No buy, low buy, slow buy: How many consumers are preparing for an economic hit
Americans have been worried about being able to maintain their standard of living since inflation first began to spike in 2021. With renewed cost concerns after President Donald Trump implemented his tariff agenda, many people are prepared to do something about it.
A whopping 83% of consumers said that if their financial situation worsens in the coming months, they will strongly consider cutting back on their non-essential spending, according to a new study by Intuit Credit Karma, which polled more than 2,000 U.S. adults in April.
On TikTok, money saving hacks, with hashtags such as no buy, slow buy, low buy and underconsumption, have skyrocketed in popularity, especially among young adults. All are aimed at making the most of what you already have and resisting the temptation to buy more stuff, or even anything at all.
How no buy, low buy and slow buy challenges work
'No buy 2025' encourages shoppers to cut out all non-essential purchases for the year, including clothing, books, electronics and entertainment. Alternatively, low buy and slow buy advocate for a more mindful approach to buying decisions, such as following ' the 48-hour rule ' before making any discretionary purchases and limiting purchases altogether. The goal is to break the habit of overspending — or ' doom spending ' — as fears of a recession rise.
Recent data from H&R Block's Spruce also found that 68% of Generation Z consumers reported being influenced by social media finance trends, with over one-third of them looking specifically to social media for financial knowledge. (America's young adults are also increasingly turning to social media to express their financial dissatisfaction, making a joke of so-called recession indicators.)
Why savings challenges are so popular
To be sure, Americans are feeling the pain of higher prices, with various reports showing many have exhausted their savings and have been leaning on credit cards to make ends meet.
With sweeping U.S. tariffs now going into effect, concern is heightened about the rising cost of goods and making ends meet, especially as the economy shows signs of contracting.
'Consumers are going to have to pay for the increase in prices these tariffs are going to cause and there is no way around it,' said Eugenio Aleman, chief economist at Raymond James. 'The alternative is to reduce consumption, especially in discretionary items.'
A survey by Gallup last month found that inflation, housing costs and lack of money are the most commonly cited financial challenges by U.S. adults.
According to the poll, which was conducted during a period of extreme market volatility after the Trump administration announced new tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, a record 53% of consumers said their financial situation was getting worse, while just 38% said it was getting better. Additionally, 57% worried about not being able to maintain their standard of living.
A separate report by Bankrate found that 43% of adults said money now negatively affects their mental health, at least occasionally, causing anxiety, stress, worrisome thoughts, loss of sleep and depression.
'Tariffs, inflation, higher interest rates and a recession are all forces that Americans can't prevent, no matter how much they want to,' Sarah Foster, Bankrate's economic analyst, said in an email. 'Taking proactive steps to manage your finances can provide a sense of stability and security.'
A better way to improve your finances
Financial experts say TikTok's latest microtrends can provide a short-term boost to help reach some savings goals, however, there is no substitute for practicing good long-term habits.
'Ignore what others are doing with their money,' said Daniel Milan, managing partner of Cornerstone Financial Services in Southfield, Michigan. 'That to me is a very foundational tenet for any household.'
Milan says financial planning starts with a budget. 'People don't like that word,' he said. But rather than jumping on the latest TikTok trend, 'sit down and pencil out what you actually are spending.'
Milan recommends flagging excess expenses that can be cut, considering which are 'wants' or 'needs.' Milan says he did this himself at the start of the year after getting married, and was able to cut out some recurring bills as well as subscription services that overlapped with his wife's — to the tune of $800 a month.
'That type of exercise can be extraordinarily powerful from a cash flow perspective,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
ECB's Escriva sees scope for minor monetary policy easing
MADRID, June 8 (Reuters) - The path of monetary policy easing in the euro zone could require further adjustments if the current macroeconomic and inflation outlooks are confirmed, ECB policymaker Jose Luis Escriva said. Last week, the ECB cut interest rates and hinted at a pause after inflation in the euro zone returned to its 2% target. Escriva, who is also Bank of Spain Governor, said in an interview to newspaper El Pais on Sunday that he "was very comfortable" with the current, gradual approach of successive 25-basis-point rate cuts. "Our central scenario – GDP growth of around 1%, inflation of 2% – could require some fine-tuning if it is confirmed," Escriva. The ECB has cut rates 2 percentage points since last June, to prop up a euro zone economy also hit by erratic U.S. economic and trade policies. Escriva said confidence in the dollar and U.S. assets had decreased since U.S. President Donald Trump took office and that since April, the dollar had not been a "safe haven" and its dominance as a global reserve currency appeared to have peaked. He also said the Bank of Spain was expected to revise downwards on Tuesday the forecast for Spanish economic growth by a few decimal points from the current 2.7% for 2025.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Minister dismisses US fears about China's London 'super embassy' as White House warns against letting Beijing build near sensitive City sites
A senior minister today dismissed US misgivings about controversial plans for a Chinese 'super embassy' near the City of London today. The Trump administration has urged Downing Street to block the proposed development close to London financial centres amid fears that it will be used to tap into commercial information. It is the latest warning to be presented to ministers about the site at Royal Mint Court, close to the Tower of London, which is near a sensitive hub of essential communication cables. But Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said the UK would offer a 'fulsome response' to any security concerns raised. He told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips on Sky News: 'These issues will be taken care of assiduously in the planning process. 'But just to reassure people, we deal with embassies and these sorts of infrastructure issues all the time. 'We are very experienced of it, and we are very aware of these sorts of issues constantly, not just when new buildings are being done, but all the time.' However, shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the same programme: 'It is a security risk - it is likely to become a base for their (China's) pan-European espionage activities.' The suggested site is also situated between several major financial hubs in Canary Wharf and the City as well as three crucial data centres. It is understood US President Donald Trump has warned Sir Keir Starmer against giving the embassy the go-ahead. The matter is believed to have been discussed during trade talks, as Britain and its Atlantic ally discuss how they will implement a trade deal to avoid UK steel producers being lumbered with 50 percent import tariffs by July 9. According to The Times, US diplomats would be trepidatious about sharing intelligence with Britain if the embassy went ahead. A senior US official told the publication: 'The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.' It comes after claims 'dark cabling' running beneath the proposed site 'feeds the City of London' were given in a memo to the United States' National Security Council by members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac). John Moolenaar, the Republican head of the House of Representatives' China committee said if these reports were 'accurate' the site would 'pose an unacceptable risk' to both the UK and US. 'The Chinese Communist Party has a clear track record of targeting critical infrastructure.' he said. 'This development would raise serious concerns in the United States and could be viewed as an act of strategic overreach by Beijing and a curious error in judgment by London.' The executive director of IPAC, Luke de Pulford dubbed the matter as a 'flashpoint' in US-UK trade talks, adding it was 'staggering' the White House had to corroborate the cabling risk to 'defend its own financial system'. 'It's time to send Xi Jinping a clear message: no matter the pressure or coercion, the UK and US won't trade away national security, and this embassy isn't happening,' he said. China has been attempting to revise plans for the Royal Mint building, which neighbours the Tower of London, since it was purchased in 2018. The matter is believed to have been discussed during trade talks regarding steel production It is believed the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, brought up the matter with foreign secretary, David Lammy, while visiting London last year. According to The Times, President Xi had also discussed the same issue with the Prime Minister in a phone conversation. The proposal for the embassy, which would be China's largest in Europe, was previously rejected by Tower Hamlets council in 2022. But two weeks after Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves came back from a visit to China earlier this year, both the council's and Scotland Yard's objections were dropped. Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, described China as a 'dangerous threat to the national and economic security of our country'. She said the Conservative party continued to stand 'firmly' against the embassy proposals, stating her party would never put the UK's 'financial centre or country at risk.' Next Monday, three of Trump's aides are scheduled to meet with their Chinese peers in London for discussions in a bid to solve the current trade war between the two economic powerhouses. The Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, the commerce secretary Howard Lutnick and the trade representative Jamieson Greer will act as representatives for the US, Trump has declared on Truth Social. Yesterday, China 's foreign ministry confirmed vice-premier He Lifeng will be on British shores from June 8 until June 13, adding that talks would with the US would take place. Previously, a Chinese embassy spokesperson has quashed spy allegations, stating: 'Anti-China elements are always keen on slandering and attacking China.' A government spokesman said: 'Applications for a new Chinese embassy in Tower Hamlets have been called in for ministers to decide. A final decision will be made in due course.'
