logo
'A part-time job': Americans spend nearly 4 hours a day thinking about money

'A part-time job': Americans spend nearly 4 hours a day thinking about money

USA Todaya day ago
Between bills to pay, tariff news and inflation worries, money is living rent-free in Americans' minds.
They're spending nearly four hours a day on average thinking about it, according to new research from Empower, a financial services company.
'That's a part-time job,' said Rebecca Rickert, head of communications and consumer insights at Empower.
At 54%, a little more than half of the 2,206 adults surveyed said they're thinking about it more than they did last year. In fact, the June survey found 53% of Americans said they're feeling financial stress "more acutely than ever," including 62% of Gen Xers and 41% of baby boomers.
With banking and investment apps a tap away on their phones, 17% of Americans are checking their financial accounts multiple times per day, and 24% check their bank account daily.
The high level of surveillance is more common among younger generations, with 24% of Gen Z and 21% of millennials looking at their accounts several times a day, compared to 10% of baby boomers.
'People are checking their accounts like they check the weather,' Rickert said.
More: Trump's new tariffs slam trading partners, U.S. stock market: Live updates
What exactly are Americans thinking about?
Top of mind for most Americans is, of course, upcoming and due payments – with 57% of Americans reporting they're thinking about bills.
Inflation and rising prices are also taking up headspace for 51% of Americans. Of those surveyed, 34% are thinking about housing costs, 30% are thinking about debt, 28% are thinking about tariffs, and 24% are thinking about retirement savings.
'People are carrying more financial pressure as they face external factors that are beyond their control, like market uncertainty, while managing multiple priorities like debt, everyday expenses, and savings – even if their income hasn't changed,' Lisa Frison, head of financial inclusion at Citi, told USA TODAY.
Chief worries for younger generations are housing costs, job security, and debt, according to Rickert. Meanwhile, older generations are thinking about retirement savings and reserves, like their emergency funds.
Younger Americans spend more time worrying
Time spent thinking about money varies by generation, and it appears to decline as Americans grow older.
Gen Z spends the most time, averaging 4.82 hours per day. Millennials follow close behind, averaging 4.73 hours per day. Money still weighs heavily on Gen Xers' and baby boomers' minds, but they aren't thinking as much about it, averaging 3.74 hours and 2.4 hours per day, respectively.
Jack Howard, head of financial wellness at Ally Financial, said Gen Z is unique because they grew up having more information at their fingertips thanks to the internet and are 'comparing themselves against the world,' thanks to social media.
"Which is good because we want you to get the information and use it. But I wonder if it's also creating an overload of anxiety,' Howard said. 'Social media creates some level of competition.'
When are Americans thinking about money?
The topic is so stressful 36% of Americans report losing sleep over their financial worries. Millennials may be getting the least rest, with 44% reporting that money is keeping them up. Baby boomers are faring better at night, with only 24% reporting it affects their sleep.
Money concerns don't stop during the day. The survey found that 38% of respondents said financial worries interfered with their ability to focus and put a strain on their relationships.
Gen Z is most likely to think about money between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m., while millennials and Gen X are often worrying about their finances before bed, between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m.
Is money stress motivating?
Close to half of Americans report that thinking about money helps them take action to reach their long-term goals, and 47% said they feel confident they'll reach them.
Another 30% reported feeling neutral, or on the fence, about whether they'll reach their long-term goals. In the meantime, many Americans are seeking financial advice and information.
More than half reported following financial news to stay informed, commonly researching topics including inflation, budgeting, and saving. A third said talking with a financial adviser helps clarify their financial goals.
Still, Frison cautions people against ruminating over their finances and thinking too much about past mistakes or missed opportunities, which can lead to frustration but not solutions.
'It's unhelpful when thinking about money becomes an infinite loop, so the key is to shift from stress to structure, even with one small move,' Frison told USA TODAY.
What helps ease financial pressure
Asked what would ease their money worries, nearly half of the survey respondents said a higher income, and 45% said lower living expenses.
But 29% also wished for 'broader economic improvements,' and 28% pointed to debt elimination. Nearly a quarter said a larger emergency fund would help, and 18% said a detailed financial plan would have a positive impact.
Suppose money is taking up more mental headspace than you'd like it to. In that case, Frison recommends doing a personal financial audit, building small habits over time, and asking friends, family, or a professional for help.
'When people are in a silo on these things, it makes it difficult to take action,' Howard said. 'That's where the shame comes in.'
She and Rickert emphasized the importance of people shifting from passive worrying to taking action – whether that's starting to pay down debt or contributing to a 401(k) – to better their financial situation and relieve stress.
Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@usatoday.com and follow her on X @rachelbarber_
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Alcopops are back in fashion, says Smirnoff Ice owner
Alcopops are back in fashion, says Smirnoff Ice owner

Yahoo

time2 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Alcopops are back in fashion, says Smirnoff Ice owner

The maker of Smirnoff Ice and Guinness has said alcopops are back in vogue as young people start to drink more alcohol after years of abstinence. Nik Jhangiani, interim chief executive of Diageo, said there was a 'huge opportunity' to win over Generation Z as it noted a boom in demand for premixed cocktails and alcopops. He said Gen Z customers who were drinking for the first time were doing so by consuming spirits and pre-made cocktails, reversing a previous trend where younger generations were introduced to alcohol through beer. It comes after data from drinks experts IWSR showed that 73pc of Gen Z have consumed alcohol in the previous six months, compared with 66pc two years ago. Ready-to-drink cocktails such as BuzzBallz have surged in popularity in recent months, with the brand one of the fastest growing drinks ranges in the UK. The drinks, which became popular after going viral on TikTok, are known for their brightly coloured packaging and quirky names such as Lotta Colada and Watermelon Smash. Mr Jhangiani said Diageo was seeing more young people buying spirits, with the drinks giant well placed to 'offer a huge range of choices' including more flavours and calorie choices. He said Diageo had once been a leader in alcopops with its Smirnoff Ice brand, adding that the company would 'rightfully have the ability to gain that [position] back', with plans to boost sales of Smirnoff Ice drinks again. The company launched a new advertising campaign for the brand across more than 20 countries in June. Diageo has also previously credited younger people, particularly women, for boosting sales of Guinness. Mr Jhangiani's comments came as profits fell 28pc to $4.3bn (£3.2bn) in the year to July compared with a year earlier as it said it would take a $200m hit from Donald Trump's tariff war. The company is also battling a slowdown in consumer spending. Diageo said on Tuesday it would ramp up a cost-cutting programme to revive the business, removing $625m (£470m) of costs over the next three years, $125m higher than previously planned. Last month, Diageo appointed Mr Jhangiana as its new interim chief executive, after abruptly parting ways with previous boss Debra Crew. Diageo shares rose as much as 6pc as investors were buoyed by the cost-saving plans. 登入存取你的投資組合

StreetMetrics Launches Intelligence: The Command Center for Smarter OOH Decisions
StreetMetrics Launches Intelligence: The Command Center for Smarter OOH Decisions

Business Wire

time4 minutes ago

  • Business Wire

StreetMetrics Launches Intelligence: The Command Center for Smarter OOH Decisions

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--StreetMetrics today announced the launch of StreetMetrics Intelligence, a next-generation platform built to help media owners—and soon, advertisers and agencies—plan faster, sell smarter, and uncover high-value opportunities across the out-of-home (OOH) landscape. It's powered by the industry's most complete OOH data foundation, analyzing over 1.6 million ad units across 1,200+ data points, updated daily. Share Designed as a true command center for OOH, Intelligence unifies campaign performance, market trends, and inventory insights into one easy-to-use workspace. It's powered by the industry's most complete OOH data foundation, analyzing over 1.6 million ad units across 1,200+ data points, updated daily. At the center is SmartSearch, a natural-language interface that lets users ask real questions like: 'Where are the best-performing placements for QSR campaigns targeting Gen Z?' 'Which markets in Arizona index the highest for swing voters?' 'How do our USKs in Dallas compare to peer benchmarks in reach and frequency?' This isn't just another dashboard. Intelligence helps teams: Search inventory with natural language—not filters Benchmark across markets, formats, and audiences Build packages using real exposure data—not gut feel Run dynamic reach & frequency that updates instantly 'We built Intelligence to be flexible,' said Sunay Bhat, PhD, Chief Technology Officer. 'What you see today is the most limited version—and that's saying something. As usage and data grow, Intelligence will answer nearly any question about OOH.' 'This isn't a generic AI overlay,' added Drew Jackson, CEO of StreetMetrics. 'It's a purpose-built platform grounded in exposure data, made for how teams actually work—not how they used to.' What Sets Intelligence Apart: Searchable OOH Intelligence via SmartSearch Market-Level Benchmarking on reach, impressions, and delivery Smarter Package Building using real-world performance data Designed for both stationary and moving formats, Intelligence gives teams a complete view of their OOH footprint. It helps users work more efficiently, pitch stronger, and grow smarter—all in one platform. 'This is the visibility OOH has needed,' said Jackson. 'If we want to compete with digital, we need tools built for clarity, speed, and simplicity.' StreetMetrics Intelligence is now available.

The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke
The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke

The Hill

time4 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke

President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union last month, proclaiming a 'generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance' that will 'provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access' and is 'yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world's preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing.' The EU has been criticized heavily for folding to Trump. However, after many years of studying, practicing and teaching negotiations, I am not nearly so critical of the European strategy. Negotiating with Trump inevitably leads to three possible tactics: ignoring, retaliating or capitulating. Everyone goes for one or more of these tactics. But most have ended up at the last one, capitulating. The U.K. (like Columbia University, and perhaps soon Harvard) was much derided when it pioneered the capitulation strategy in May. But it is not necessarily a bad strategy when confronted by Trump. Alan Beattie of the Financial Times perceptively notes that 'Trump likes deals that aren't worth the handshake they're written on.' 'Roll with the punch,' he suggests, 'get the lowest baseline tariff you can, offer him some concessions with good optics but low impact, talk up the importance of the deal for the benefit of his ego and hope he moves on.' And so the EU has done. The U.S.-EU trade 'agreement' is apocryphal. Others have called it delusional. It is both — and thus important to understand. First, some context. In 2015, roughly the end of the Bretton Woods era for trade, the average weighted U.S. tariff against all goods was about 1.7 percent. Against EU goods it was 1.47 percent, versus 1.35 percent on U.S. goods into the EU. America currently imports more than $605 billion a year in goods from the EU. Trump's 'biggest deal ever made,' with a few exceptions, 'reduces' tariffs to 15 percent (steel and aluminum remain at 50 percent). However, it is not technically a deal. It is filled with numerous ' commitments ' such as 'work to address' and 'intend to work together,' or 'intend to address' and, curiously, 'take complementary actions to address.' This is the type of language used in a preliminary phase of a framework agreement, which would be the precursor to a serious trade negotiation. The White House is claiming that, first, that the EU will invest $600 billion directly in the U.S. during Trump's term (three times the rate it has invested in the past). This is, if not delusional, at least fantastical. The second concrete claim by the White House is that 'the EU will double down on America as the Energy Superpower by purchasing $750 billion of U.S. energy exports through 2028.' As Clyde Russell shows clearly in Reuters, these numbers simply do not make sense. But then, they need not. They serve their performative purpose well enough. Chalk up a specious victory and move on. Consider that in 2024, the EU imported 573 million barrels of crude oil from the U.S., which is valued currently at about $40.1 billion. The EU imported U.S. liquified natural gas in 2024 worth about $21.78 billion and bought about $2.67 billion in U.S. coal. So EU energy imports (at $64.55 billion) are about 26 percent of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on American energy each year under the framework agreement. If the EU reaches the $250 billion a year goal, U.S. imports would account for 85 percent of its total spending on those energy commodities. While this appears to be a plus for U.S. producers, it would massively disrupt global energy markets (not to mention violate many long-term supply contracts). But more startling, it would exceed total current U.S. exports. Putting together the value of U.S. exports for all three energy commodities totals $165.8 billion, Russell calculates, 'meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion.' Including nuclear adds a few billion dollars at best. Expanding to refined products, such as diesel? Perhaps another $10 billion. So the EU's commitment to buy $250 billion worth of American energy is entirely unrealistic and unachievable. 'The smart people in the room must know this,' Russell writes, so 'why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number?' The only answer is the obvious one, and the most troubling. Substance doesn't matter, only performance. Where businesses must operate on substance and factual reality, politicians operate increasingly on attention-gaining performance. This may explain why Trump has done so poorly in business and so well in politics (and in the businesses he is generating based on politics). So, despite substantive criticisms of the EU team, they in fact made a perfectly understandable agreement. Specifically, when only attention matters and the substance of the deal is a mere side story of the performance, one can agree to almost anything. In this case, the more fantastical the better. Why didn't EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise $900 billion? Trump would be even happier and Europe even less likely to uphold the 'agreement.' Smile, suck-up, sign, shrug and move on. The real negotiation is somewhere down the road; perhaps tomorrow afternoon. Well, maybe. Trump's authority even to make such a deal is still being litigated. The one unavoidable fact is that America has abandoned the rules-based trading system it carefully built over three-quarters of a century. It is a brave new world of U.S. trade 'agreements' based on rapid-fire, plainly meaningless commitments — but what a performance! Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store