places where incomes are even higher.

    When people are struggling, they blame those they perceive to be in charge. That helps explain the discrepancy between economic indicators and Biden’s polling.

    Instead of trying to convince people that the way they’re feeling about the economy is wrong, Democrats must address the pain that working- and middle-class people are feeling. Injecting positivity into the online conversation — as Biden’s team has tried to do by countering economic doomsayers on TikTok and other platforms — will only go so far.

    To his credit, the president has been quietly working on housing affordability throughout his term. The administration’s Housing Supply Action Plan, released in July, provided funding to municipalities that have made it easier to build housing, among other pro-growth measures. The administration has also promoted commercial-to-residential conversion and financed affordable housing designed to be resilient to climate change. All of this will help bring housing costs down.

    But in the last few months, Biden has finally grown louder about making housing affordable by increasing supply. As Neera Tanden, the director of his Domestic Policy Council, put it: “We know we need to increase housing supply to ensure that we can bring down rents and the cost of homeownership.”

    Democrats are beginning to understand the need for a rallying cry that speaks to economic anxieties and signals that the administration is focused on bringing housing costs down. It’s a message that resonates with members of an eroding middle class, many of whom believe the Democratic Party isn’t fighting for them. It’s a message that appeals to young people, minorities and every other demographic being locked out of prosperity in America. It’s a message that puts Democrats back in the conversation about the economy, an area where voters still trust Republicans more.

    Is Biden a YIMBY, a “Yes in My Backyard” advocate for increasing housing supply? Whether or not he calls himself one, his work and rhetoric on the issue suggest he is.

    By publicly embracing YIMBYism as an ideology and an agenda, Biden can align himself with a bipartisan majority of Americans who believe in easing zoning restrictions to allow more housing to be built. And he can signal to those struggling with housing costs that he has their backs.

    Housing offers Democrats a chance to talk about rebuilding an America that works for everyone, one with a thriving, growing, expanding middle class. The administration has to show voters it understands that current housing prices are unacceptable and that it will do what it takes to bring them down. Until more people believe they will one day be able to buy a home, pessimism about access to opportunity will persist, and so will the risk to Biden’s reelection effort.

    Laura Foote is the executive director of YIMBY Action and a member of the board of Up for Growth.

    Laura Foote

    Source link

  • Baby-Food Pouches Are Unavoidable

    Baby-Food Pouches Are Unavoidable

    On Sunday evening, I fed a bowl of salmon, broccoli, and rice to my eight-month-old son. Or rather, I attempted to. The fish went flying; greens and grains splattered across the walls. Half an hour later, bedtime drew near, and he hadn’t eaten a thing. Exasperated, I handed him a baby-food pouch—and he inhaled every last drop of apple-raspberry-squash-carrot mush.

    For harried parents like myself, baby pouches are a lifeline. These disposable plastic packets are sort of like Capri-Suns filled with blends of pureed fruits and vegetables: A screw-top cap makes for easy slurping, potentially even making supervision unnecessary. The sheer ease of baby pouches has made them hyper-popular—and not just for parents with infants who can’t yet eat table food. They are commonly fed to toddlers; even adults sometimes eat baby pouches.

    But after my son slurped up all the goo and quickly went to sleep, I felt more guilty than relieved. Giving him a pouch felt like giving up, or taking a shortcut. No parent has the time or energy to make healthy, homemade food all the time, but that doesn’t stop Americans from still thinking “they need to try harder,” Susan Persky, a behavioral scientist at the NIH who has studied parental guilt, told me. That can leave parents stuck between a pouch and a hard place.

    Baby pouches have practically become their own food group. These shelf-stable time-savers debuted in 2008, and now come in a staggering range of blends: Gerber sells a carrot, apple, and coriander version; another, from Sprout Organics, contains sweet potato, white bean, and cinnamon. Containing basically just fruits and veggies, pouches are generally seen as a “healthy” option for kids. A 2019 report found that the product accounts for roughly a quarter of baby-food sales. Around the same time, a report on children attending day care showed that pouches are included in more than a quarter of lunch boxes, and some kids get more than half their lunchtime nutrition from them.

    But pouches should be just a “sometimes food,” Courtney Byrd-Williams, a professor at the University of Texas’s Houston School of Public Health, told me. When you stack up their drawbacks, relying on them can really start to feel dispiriting. Although pouches are generally produce-based, they tend to have less iron than fortified cereal does and more added sugars than jarred baby food. Excess sweetness may encourage kids to eat more than necessary and could promote a sweet tooth that could later contribute to diet-related chronic disease.

    If consumed in excess, pouches may also get in the way of kids learning how to eat real food. Unlike jarred baby food, which tends to contain a single vegetable or several, pouches usually include fruit to mask the bitter with the sweet. “If we’re only giving them pouches,” Byrd-Williams said, “are they learning to like the vegetable taste?” And because the purees are slurped, they don’t give infants the opportunity to practice chewing, potentially delaying development. In 2019, the German Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine went so far as to issue a statement against baby pouches, warning that eating them may delay eating with a spoon or fingers.

    And then, the scariest scenario: Earlier this month, the CDC reported that hundreds of kids may have lead poisoning from pouches containing contaminated applesauce. Perhaps more troubling, a recent analysis by Consumer Reports found that even certain pouches on the market that weren’t implicated in the contamination scandal also contain unusually high levels of lead.

    Naturally, these concerns can make parents anxious. Online, caregivers fret that their reliance on the products might leave their child malnourished. Some worry that their kid will never learn how to eat solid food or figure out how to chew. Pouches, to be clear, are hardly a terrible thing to feed your kid. They can be a reliable way to get fruits and vegetables into picky kids, offering a convenience that is unrivaled.

    But pouch guilt doesn’t stem entirely from health concerns. By making parenting easier, they also are a reminder of what expectations parents aren’t meeting. I wanted to be the kind of mom who would consistently make my son home-cooked food and persevere through a tough meal, but on Sunday, I was just too exhausted. Guilt is a fact of life for many parents. Virtually anything can trigger it: going to work, staying at home, spending too much time on your phone, not buying supersoft bamboo baby clothes. If parents can have unrealistic standards about it, it’s fair game. “There’s just a lot of guilt about what parents should be doing,” Byrd-Williams said.

    But feeding children is especially fraught. Parents are often told what they should feed their children—breast milk, fresh produce—but never how to do so; they’re left to figure that out on their own. About 80 percent of mothers and fathers experience guilt around feeding, Persky told me—about giving their kids sugary or ultra-processed foods or caving to requests for junk. Guilt might be an impetus for better food choices, but Persky said she has found the opposite: Parents who are made to feel guilty about the way they feed their kids end up choosing less healthy foods. “It’s hard to parent when you’re struggling with self-worth,” she said.

    Pouch guilt has less to do with the products themselves and more to do with what they represent: convenience, ease, a moment of respite. Asking for a break conflicts with the core expectations of American parenthood, particularly motherhood. At every turn, parents are pressured to do more for their kids; on social media, momfluencers tout home-cooked baby food and meticulously styled birthday parties. The American mentality is that the “moral and correct way to do things is to have infinite willpower,” Persky said, and in this worldview, “shortcuts seem like an inherently bad thing.” Raising children is supposed to be about hard work and self-sacrifice—about pureeing carrots at home instead of buying them in a plastic packet. But when parents are constantly short on time, sometimes the best they can do is scrape together as much as they can, one squeeze pouch after another.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Granderson: If the economy is so great, why are evictions soaring?

    Granderson: If the economy is so great, why are evictions soaring?

    There is another migrant crisis brewing. Unlike the one at the southern border, this one will be all over the country.

    A recent Harvard study found that half of the country’s renters are spending a third or more of their income on housing. Those are the people fortunate enough to find housing when there’s a nationwide shortage of affordable homes. Combine the rent line item with the soaring cost of child care, and don’t forget groceries, and … well, you can understand why evictions have spiked and homelessness has reached a record high.

    Opinion Columnist

    LZ Granderson

    LZ Granderson writes about culture, politics, sports and navigating life in America.

    We’re living through an age of contradictions. The United States is the strongest economy in the world, and Americans’ credit card debt has never been higher. The unemployment rate has been less than 5% for President Biden’s entire first term, and voters disapprove of his handling of the economy. Wall Street predicted that last year’s gross domestic product would grow by less than 2%, and instead it was 2.5% — yet the economy feels weak to a lot of people.

    That’s because for many people, the economy is weak.

    Right now the top 1% has more money than the nation’s entire middle class. For Americans with the lowest incomes, rent is just the beginning of the worries.

    Unaffordable rent is a continuation of the wealth redistribution that accompanied the economic policies of President Reagan.

    Before disco, the top 10% shared 30% of the nation’s income, while the remaining 90% lived off the rest. Today, the bottom 90% is getting by with less than 60% of the income. The top 1% took in 14.6% in 2021, which is twice their 7.3% share in 1979, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

    After 1979, Reagan convinced voters to make capital more important than people. Give the rich more, and the extra will “trickle down” — remember that? Greed is a part of capitalism, but it’s not a part of patriotism. Reagan’s characterization of our economy conflated those two concepts, and many Americans embraced that fallacy as truth. Those who struggled to achieve prosperity were viewed as lazy and unworthy of help. Something had to be wrong with them, the thinking went, because nothing was wrong with this “land of opportunity.”

    This was the era when well-paying manufacturing jobs went elsewhere. This was when large, successful companies were able to rake in record profits, while hardworking employees began to rely on food stamps to feed their families.

    And now Congress is trying to solve the housing crisis by offering housing developers more tax credits. So much for the invisible hand of the free market, right? Although there is a desperate need for more affordable housing, developers apparently do not make enough money to want to do it, so government has to dangle a carrot to ensure that thriving corporations will thrive even more.

    Conservatives often talk of the country’s unsustainable spending. It isn’t federal debt that should worry them most, though. How much longer can 22 million people spend a third or more of their earnings on rent?

    In 2023, some states saw eviction filings jump more than 50% compared with pre-pandemic levels — and back then, the unemployment rate was higher. That’s not sustainable either.

    Whether it’s living off borrowings in order to avoid taxable income or reporting losses legally while still making money, the various ways billionaire owners end up paying a lower tax rate than many of their employees are well-documented. When rising costs are passed down to consumers — rent, baby formula, bacon — we are conditioned to blame the government and not the price-gougers. When gas prices are up, many point fingers at the White House, even though, of course, presidents don’t control gas prices.

    This sorry state of the American economy is not attributable entirely to either party or any one presidential administration. This redistribution has continued on everyone’s watch. However, we are reaching a point where a lot of people are fed up with their hard work not paying off, and they’re going to take action. That’s why the Wall Street Journal dubbed 2023 “the year of the strike.” Workers saw the prosperity at the top and demanded their fair share.

    Now more than ever, we need Congress to close the tax loopholes that have allowed trillions of dollars to be redirected away from the many and hoarded by the few. Because the rent crisis isn’t a new problem: It’s the latest incarnation of the one that started when policymakers began to pretend that greed is good.

    @LZGranderson

    LZ Granderson

    Source link

  • America Is Having a Senior Moment on Vaccines

    America Is Having a Senior Moment on Vaccines

    For years now, health experts have been warning that COVID-era politics and the spread of anti-vaxxer lies have brought us to the brink of public-health catastrophe—that a Great Collapse of Vaccination Rates is nigh. This hasn’t come to pass. In spite of deep concerns about a generation of young parents who might soon give up on immunizations altogether—not simply for COVID, but perhaps for all disease—many of the stats we have are looking good. Standard vaccination coverage among babies and toddlers, including the pandemic babies born in 2020, is “high and stable,” the CDC reports. And kindergarteners’ immunization rates, which dipped after the pandemic started, are no longer losing ground.

    Whatever gaps in early childhood vaccination were brought on by the chaos of early 2020 have since been reversed, Alison Buttenheim, a professor of nursing and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told me: “We’ve substantially caught up, which is incredible. It’s actually an amazing feat.”

    But even in the shadow of this triumph, a more specific crisis in vaccine acceptance has emerged. Americans aren’t now suspicious of inoculations on the whole—the nation isn’t anti-vax—but we have lost faith in yearly COVID shots. Barely any children have been getting them. Among adults, the drop in uptake has been rapid and relentless: By the spring of 2022, 56 percent of all adults had received their initial booster shot; a year later, just 28 percent were up to date; so far this COVID season, just 19 percent can say the same.

    Of course, the dangers from infection have been dropping too. Almost all of us have been exposed to COVID at this point, either through prior immunization, natural infection, or—most likely—both. That makes the disease much less deadly than it’s ever been before. (Among kids, the CDC now attributes “0.00%” of weekly deaths to COVID.) But for one age group in particular—people over 65—the crashing vaccination rates should inspire dread. More than 1,500 deaths each week are still associated with COVID, and almost all of them are senior citizens; current data hint that COVID has been killing seniors at seven times the rate of flu. Across the nation’s nursing homes and retirement communities, the Great Collapse is real.

    Like younger American adults, seniors haven’t been avoiding all recommended immunizations, just the ones for COVID. Their flu-shot rates have gone down a little in the past few years, but only by a handful of percentage points from a pandemic-driven, all-time high of 75 percent. This season, about 70 percent of people over 65 have received their flu vaccine, in line with average rates that haven’t changed that much for decades. In the meantime, seniors’ uptake of the latest COVID shots has fallen off by more than half since 2022, to just 38 percent. These diverging rates—steady for the flu, plummeting for COVID—are notably at odds with the attendant risks. Seniors seem to understand the value of inoculating themselves against the flu. So why do they forgo the same precaution against something so much worse?

    One might blame the toxic political battles around vaccines, and rampant misinformation about their ill effects. “Something terrible has happened to broaden and intensify public rejection of vaccines and other biomedical innovations in the United States,” the vaccine expert Peter Hotez wrote in his recent book The Deadly Rise of Anti-science. Certainly, toxic politics and rampant misinformation exist, but the turn against the experts that Hotez and others have decried doesn’t really fit the emergency described above. Taken as a whole, the population of Americans over 65 is hardly soured on vaccines. Nor are they afraid of COVID vaccination in particular: Though political divides persist, more than 95 percent of seniors received their initial round of shots. More than 95 percent!

    Echoing Hotez in an opinion piece for JAMA that came out last week, the FDA commissioner, Robert Califf, and a senior FDA official named Peter Marks cited the abysmal uptake of COVID shots by senior citizens as one of several signs that the country is nearing “a dangerous tipping point” on vaccination, driven by an oceanic online tide of vaccine misinformation. (Health-care providers should try to stem that tide, they wrote, with “large amounts of truthful, accessible scientific evidence.”) But the volume and intensity of anti-vaccine rhetoric seems to have diminished somewhat since 2022, Buttenheim told me: “You’d have to come up with some reason why it’s having more of an effect now than it did over the past couple of years.”

    Confusion and fatigue may well be bigger factors here than fear or false beliefs. Many Americans, young and old, have long since moved beyond the pandemic in their daily life, and may not want to think about the topic long enough to schedule another shot. The fact that people are fed up with COVID and all of the arguments it spawned is a “major drag on uptake of the vaccine,” Noel Brewer, a professor who studies health behavior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told me. Along with many other adults, seniors have also been thrown off by changes in what the shot is called and when it’s recommended for which groups. Buttenheim doesn’t think that people are particularly afraid of this year’s dose. “This is not, like, Back off,” she said. “It’s like, Oh, there is one?

    Another theory holds that the CDC is responsible for this indifference, by pushing yearly COVID shots on people of all ages, including those for whom the net benefits of further vaccination are hard to see. In the U.K., where a much narrower group of people is eligible for updated COVID shots, uptake among seniors has been almost double what it is in the U.S., at 70 percent. That’s not because the British health-care system is better organized than ours—or not only on account of that. Even in that context, British seniors only get their flu shots at a rate that’s slightly higher than American seniors do.

    The broader rollout could contribute to the problem, Rupali Limaye, an epidemiologist who studies health communication at Johns Hopkins University, told me: “When it’s a blanket recommendation, it does dilute the message.” The CDC’s messaging on COVID shots has the benefit of being simple, but at the cost of being less persuasive for the people who are at highest risk. Then again, all Americans above the age of six months are advised to get the flu shot, and more or less the same proportions do so every year. That’s a product of our training, Brewer told me: “The U.S. has invested for decades in developing the habit of getting an annual flu shot. Older adults know that this is the thing they need to do, and they are used to it.”

    Even more important than the habit of getting flu shots is the habit of supplying them. Local clinics, businesses, and retirement communities know how to give these vaccinations (and they understand how the costs will be covered); they’ve been doing this for years. Buttenheim told me that her university sets up a flu-shot clinic every fall, where she can usually get immunized in less than 90 seconds. But the equivalent for COVID shots is yet to become routine. Where the vaccines are available, appointments have been canceled over missing doses or mix-ups with insurance. Government efforts to improve access were delayed.

    With the end of the pandemic emergency, obtaining a COVID shot has simply gotten harder, no matter your intentions or beliefs. “The very well-structured and scaffolded process for getting those vaccines before has just evaporated,” Buttenheim said. For the uptake rates to turn around, a new, post-emergency system for delivery might have to be established, with less confusion over cost and coverage. Even that development alone would do a lot to end the geriatric vaccine crash. If COVID shots could be made as standardized and reflexive as the ones for flu, seasonal vaccination rates might start rising once again, at least until about two-thirds of people over 65 are getting shots. That’s the rate we see for flu shots, and probably an upper limit, Brewer said: “We won’t do better than that.”

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • Sick Season Will Be Worse From Now On

    Sick Season Will Be Worse From Now On

    Last fall, when RSV and flu came roaring back from a prolonged and erratic hiatus, and COVID was still killing thousands of Americans each week, many of the United States’ leading infectious-disease experts offered the nation a glimmer of hope. The overwhelm, they predicted, was probably temporary—viruses making up ground they’d lost during the worst of the pandemic. Next year would be better.

    And so far, this year has been better. Some of the most prominent and best-tracked viruses, at least, are behaving less aberrantly than they did the previous autumn. Although neither RSV nor flu is shaping up to be particularly mild this year, says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, both appear to be behaving more within their normal bounds.

    But infections are still nowhere near back to their pre-pandemic norm. They never will be again. Adding another disease—COVID—to winter’s repertoire has meant exactly that: adding another disease, and a pretty horrific one at that, to winter’s repertoire. “The probability that someone gets sick over the course of the winter is now increased,” Rivers told me, “because there is yet another germ to encounter.” The math is simple, even mind-numbingly obvious—a pathogenic n+1 that epidemiologists have seen coming since the pandemic’s earliest days. Now we’re living that reality, and its consequences. “What I’ve told family or friends is, ‘Odds are, people are going to get sick this year,’” Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, told me.

    Even before the pandemic, winter was a dreaded slog—“the most challenging time for a hospital” in any given year, Popescu said. In typical years, flu hospitalizes an estimated 140,000 to 710,000 people in the United States alone; some years, RSV can add on some 200,000 more. “Our baseline has never been great,” Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatrician at Stanford, told me. “Tens of thousands of people die every year.” In “light” seasons, too, the pileup exacts a tax: In addition to weathering the influx of patients, health-care workers themselves fall sick, straining capacity as demand for care rises. And this time of year, on top of RSV, flu, and COVID, we also have to contend with a maelstrom of other airway viruses—among them, rhinoviruses, parainfluenza viruses, human metapneumovirus, and common-cold coronaviruses. (A small handful of bacteria can cause nasty respiratory illnesses too.) Illnesses not severe enough to land someone in the hospital could still leave them stuck at home for days or weeks on end, recovering or caring for sick kids—or shuffling back to work, still sick and probably contagious, because they can’t afford to take time off.

    To toss any additional respiratory virus into that mess is burdensome; for that virus to be SARS-CoV-2 ups the ante all the more. “This is a more serious pathogen that is also more infectious,” Ajay Sethi, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me. This year, COVID-19 has so far killed some 80,000 Americans—a lighter toll than in the three years prior, but one that still dwarfs that of the worst flu seasons in the past decade. Globally, the only infectious killer that rivals it in annual-death count is tuberculosis. And last year, a CDC survey found that more than 3 percent of American adults were suffering from long COVID—millions of people in the United States alone.

    With only a few years of data to go on, and COVID-data tracking now spotty at best, it’s hard to quantify just how much worse winters might be from now on. But experts told me they’re keeping an eye on some potentially concerning trends. We’re still rather early in the typical sickness season, but influenza-like illnesses, a catchall tracked by the CDC, have already been on an upward push for weeks. Rivers also pointed to CDC data that track trends in deaths caused by pneumonia, flu, and COVID-19. Even when SARS-CoV-2 has been at its most muted, Rivers said, more people have been dying—especially during the cooler months—than they were at the pre-pandemic baseline. The math of exposure is, again, simple: The more pathogens you encounter, the more likely you are to get sick.

    A larger roster of microbes might also extend the portion of the year when people can expect to fall ill, Rivers told me. Before the pandemic, RSV and flu would usually start to bump up sometime in the fall, before peaking in the winter; if the past few years are any indication, COVID could now surge in the summer, shading into RSV’s autumn rise, before adding to flu’s winter burden, potentially dragging the misery out into spring. “Based on what I know right now, I am considering the season to be longer,” Rivers said.

    With COVID still quite new, the exact specifics of respiratory-virus season will probably continue to change for a good while yet. The population, after all, is still racking up initial encounters with this new coronavirus, and with regularly administered vaccines. Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told me he suspects that, barring further gargantuan leaps in viral evolution, the disease will continue to slowly mellow out in severity as our collective defenses build; the virus may also pose less of a transmission risk as the period during which people are infectious contracts. But even if the dangers of COVID-19 are lilting toward an asymptote, experts still can’t say for sure where that asymptote might be relative to other diseases such as the flu—or how long it might take for the population to get there. And no matter how much this disease softens, it seems extraordinarily unlikely to ever disappear. For the foreseeable future, “pretty much all years going forward are going to be worse than what we’ve been used to before,” Hanage told me.

    In one sense, this was always where we were going to end up. SARS-CoV-2 spread too quickly and too far to be quashed; it’s now here to stay. If the arithmetic of more pathogens is straightforward, our reaction to that addition could have been too: More disease risk means ratcheting up concern and response. But although a core contingent of Americans might still be more cautious than they were before the pandemic’s start—masking in public, testing before gathering, minding indoor air quality, avoiding others whenever they’re feeling sick—much of the country has readily returned to the pre-COVID mindset.

    When I asked Hanage what precautions worthy of a respiratory disease with a death count roughly twice that of flu’s would look like, he rattled off a familiar list: better access to and uptake of vaccines and antivirals, with the vulnerable prioritized; improved surveillance systems to offer  people at high risk a better sense of local-transmission trends; improved access to tests and paid sick leave. Without those changes, excess disease and death will continue, and “we’re saying we’re going to absorb that into our daily lives,” he said.

    And that is what is happening. This year, for the first time, millions of Americans have access to three lifesaving respiratory-virus vaccines, against flu, COVID, and RSV. Uptake for all three remains sleepy and halting; even the flu shot, the most established, is not performing above its pre-pandemic baseline. “We get used to people getting sick every year,” Maldonado told me. “We get used to things we could probably fix.” The years since COVID arrived set a horrific precedent of death and disease; after that, this season of n+1 sickness might feel like a reprieve. But compare it with a pre-COVID world, and it looks objectively worse. We’re heading toward a new baseline, but it will still have quite a bit in common with the old one: We’re likely to accept it, and all of its horrors, as a matter of course.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Inflation Fears Explain A Seeming Housing Market Mystery

    Inflation Fears Explain A Seeming Housing Market Mystery

    Housing has become increasingly expensive. According to the National Association of Realtors, mortgage rates on average have risen by more than a full percentage point over the last 12 months. The average price of a home has inched up as well. Taken together and measured against household incomes, the statisticians at the Association estimate that affordability of home ownership for the average American has plummeted nearly 10% over the past year and today sits at its lowest level since 2011. Economics 101 would tell us that demand should slack off. Yet, home sales continue to rise. The Census Bureau reports that sales of privately owned houses fell off a bit in October, the most recent period for which data are available, but remain some 18% above year-ago levels. Sales have held up in defiance of standard price theory because Americans are still very concerned about inflation.

    Indeed, the behavior of the housing market, more than any other economic gauge, announces that Americans, though aware of easing rates of inflation recently, are concerned that the economy is far from out of the woods on this matter. They fear a rising cost of living and exhibit that fear by flocking to the best inflation hedge available to them — home ownership — and secure it even if it means stretching their household budget to the limit. Few homeowners can quote the numbers, but the history of the last great inflation guides their decisions. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the crushing burden of 6.2% inflation a year tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was still bested by an 8.7% rise in residential real estate values recorded by the Census Bureau. The 2.5 percentage point difference more than made up for the burden of paying mortgage rates that rose to double digits during that time.

    For others, the logic of ownership is compelling in yet a different way, even if it means paying high mortgage rates and stretching the household budget to do so. Once the house is secure, whether financed with a cash purchase or a fixed rate mortgage even a high-rate one, the family has fixed the price of a major budget item – shelter – a great comfort when people fear that all other prices will rise unpredictably. For those who remain wary of inflation – and that is most people outside the White House – the peace of mind purchased this way is well worth the budget strains. Affordability might prevent a purchase as large or in as desirable location as hoped, but these benefits justify sliding down the pricing distribution. And this kind of buying has held up demand, despite rising costs.

    Pricing might have given way despite this support for demand were it not that supply has also declined. It seems that existing owners, especially those who purchased at the very low mortgage rates that prevailed until last year, have no desire to walk away from such advantages. If for some reason, they need to change residences, they cling to the original mortgage and the house to which it is attached and rent the property, encouraged further by the 11% rise in national rents recorded between 2021 and 2022. They then rent in their new location until conditions for a new purchase are more favorable. Then they sell the old house to buy a new one. At the same time, homebuilders, the Census Bureau reports, have cut back on the construction of single-family houses, some 4.4% over the last year, and some, noting the earlier rise in rents, have turned to the construction of rental properties. Together, this shift by builders and the relative slowdown in the supply of owner-occupied dwellings available for sale has held up prices in this area of the market while causing a sudden halt this year in what was a powerful uptrend in rents.

    As is so often the case, the matter is more complex than simple supply-demand-price considerations, especially in a product like housing that lasts for a lot longer than a haircut. If and when inflation fears fade and the Federal Reserve begins to lower interest rates, matters will seem equally perplexing as this confluence of motivations works in reverse.

    Milton Ezrati, Senior Contributor

    Source link

  • The Future of Obesity Drugs Just Got Way More Real

    The Future of Obesity Drugs Just Got Way More Real

    A wild idea recently circulated about the future of aviation: If passengers lose weight via obesity drugs, airlines could potentially cut down on fuel costs. In September, analysts at Jefferies Bank estimated that in the “slimmer society” obesity drugs will create, United Airlines could save up to $80 million in jet fuel annually.

    In the past year, as more Americans have learned about semaglutide, which is sold for diabetes under the brand name Ozempic and for obesity under the name Wegovy, hype has become completely divorced from reality. For all the grand predictions, just a fraction of Americans who qualify for obesity drugs are on them. With a list price of roughly $1,350 a month, Wegovy is far too expensive, under-covered by insurance, and in limited supply to be a routine part of health care.

    But that possibility is beginning to seem very real. The results of a highly anticipated study published on Saturday indicate that Wegovy can have profound effects on heart health, which potentially opens up the drug to even more patients. A few days earlier, the FDA approved Zepbound, an obesity drug that is a bit cheaper and appears more potent than Wegovy. If there was any doubt before, now it is undeniable: Obesity drugs “are here to stay,” Kyla Lara-Breitinger, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, told me. “There’s only going to be more and more of them.” They are now poised to become deeply entrenched in American health care, perhaps eventually even joining the ranks of commonly used drugs such as statins and metformin.

    Considering that obesity is linked to all sorts of major heart ailments, it is no big surprise that a weekly shot for weight loss might have some cardiovascular benefits. But because this class of obesity drugs, known as GLP-1 agonists for the hunger hormone they target, is so new, doctors did not know that for sure. Starting in 2018, Novo Nordisk, the company that manufactures semaglutide, began to look for answers in a study of more than 17,600 people with obesity and cardiovascular disease. In this group, results of a trial named SELECT show that Wegovy reduced the risk of major cardiac events—stroke, heart attack, death—by 20 percent. Even compared with studies on common heart medications such as Praluent and Repatha, the Wegovy results are “impressive,” Eugene Yang, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, told me.

    How exactly the drug prevents major cardiac events isn’t fully understood. Some of the effects can likely be chalked up to weight loss itself, which is associated with improvements in metrics that influence heart health, such as blood pressure, Yang said. But mechanisms independent of weight loss may also be at work. In the trial, lower rates of cardiovascular events began showing up before participants lost weight. One explanation is the drug’s impact on inflammation, which is associated with heart disease: C-reactive protein, a rough proxy for inflammation, dropped by nearly 40 percent in study participants.

    Regardless of how Wegovy works, Yang said, “it has the potential benefit of being very significant” as a new line of treatment for heart disease, the leading cause of death nationwide. Novo Nordisk has already applied for expanded FDA approval and anticipates receiving it within six months. Approval would also show that Wegovy has a medical benefit beyond weight loss, pressuring insurers to cover it. Right now, for instance, Medicare does not, in part because obesity has long been viewed as a cosmetic issue, not a medical one. Even with private coverage, the drug is still frequently out of reach. The SELECT trial makes it “unequivocally clear” that obesity is a health condition that can be treated with drugs, Ted Kyle, an obesity-policy expert, told me. Still, the study leaves room for pushback: The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events was 1.5 percent, which is, by some reckonings, quite small. A higher risk reduction would have “put more pressure” on insurers and manufacturers to make the drugs more affordable for Americans, Lara-Breitinger said.

    Still, the findings are robust enough that it seems likely that the heart benefits of obesity drugs will lead more Americans to take them—if not immediately, then eventually. The approval of a new drug could do the same. Tirzepatide, which Eli Lilly has sold as a diabetes drug under the name Mounjaro, will be marketed as Zepbound for obesity—and it is coming for Wegovy’s throne. In one study, people on tirzepatide lost an average of 18 percent of their body weight; for comparison, in another study patients on Wegovy lost an average of 15 percent. At a little over $1,000 a month, Zepbound is not cheap, but its list price is hundreds of dollars lower than that of Wegovy. (The manufacturers of both drugs have said that most insured patients pay far less than that.)

    Zepbound’s approval is just the beginning. Unlike semaglutide, which targets only one hormone, GLP-1, to exert its effects on appetite and fullness, tirzepatide targets two. Other drugs that target two or even three hormones are in the works, as are versions that come in a more appealing pill format rather than as an injection. Generic versions of these drugs, likely beginning with liraglutide, a predecessor to semaglutide sold as Saxenda, could become available soon, Yang said. This competition will help bring down costs, but it will go only so far. Drug pricing is “a little bit screwy,” Kyle said, complicated by the wide gap between the list price and the net price created by manufactures, insurers, and intermediaries between them.

    Each new competitor and new study is a step toward a future in which a substantial proportion of Americans with obesity are routinely prescribed these drugs. In a single week, obesity drugs leapt a new era—one in which they are about to become significantly more mainstream. No doubt that future is a bright one for millions of people who might benefit from treatment. Still, many questions about the drugs remain unanswered, such as their long-term safety and endless supply shortages.

    But the potential for obesity drugs to truly change America has never felt closer—with all of the dizzying questions this creates about what “a slimming society” might mean for exercise, the food industry, and apparently even airline jet fuel.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • No shots for Spot? Study finds owners’ vaccine hesitancy can extend to pet dogs

    No shots for Spot? Study finds owners’ vaccine hesitancy can extend to pet dogs

    Individuals who are skeptical of vaccines for themselves are also more like to question the need or efficacy of getting shots for their four-legged companions, according to a recent study.

    In the study, published in the medical journal Vaccine, researchers asked 2,200 Americans their thoughts on vaccines and whether they were dog owners. If they were, respondents were then asked whether they would vaccinate their dogs for rabies.

    Approximately half of the pet owners surveyed expressed some degree of vaccine hesitancy — with 53% saying they believed vaccines administered to dogs were unsafe, ineffective or unnecessary, the study found.

    That group was 6% more likely to have dogs that were not vaccinated for rabies, and 27% more likely to oppose rabies vaccine mandates when compared with survey respondents who did not express vaccine hesitancy, according to predicted probabilities outlined in the study.

    Matt Motta, an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health and one of the study’s co-authors, said he was not surprised to see some respondents express reluctance regarding canine vaccines, but was intrigued by the raw data.

    “I think we were pretty shocked at just how pervasive it is, and I think what I found even more shocking is how detrimental its health consequences might be,” Motta said.

    Rabies, though relatively rare, is almost always fatal in animals and humans alike, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, due to vaccines, it’s also highly preventable: Only a few human cases are recorded each year in the United States.

    “The rabies shot is the most important canine vaccination for protecting human health, and yet growing numbers of pet owners are skeptical of it,” the authors of the study wrote for Harvard Public Health.

    Most infections in humans are caused by domestic dog bites.

    California law requires all dogs over 4 months old to be vaccinated for rabies, and similar rules exist throughout most of the U.S.

    Dr. Jeanne Noble, an emergency medicine doctor and COVID-19 response director for UC San Francisco, attributed the recent uptick in vaccine hesitancy in part to the mandates imposed during the pandemic.

    “When public health officials used mandates to increase uptake of COVID vaccines, rather than sticking to broad education campaigns highlighting the tremendous benefits of the vaccine, while also acknowledging the small but measurable risks, we lost the trust of vaccine hesitant communities,” she wrote in an email. “These are folks that previously were cautiously abiding by vaccination recommendations for their children, and their pets, but are now opting out.”

    To build back that trust, Noble suggested meeting people where they are and having honest and complete discussions — answering their questions and concerns without minimizing their fears.

    The authors of the canine vaccine hesitancy study agree, and recommended paying special attention to pet owners.

    “Public health campaigns tackling vaccine hesitancy would do well to consider dog owners in their messaging, and consider drops in pet vaccination, especially for rabies, an important bellwether for gauging public trust in vaccines,” they wrote in their Harvard Public Health post.

    Jeremy Childs

    Source link

  • Americans Agree They Hate Each Other – Dave Henry, Humor Times

    Americans Agree They Hate Each Other – Dave Henry, Humor Times

    A new survey has found that Americans are overwhelmingly united on how much they hate each other.

    “People say America is a divided country, but our data shows that’s not true,” said Tom Andjerry, pollster with Suffolk University in Boston. “They are in almost complete agreement in how much they hate each other.”

    Americans hate each other - Younger cable TV showSpecifically, the poll shows that 98 percent of Americans agree that they hate people that think differently about politics than they do, while 96 percent hate people that think differently about religion.

    Further, 95 percent hate people that think differently about society and culture, while 97 percent hate people who look differently than they do.

     

    The fastest growing segment of people who are united in their hate are fans of TV shows and movies.

    Some 95% agree that they can’t stand people who don’t like the same shows as them, with 93% saying they wouldn’t be seen with them and 90% agreeing they wouldn’t be caught dead with them. That comes out to like 300%, but it just shows you how much people are in agreement on this subject.

    The unity is even higher on social media where 100% of people agree that they want to gouge their eyes out with a fork rather than read political opinions from idiots in the opposing party.

    “It’s really a Kumbaya moment in America. Everyone can agree on how much they hate each other. In these divisive times, it’s heartening to see that there are still things that we all have in common, and that we can rally around as a people,” said Andjerry.

    “It’s just a great big melting pot of people who can’t stand one another.”

    Dave HenryDave Henry
    Latest posts by Dave Henry (see all)
    ShareShare

    Dave Henry

    Source link