Intel Needs 'Customer Wins:' Creative Strategies' Bajarin
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
I was homeless. Trump's plan to criminalize people like me won't make you safer.
When I moved from New York to Miami for my new job in information technology, my future seemed bright. Four months later, the firm downsized and I was let go, setting off a chain of events that left me homeless. I was homeless in Miami for two years, and I spent 10 months in a homeless shelter in New York City. Growing up in Freeport, Long Island, where my family and I overcame redlining and school segregation, I was an honor-roll student and earned an athletic scholarship to study business and restaurant and hotel management before I pivoted to IT. Homelessness taught me that being unhoused is not a personal, moral failure. Homelessness is a market failure, a housing problem. Rent prices have exceeded income gains by 325% nationally since 1985. Rates of homelessness are tied to rental affordability. Here in New York City, in 2023, rents skyrocketed, more than seven times faster than wages, the largest gap in the country. Stigma distorts these truths. The White House's recent moves toward the criminalization of homelessness and forced institutionalization ignore decades of research and real-world outcomes. They reject proven models like permanent supportive housing and will raise costs in lives and tax dollars for communities nationwide. Your Turn: Violent crime doesn't worry me. Trump is just mad he has to see homeless people. | Opinion Forum Criminalizing homelessness won't solve it. Not in DC, not anywhere. Permanent supportive housing emerged in the United States three decades ago with bipartisan support, then championed by the George W. Bush administration as a solution to chronic homelessness, rooted in a philosophy called Housing First. Housing First stabilizes people experiencing homelessness in permanent housing and provides them with case management support and social services based on the theory that housing stability is most people's prerequisite for success. Crucially, Housing First does not require mental health treatment, sobriety or a job. It is difficult to focus on recovery for people living with a disability when they do not know where they will sleep tonight, and I know firsthand how hard it is to search for a job without a mailing address. More than 300,000 people live in permanent supportive housing, all are chronically homeless and disabled. Many are veterans. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. A systematic review of 26 studies in the United States and Canada found that permanent supportive housing programs decreased homelessness by 88% while significantly lowering public costs associated with emergency services and hospital care. Finland saw equally impressive results following a Housing First approach. From 2008 to 2022, the number of individuals experiencing long-term homelessness in Finland decreased by 68%. Despite its success, Housing First has been chronically underfunded and inconsistently implemented across the country. Another view: Trump's order on homelessness is more humane than failed liberal policies | Opinion Housing First works. Trump has the power to use it for good. Why? In a word: stigma. Stigma drives the narrative that our unhoused neighbors are character-deficient threats to public safety, deserving of discipline and punishment rather than protection, housing and services. The truth is that as many as 66% to 82% of people experiencing homelessness are victims of crimes annually – a rate that should shock our national conscience. Worse, it is a rate that severely underrepresents the true scope of the problem because, according to The Bureau of Justice Statistics, "less than half (44%) of violent victimizations (of people experiencing homelessness) are reported to police." The problem is not that Housing First doesn't work. The problem is that stigma prevents proven solutions like Housing First from receiving the type of modest, sustained, national investment that will solve the problem. President Donald Trump is known as a remarkable pragmatist when it comes to accomplishing big deals. He should know that Housing First is development first, and that 'Trump ends homelessness in four years' has a nice ring to it, from sea to shining sea. Strong government, business and philanthropic leaders follow the data. By investing in a Housing First approach, Congress and the administration, and state and local leaders nationwide, can deliver safer streets, healthier communities and lower public health costs, while making homelessness history. Rob Robinson is a board member of Urban Pathways, a nonprofit organization serving adults experiencing homelessness in New York City. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump may make homelessness a crime. He could end it instead | Opinion
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Abcarian: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's embrace of unchristian Christian nationalism
Pete Hegseth, widely considered the least qualified Defense secretary in American history, is hardly anyone's version of the ideal Christian husband and father. Only 45 years old, he's been married three times. His first marriage — to his high school sweetheart — lasted a mere four years, deteriorating after Hegseth admitted to multiple extramarital affairs. A couple of years later, he married his second wife, with whom he had three children. During that marriage, he fathered a child with a Fox News producer who eventually became his third wife. He paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault (he denies the assault). He routinely passed out drunk at family gatherings and misbehaved in public when inebriated, according to numerous witnesses. His own mother once accused him of being 'an abuser of women,' though she later retracted her claims when Hegseth was facing Senate confirmation. Still, the Senate's Republican majority, cowed by President Trump, confirmed his appointment. Hegseth has two qualities that Trump prizes above all others. He is blindly loyal to the president, and he looks good on TV. After his installation, Hegseth proceeded to fire top military brass who happened to be Black or women or both. He has restored the names of Confederate generals to Army bases (Bragg and Benning). His petty "anti-woke" crusade led him to strip the name of the assassinated gay rights leader Harvey Milk, a former Naval officer who served honorably, from a Navy ship. And he has considered doing the same to a ship named in honor of the abolitionist and Civil War hero Harriet Tubman. He has said that women do not belong in combat roles, and has kicked out transgender soldiers, cruelly stripping them of the pensions they earned for their service. In March, he shared classified information about an impending American airstrike in Yemen on an unsecured Signal group chat that included his wife, on purpose, and the editor of the Atlantic, by accident. He is, in short, the least serious man ever to lead this nation's armed forces. As if all that weren't dispiriting enough, Hegseth is now in bed (metaphorically) with a crusading Christian nationalist. Earlier this month, Hegseth made waves when he reposted on social media a CNN interview with Douglas Wilson, the pastor and theocrat who is working hard to turn the clock back on the rights of every American who is not white, Christian and male. In the interview, Wilson expounded on his patriarchal, misogynistic, authoritarian and homophobic views. Women, he said, should serve as 'chief executive of the home' and should not have the right to vote. (Their men can do that for them.) Gay marriage and gay sex should be outlawed once again. 'We know that sodomy is worse than slavery by how God responds to it,' he told CNN's Pamela Brown. (Slavery is "unbiblical," he avowed, though he did bizarrely defend it once, writing in 1990 a pamphlet that 'slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since.') When a new outpost of his church opened in Washington, D.C ., in July, Hegseth and his family were among the worshippers. CNN described Hegseth's presence as 'a major achievement' for Wilson. 'All of Christ for All of Life,' wrote Hegseth as he endorsed and reposted the interview. That is the motto of Wilson's expanding universe, which includes his Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, the center of his Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, a network of more than 100 churches on four continents, parochial schools, a college, a publishing house and media platforms. 'All of Christ for All of Life' is a shorthand for the belief that Christian doctrines should shape every part of life — including government, culture and education. Wilson is a prolific author of books with titles such as 'Her Hand in Marriage,' 'Federal Husband,' and 'Reforming Marriage.' His book 'Fidelity' teaches 'what it means to be a one-woman man.' Doubtful it has crossed Hegseth's desk. 'God hates divorce,' writes Wilson in one of his books. Given the way sexual pleasure is celebrated in the Old and New Testaments, Wilson has a peculiarly dim view of sex. I mean, how many weddings have been graced with recitations from the Song of Solomon, with its thinly disguised allusions to pleasurable sexual intimacy? ('Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine.') Wilson's world is considerably less sensual. 'A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants,' he writes in 'Fidelity.' 'A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.' Mutual sexual pleasure seems out of the question: 'The sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.' Ugh. There is nothing particularly new here; Wilson's ideology is just another version of patriarchal figures using religion to fight back against the equality movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries. They are basically the hatemongers of the Westboro Baptist Church dressed up in respectable clothing. 'Some people may conflate Christian nationalism and Christianity because they both use the symbols and language of Christianity, such as a Bible, a cross and worship songs,' says the group Christians Against Christian Nationalism on its website. 'But Christian nationalism uses the veneer of Christianity to advance its own aims — to point to a political figure, party or ideology instead of Jesus.' What you have in people like Hegseth and Wilson are authoritarian men who hide behind their religion to execute the most unchristian of agendas. God may hate divorce, but from my reading of the Bible, God hates hypocrisy even more. Bluesky: @rabcarianThreads: @rabcarian If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Defense Stocks Just Got Even More Expensive
Key Points For the first two decades of the 21st century, defense stocks sold for an average of 1.4x sales. Today, these same defense stocks cost twice as much. The defense sector is booming, yes. But the risk is also rising. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › For more than a year now, I've been warning investors that defense stocks cost too much. At first, that warning seemed prescient, when shares of almost all of America's leading publicly traded defense companies declined within months of my sounding the alarm. Fast forward nearly a year, and things have gotten both better... and worse. The better: Defense stock prices bounced back (which should make current shareholders happy). The worse: As of today, almost all defense stocks look more overpriced than ever before. For anyone looking to buy new shares of defense stocks, this is bad news. What history says about defense stocks How do I come to these conclusions? By looking at the data. Over the 10-year period running from 2004 to 2013, over the 10 years running from 2014 to 2023, and over the 20-year period running from 2004 to 2023, I've calculated the average enterprise value-to-sales ratios (EV/S) for each of 10 major U.S. defense companies, using data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. (As a reminder, EV/S ratios are similar to price-to-sales ratios, except that EV/S adjusts market capitalizations to factor in net cash on the balance sheet -- or, more commonly, net debt). As you'll see below, these data show that defense companies early in the 21st century cost about 1x their annual sales, but that prices have been climbing steadily for the past decade. Averaging out the numbers, for the past 20 years defense stocks have cost about 40% more than their annual sales -- and this is the number I'm tentatively assuming to be the new "fair value" for defense stocks. Average enterprise value-to-sales ratio (EV/S) from: 2004-2013 2014-2023 2003-2023 Boeing (NYSE: BA) 0.89 1.83 1.36 General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) 1.04 1.68 1.36 Huntington Ingalls (NYSE: HII) 0.51* 1.14 0.64* Kratos Defense & Security Solutions (NASDAQ: KTOS) 0.97 2.21 1.59 Leidos Holdings (NYSE: LDOS) 1.5** 2.21 1.34** L3Harris Technologies (NYSE: LHX) 1.44 2.84 2.14 Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) 0.81 1.78 1.30 Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) 0.74 1.94 1.34 RTX Corp (NYSE: RTX) 1.42 2.07 1.74 Textron (NYSE: TXT) 1.31 1.17 1.24 Average 1.06 1.89 1.40 Data source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. * Huntington Ingalls data begins in 2011, the year when Northrop Grumman spun off Huntington Ingalls as a separate company. ** Leidos data begins in 2006, the year of its IPO. Data on its average enterprise value-to-sales ratio for 2014 is missing because the company changed its fiscal year in 2015, skewing the data somewhat. Now we compare these 20-year-average numbers to what the stocks cost today. (To make it easier for readers to quality-check my numbers, I provide both EV/S, and more commonly available P/S ratios). EV/S today Price-to-sales ratio today Boeing 2.74 2.21 General Dynamics 1.86 1.71 Huntington Ingalls 1.13 0.91 Kratos Defense & Security Solutions 9.20 8.87 Leidos Holdings 1.62 1.38 L3Harris Technologies 2.91 2.40 Lockheed Martin 1.69 1.42 Northrop Grumman 2.43 2.08 RTX Corp 2.95 2.51 Textron 1.16 1.03 Average 2.77 2.45 Data source: Yahoo! Finance. What this means for defense stock investors So what has changed since the last time we checked in on the defense stocks, three months ago? Basically, every single one of these stocks, with the sole exception of Lockheed Martin, has gotten more expensive. Lockheed, if you recall, suffered a steep sell-off after reporting "a significant profit miss" last month caused by a near-$1 billion charge on "a classified aerospace project," and it still hasn't fully recovered from that misstep. But all the others have. Again, this probably sounds like good news for investors who own defense stocks. But these stretched valuations bring with them a significant risk of future steep declines, for both existing and new buyers. The average EV/S ratio of this group, 2.77, means that defense stocks as a whole currently cost nearly twice what has historically been their fair value. Will this decline happen tomorrow? Probably not. In fact, with military tensions continuing to rise in the South China Sea and elsewhere, active conflict persisting in the Middle East, and Europe still embroiled in its biggest land conflict since World War II, investors may keep betting on military stocks for quite some time. But with valuations as extreme as what we see today, I simply don't see much reason to expect defense stocks to move higher. On the contrary, if I were to bet on it, my hunch is that over the next decade, defense stocks will underperform the S&P 500 by a significant margin. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $467,985!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $44,015!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $668,155!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends L3Harris Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Textron. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Defense Stocks Just Got Even More Expensive was originally published by The Motley Fool
