U.S. egg prices halve since January peak, White House notes
The descent in egg prices is not only notable over the two-month period but has also been observed in the shorter term. Since March 14, 2025, egg prices have declined by 17%, underscoring a rapid decrease in costs for consumers. This recent pricing trend provides some relief following a period of soaring egg prices, which had escalated due to a bird flu outbreak affecting poultry across the nation.
The bird flu epidemic had previously driven egg prices to unprecedented levels, impacting household budgets and becoming a focal point of political discourse. The elevated prices had been a significant concern for consumers, who rely on eggs as a staple food item due to their versatility and nutritional value.
As the most popular choice, the price movement of caged Large White eggs serves as a key indicator of the egg market's overall health and consumer affordability. The White House's highlighting of the price drop reflects the administration's awareness of the economic pressures faced by Americans and the importance of food costs in the broader economic landscape.
The current decline in egg prices may offer some economic relief to households and could influence purchasing behaviors in the coming weeks as we go into the Easter season - the busiest for egg sales.
Related Articles
U.S. egg prices halve since January peak, White House notes
Red Sea insurance rates to stay firm as US airstrikes raise fears for ships
SEC may scrap Biden-era crypto asset custody proposal, acting chief says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House joins TikTok after delaying enforcement of sale-or-ban law
The White House launched a TikTok account on Tuesday amid uncertainty about the app's future, as another deadline approaches for its parent company, Bytedance, to sell to a US buyer or be banned in the United States. President Donald Trump has repeatedly extended the deadline of a sale-or-ban law passed under former President Joe Biden's administration, with the new deadline less than a month away on September 17. The latest delay in June kept the app accessible for its 170 million American users, despite the legislation that passed last year with bipartisan support over concerns that TikTok's Chinese ownership poses a US national security risk. And it came as both the United States and China sought leverage in tense trade talks. TikTok's ultimate fate in the US remains unclear, but the official White House account is a signal the app could be here to stay. The first post on the official White House TikTok account features video of Trump as he says, 'Every day, I wake up determined to deliver a better life for the people all across this nation. I am your voice.' The post's caption reads, 'America we are BACK! What's up TikTok?' As of 8 p.m. on Tuesday, shortly after launching, the account had garnered more than 20,000 followers. This is the administration's first official TikTok account. Both Trump and Biden launched accounts during the 2024 presidential campaign, drawing scrutiny as the leaders had previously raised national security concerns with the app. TikTok doesn't operate in China, but the Chinese government enjoys significant leverage over businesses under its jurisdiction. The US government has said it's worried China could use its national security laws to access the significant amount of personal information that TikTok, like most social media applications, collects from its US users. The TikTok sale-or-ban law went into effect on January 19 after Biden signed it last year. TikTok briefly took itself offline, sparking outcry from creators, but quickly came back after Trump signed an order delaying the ban's enforcement by 75 days in one of the first acts of his second term. The president's June delay marked his third extension of the ban.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
SoftBank and Trump may not be enough to save Intel
Intel (INTC) rose roughly 7% on Tuesday, a day after SoftBank Group announced it would take a $2 billion stake in the struggling chipmaker. News of SoftBank's investment follows a Bloomberg report last week that said the Trump administration is considering taking up to a 10% position in the company. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed in a CNBC interview Tuesday that the investment would involve the US government converting Intel's grants from the Biden-era CHIPS and Science Act — worth $10.9 billion — into an equity stake aimed at stabilizing the company's US manufacturing business. Bessent did not confirm the size of the stake the government would take. Intel has fallen behind in an industry it once dominated. Its manufacturing division is bleeding cash, just as its legacy computer chip segment forfeits market share to rivals Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Qualcomm (QCOM) in the PC space. Intel is also woefully behind AMD and Nvidia (NVDA) in the AI race. The company's market capitalization of $111 billion is less than half of its value in 2021. And CEO Lip-Bu Tan has been forced to lay off 15% of the company's workforce and shelve plans to build plants in Europe. But the troubled chipmaker is the only large-scale US-based leading-edge chip manufacturer, giving it geopolitical significance as the nation looks to reshore semiconductor production. Intel's problems, however, may be too big for either SoftBank or the Trump administration to solve on their own. Intel in need of direction Deutsche Bank analyst Ross Seymore said news of the US potentially taking a stake in Intel, combined with the SoftBank investment, shows that "[Tan] is taking bold actions to solidify Intel's financial and strategic positioning during its ongoing difficult transformation process." Tan became CEO in March after Intel's board ousted former CEO Pat Gelsinger late last year. But others on Wall Street expressed skepticism that those investments would be enough to save Intel from its decline, which resulted from years of missteps. Loop Capital analyst Gary Mobley wrote in a recent note to clients that the support from SoftBank and, potentially, the US government may be "akin to a lifeline with no secure anchor at the other end," because while Intel may be "finding new buyers of its primary equity capital," that may not guarantee it can find customers for its manufacturing business. Gelsinger established Intel's third-party chip manufacturing business, otherwise known as its Foundry, in 2021 as a means of competing with rival TSMC, which produces chips for companies including Nvidia, Apple (AAPL), AMD, and others. But so far, its Foundry business has been a disappointment, struggling to secure customers. While Intel has said it reached agreements to build chips for Amazon (AMZN) and Microsoft (MSFT), the company is still its own largest manufacturing client. Intel's plan includes building chips based on newer technologies, including its 18A and upcoming 14A node design processes, part of Gelsinger's plan for five process nodes in four years. But 18A, which was initially supposed to roll out in the first half of 2025, is now slated to debut in 2026. Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon was similarly critical of Intel's cash infusion in his own investor note, writing, "We do not believe that Intel's capability gap has anything to do with money." Rasgon also questioned whether the US taking a stake in Intel would be enough to complete the company's domestic manufacturing expansions. "Intel was originally supposed to get these CHIPS Act funds for free; giving up 10% of the company for them seems worse," he wrote in a note to clients. "And if the goal is to help Intel build substantial US capacity, $10.9B really isn't enough." Moor Insights and Strategy founder and chief analyst Patrick Moorhead told Yahoo Finance that while SoftBank's $2 billion investment and the prospect of a potential US stake are good things, the company would require as much as $40 billion to build out its next-generation 14A technology. Still, getting the US government involved, at least in the short term, could prove to be a boon for the company. "My short-term answer is that the US government is a kingmaker, and they just made Intel the king, and they are going to wrap policy around that to make Intel foundry successful," Moorhead said. If the government sticks with Intel for the long haul, though, Moorhead said it could further complicate the company's development problems, leading to a lack of innovation, inefficiencies, and growing costs. "My hope is that Intel gets back on its feet, it turns itself into a reputable, leading-edge foundry, and the government sells the stake," he said. Laura Bratton is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Bluesky @ Email her at Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jury orders Elon Musk's Tesla to pay massive sum for fatal crash allegedly caused by Autopilot: 'Will send shock waves to others in the industry'
A federal jury has determined that Tesla "bore significant responsibility" for a deadly crash in Florida involving Autopilot, an advanced driver assist system intended to reduce driver workload and traffic collisions, as reported by the Associated Press. The ruling comes as Tesla grapples with lagging sales, declining revenue, volatile stocks, damaged brand trust, and eroding consumer loyalty, with CEO Elon Musk's polarizing politics and public disputes playing a role in these struggles. What's happening? A Miami jury ordered Tesla to pay more than $240 million to the victims of a 2019 crash that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and seriously injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. According to the AP, the jury ruled that because its Autopilot failed, Tesla was partially responsible for the crash even though driver George McGee was distracted by his cellphone. Brett Schreiber, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, argued that Tesla misleads drivers to believe its Autopilot is more capable of handling road situations than it is because other automakers use terms like "driver assist" and "copilot" to prevent overreliance on similar technologies. "Words matter," Schreiber said. "And if someone is playing fast and loose with words, they're playing fast and loose with information and facts." Why is this news worrying for Tesla? Teslas are generally among the safest cars around and offer long-term environmental perks and cost savings on energy and maintenance, like other electric vehicles. However, like any vehicle, they aren't perfect. The jury's verdict could further erode consumer trust in the brand at a time when Tesla is pivoting to AI and robotics to boost profitability. Already, Tesla's fight to keep crash data involving its Autopilot and Full-Self Driving systems private has raised eyebrows. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also opened multiple investigations into the automaker after crashes involving several of its autonomous features. Do you think a majority of Americans will have EVs in 20 years? Absolutely Only in some states No way I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. In the latest case, the families of Leon and Angulo alleged Tesla lost or hid crucial evidence — a claim Tesla disputed as an honest mistake after evidence came to light, according to the AP. While similar cases against Tesla have previously been dismissed or settled out of court, the jury's $240 million verdict could set a precedent. "It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry," Wedbush Securities financial analyst Dan Ives said. "This will open the floodgates," added car crash attorney Miguel Custodio, who wasn't involved with the federal case. "It will embolden a lot of people to come to court." What are Tesla's next steps? Lead defense attorney Joel Smith said Tesla warns drivers that it is their responsibility to stay alert and be ready to take over when using its Autopilot and FSD features, putting the blame on McGee for being distracted after dropping his cellphone, per the AP. For its part, Tesla said in a statement to the AP that it will appeal the jury's decision. "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology," Tesla said. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Sign in to access your portfolio
