Latest news with #ANDREWCABALLERO-REYNOLDS
Newsweek
08-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Gen Z, Millennials Don't Want to Buy Starter Homes
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing number of Gen Z and millennial renters are rejecting the traditional idea of buying a modest "starter home" as a first step in building wealth. Instead, many are holding out to purchase a more permanent residence that better suits their long-term needs, marking a generational shift in how younger Americans think about homeownership. A for sale sign in front of a home in Arlington, Virginia, on August 22, 2023. A for sale sign in front of a home in Arlington, Virginia, on August 22, 2023. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The move away from starter homes is reshaping demand in the real estate market. Builders who once targeted first-time buyers with lower-cost, smaller homes may now need to adjust their strategies. With affordability concerns and mortgage rates still high, more young adults are skipping that initial step entirely and waiting longer to buy homes that they plan to stay in. What to Know According to the BMO Real Financial Progress Index, 66 percent of Gen Z renters and 61 percent of Millennial renters agree that buying a starter home and upgrading later "makes no sense anymore." The data suggests that young adults no longer view homeownership as a multi-stage process, and they are skeptical of the financial value in purchasing a smaller home only to sell and move again in a few years. High home prices, low inventory, and elevated interest rates have made it difficult for younger generations to follow the traditional housing path. At the same time, many entry-level homes that once served as starter options have been bought by investors or priced out of reach. In places where starter homes are available, they may require major renovations or be located far from work and amenities. The survey found 69 percent of Gen Z renters and 74 percent of Millennial renters who intend to buy a house are waiting for interest rates to drop before making a purchase decision. With economic uncertainty still weighing on younger buyers, the long view may be the only one they're willing to take. "When you take all these factors into consideration, it's easy to see why some from both generations are scrapping the whole starter house idea and waiting to make a purchase on the home they want to keep," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. Roughly 61 percent of Americans say they feel less confident they will own a home in their lifetime than they were five years ago, according to BMO. For non-homeowners with children, 57 percent of those polled by BMO say that saving for education or childcare is a more important financial priority than buying a house. Gen Z has also prioritized buying a car (50 percent) while millennials are looking to save for retirement (54 percent). What People Are Saying Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Millennials and Gen Z are opposed to starter homes, because that term truly no longer exist. The mere concept of 'starter home' is something that is much less affordable and can now be seen as a home they will stay in for a longer term. With rates being higher than years past along with much higher housing costs, the concept of 'the starter home' will go the way of the dinosaur." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "They want to, they can't. They can't afford it." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "For decades, the concept of a starter home made sense to younger Americans. You could purchase a smaller property before having children, make payments that were potentially less than renting, and then have a home you could sell to fund a new property when the time was right. However, in the current real estate market, higher home prices and mortgage rates have produced monthly payments above renting costs, down payments are an issue for many given the accelerated cost of living, and many millennials and Gen Z are putting off those major life milestones in general." Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "This homebuying trend is representative of generational shifts in how we work, what we value in life, and our lived experiences. Gen Z and Millennials have spent less time working in an office and more time working from home, they are getting married and starting families later, they tend to value experiences over possessions, and they came of age through multiple housing and interest rate markets. The idea of the starter home may not make sense given these trends." "On average, these generations are having kids almost a decade later than their grandparents. By that time, they are ready for their forever home. They have also seen low interest rates and multiple housing market crashes, so many are waiting on the sidelines for the next downturn to find a more affordable price and mortgage rate." What's Next The starter home may become a relic unless affordability improves. Builders and lenders may need to shift toward products that support long-term ownership from the start. "Down the line, younger generations will put off buying homes much longer and be resigned to renting," Thompson said. "This has more than just an impact on housing, this will have impacts on marriage rates and birth rates as people will not only hold off home purchases, but also delay starting families."
Forbes
01-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What To Look For From The Fed's May Meeting
US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell gestures as he speaks at a press conference after the ... More Monetary Policy Committee meeting in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2024. The US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a quarter point December 18 and signaled a slower pace of cuts ahead, amid uncertainty about inflation and US President-elect Donald Trump's economic plans. Policymakers voted 11-to-1 to lower the central bank's key lending rate to between 4.25 percent and 4.50 percent, the Fed announced in a statement. They also penciled in just two quarter-point rate cuts for next year, and sharply hiked their inflation outlook for 2025. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) The Federal Open Market Committee will next announce interest rates on May 7 at 2 p.m. Eastern Time. Fixed income markets firmly expect short-term interest rates to remain in their current band of 4.25% to 4.5%. However, it is also likely that interest rates could then be cut at the subsequent FOMC decision on June 18, so fixed income markets will be watching for hints of that. If so, that may come either through the statement or the press conference. The current expectation is for interest rates to move moderately lower in 2025. However, the economy's reaction to tariffs creates some uncertainty for monetary policy. FOMC policymakers have said that though rates will likely move lower, patience is required. That's because the jobs market has generally remained robust on recent reports and to the extent the economy remains strong the FOMC is under limited pressure to act. For example Fed Chair Jerome Powell said on April 16, 'Overall, the labor market appears to be in solid condition and broadly in balance.' Inflation remains above the FOMC's target. For example the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index for the 12 months to March 2025 rose 2.6% excluding food and energy prices. Somewhat elevated inflation compared to the FOMC's 2% annual target is one reason the FOMC are not rushing to cut interest rates. Policymakers also appear more inclined to react to upcoming economic data rather than predict it based on recent statements from officials. In addition, economic uncertainty is high. That's because the economic impact of tariffs has yet to be fully captured in the data and because tariff rates and trade policy continue to evolve. For example, Powell said regarding government policies that. 'Those policies are still evolving, and their effects on the economy remain highly uncertain. As we learn more, we will continue to update our assessment.' That statement was part of the same April 16 speech as referenced above. Furthermore, the U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter according to the advance estimate U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis as reported on April 30. Though that decline was driven by significant swings in imports, which were very likely in response to tariffs. The early growth estimate may be subject to revision. It is unclear how much the FOMC will be able to signal at the May meeting because they are awaiting further economic data on the impact of tariffs. Although declining growth in the first quarter is not encouraging. President Trump has criticized Powell for not cutting rates more proactively, most recently at a rally on April 29 according to reporting by The Hill. However, the President appears to have moved back from suggestions he might try to actually remove the Fed Chair, whose term ends in May 2026. Powell has also stated in November 2024 that it is not lawful for the President to remove him. A change in interest rates on May would come as a surprise to markets, but a rate cut at the subsequent meeting in June is viewed as probable. Therefore, markets expect that either the FOMC's statement or Powell's press conference on May 7 may contain some suggestion that interest rates could be cut in the very near term. That's because the FOMC often manages the expectations of markets leading up to a rate cut. In addition, markets anticipate that short-term interest rates will likely end 2025 around the mid 3% range. However, updates to that assessment may be just as dependent on incoming economic data during a period of elevated uncertainty as what FOMC officials say on May 7 and subsequently.
Forbes
16-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
U.S. Businesses Can Benefit From International Treaties—If We Don't Pull Out Of Them
US President Donald Trump shows an executive order withdrawing his country from a number of United ... More Nations bodies in the Oval Office of the White House on February 4, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order withdrawing his country from a number of United Nations bodies, including its Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and setting up a broader review of US funding for the multilateral organization. The executive order said it withdrew Washington from UNHRC and the main UN relief agency for Palestinians (UNRWA), and would review involvement in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) A lot is at stake right now for U.S. businesses. With a volatile market and economic uncertainty driven by an escalating trade war, many companies that trade and invest overseas say they're facing an existential crisis. Perhaps overlooked in the flurry of executive orders in Trump's first three months is one he issued in February directing a 180-day review of U.S. participation in international organizations and treaties to evaluate their alignment with our interests. The order presents an opportunity to reform agreements and relationships that can benefit U.S. businesses, especially regarding rules for involving private sector stakeholders. Historically, many international institutions have limited U.S. business engagement and, in some cases, barred business observers. The administration can show it's taking steps to make America stronger and more prosperous by enlisting and encouraging private sector involvement in these treaties and organizations. If considered thoughtfully and intentionally, the administration and U.S. companies can shape international rules and standards in ways that support American competitiveness and give them expanded opportunities in global markets. In my role steering policy on issues such as health, labor, and environment at the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB), I see firsthand the importance of actively engaging with international entities on behalf of U.S. businesses. USCIB promotes U.S. business interests from every economic sector to policymakers and regulatory authorities worldwide. If we withdraw entirely from treaties and multilateral institutions such as the OECD and the United Nations, we risk ceding more power and influence to China. That shift would allow an adversary to set the agenda and global norms. Many of these treaties are binding and enforced globally, regardless of U.S. domestic policy, and could significantly affect the bottom line of American multinational corporations. 'U.S. businesses have always counted on the U.S. government to lead in these forums to ensure better outcomes for Americans,' said USCIB's CEO Whitney Baird this week via email. Photographer: Lina Selg/Bloomberg Just this month, an accord was reached under the International Maritime Organization – a United Nations agency – that would require every ocean-going cargo ship to cut greenhouse gas emissions or pay a minimum fee of $100 for every ton emitted. This binding agreement marks the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions and applies even to ships registered in the U.S. The Trump administration decided to pull out of negotiations because they believe this agreement would burden the sector with added shipping fees that would drive up consumer prices and lead to inflation. It could also raise operating costs by boosting freight rates, squeezing margins for U.S. exporters and importers reliant on maritime transport. Notably, countries like China and Russia remained in the accord. American proactive involvement in setting these global standards could have led to more favorable policies for U.S. companies. Continued engagement in international organizations and treaties is particularly critical in advancing American business interests in the global digital economy. In the World Trade Organization, the U.S. has played a vital role in preserving the e-commerce moratorium, which prevents customs duties on electronic transmissions including emails, software downloads, digital media (like music or movies), financial data, and cloud computing services. The moratorium is especially important for U.S. businesses – manufacturing, entertainment, software, financial services, semiconductors and more - that transmit products and services electronically and rely heavily on the free flow of data around the globe. With the moratorium under real threat ahead of the WTO's 2026 Ministerial Conference (MC14), the U.S. needs to lead through consistent and coordinated efforts. The Trump administration has made a permanent moratorium a top priority, and renewed engagement at the World Trade Organization on digital trade could help advance meaningful rules governing cross-border data flows. This contrasts with the Biden administration's pullback on digital trade issues, which has contributed to stalled outcomes on both the JSI and the moratorium. GENEVA, SWITZERLAND - DECEMBER 11: The headquarters of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Separately, U.S. manufacturers face high stakes in global treaty talks on chemical, product and waste regulations. International agreements such as the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions establish global standards that directly affect American companies' ability to market products abroad and manage reverse logistics and material recovery. Trump's proactive involvement in these organizations could influence them to benefit American businesses. Unfavorable outcomes could restrict U.S. access to key international markets, reduce global competitiveness and cut into profits. They may also drive up compliance costs and create obstacles to participating in global supply chains, making it more difficult for companies to collect, recycle and reuse critical minerals and raw materials. The Trump administration has shown that binding and non-binding international agreements out of multilateral institutions directly affect industries as varied as food and beverage, energy, technology and life sciences. By setting common practices and standards, international treaties shape how companies innovate, invest and create jobs. While reforms are necessary, strong leadership and active participation in global organizations remain critical to national interests and the American business community. Given the shared goal of the administration and the private sector to promote prosperity and business, there is a unique opportunity to work together to enact reforms and influence policy in the multilateral system to put America first. As President Calvin Coolidge famously declared in 1925, 'The business of America is business.' A century later, that principle remains just as relevant. To ensure continued economic growth and global competitiveness, the United States must prioritize its business interests on the world stage. Multilateral institutions—where international rules and standards are shaped—offer a critical platform to protect and advance those interests. Staying engaged isn't just smart policy; it's essential for the future of American enterprise.
Forbes
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Abortion Attitudes After Dobbs
(Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) Since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision returned abortion to the states, the issue has played a significant role in elections across the country with the pro-choice side winning most of them. In the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court contest, abortion was front and center in the candidates' only debate. Before Elon Musk inserted himself into the contest, several analysts suggested that Susan Crawford, who ran on safeguarding abortion, could have won the race on that issue alone. According to a new state-by-state compilation by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 67% of Wisconsin residents said abortion should be legal in all (26%) or most (41%) cases. PRRI recently released a very useful report on abortion attitudes, looking not only at Wisconsin but also at the rest of the states and DC. Their American Values Atlas compiled data from more than 22,000 interviews conducted in 2024 enabling them to look at individual state attitudes with confidence. PRRI uses the familiar four-part question on abortion asking if it should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all. This combination shows the range of belief in the US on this highly charged issue. In 43 states and DC, half or more said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Additionally, Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Tennessee came close to the 50% mark. Support fell below 45% in West Virginia (41%), Utah (44%), and Louisiana (42%). A gulf separated these three states from Massachusetts, where 83% gave the legal in all or most cases response, as did 80% in Vermont. Looking specifically at the extreme positions on the question, responses varied as well. The lowest response for legal in all cases came in Louisiana (13%), West Virginia (14%) and Idaho (14%); the highest response was in DC (44%), followed by Rhode Island (41%), and Vermont (40%). At the other end of the spectrum, 'illegal in all cases' was usually in the single digits. But more than 10% still gave that response fourteen states, with the highs in Nebraska (17%) and Mississippi and South Dakota at 14%. Another way of assessing PRRI state-by-state data comes by combining the middle two categories 'legal in some cases' and 'illegal in some.' Looked at this way, majorities in every state put themselves in the middle categories. These middle categories reflect more ambivalence about the issue. Nationally, 26% in PRRI's 2024 polls supported legal abortion in all cases, up from 18% in 2010, the first time PRRI asked the question. Thirty-seven percent wanted abortion to be legal in most cases and 26% illegal in most cases. Eight percent, down from 15% in 2010, said it should be illegal in all. Pew's Religious Landscape survey, conducted between July 2023 and March 2024, found similar responses: 31% said legal in all, 32% legal in most, 24% illegal in most, 11% illegal in all. Pew cautions that the results from the new survey should be 'cautiously compared' to their previous surveys because of changes in their modes of interviewing. With that in mind, support for legal abortion all or most cases is up at 63% from 53% in their 2014 Landscape study. As we approach the third anniversary of the Dobbs decision, the action on abortion legality will be mostly at the state level, though government spending and drug approval issues will have a national focus. President Trump has distanced himself from the issue or blurred his positions, giving state-level action greater importance. Although regional or state attitudes have come together in the US on many issues, states still have distinctive political personalities on abortion as the PRRI data show. Many, but not all, have moved toward a more expansive view of legality in all or most cases.
Forbes
10-04-2025
- Sport
- Forbes
Six-Team Formats Set For Cricket At Los Angeles Olympics, But Unknowns Remain
Cricket will make its Olympic return in Los Angeles (Photo by INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP via Getty ... More Images) In an announcement that was widely flagged, but will still disappoint some, cricket will feature six teams each in the men's and women's T20 competitions at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. While other key details remain unknown, such as the qualifying system and venues, it does start to build momentum behind cricket's Olympic return after a 128-year absence from its sole appearance in 1900. Eyebrows had been raised among administrators when it was mooted that cricket, deemed by some metrics as the world's second most popular sport, would get such a small allocation of teams. It is considerably lower than rival global sports soccer, which will boast 16 women's teams and 12 men's teams in Los Angeles, and the 24 combined teams for basketball. 3x3, a truncated version of basketball, also will have 12 men's and 12 women's teams. A total of 90 athlete quotas have been allocated for each gender in cricket, which means every team can name a 15-member squad. The small number of teams is due to a strict quota of athletes and keeping in line with the International Olympic Council's efforts in keeping costs down. There are 12 Full Member cricket nations - who have status in five-day Test cricket and are granted more funding and power in cricket's tiered membership. It means some of cricket's best and most iconic nations will miss out on Olympic spots. Cricket also boasts considerably more depth at the T20 level - a fast and furious game lasting around three hours - with 20 teams contesting last year's men's T20 World Cup, where notably rising cricket nation U.S. upset Pakistan in Dallas. U.S. beat Pakistan at the T20 World Cup (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) The U.S. as host nation are likely to get an automatic slot although possibly in just one gender. There is still a lot to be sorted out. A qualification format has yet to be officially locked in, but it's been mooted that Olympic spots would be allocated to the top six in the International Cricket Council's men's and women's T20 rankings at a cut-off date. That has angered some administrators. Zimbabwe Cricket chair Tavengwa Mukuhlani, who has been part of the ICC's Olympic working group since late 2020, believes T20 qualification tournaments - not rankings - should determine which countries make the cut for Los Angeles. "If you look at the other major sports, the qualifying tournaments are so exciting and adds so much drama," he told me last year. "It's fairer, with every country having to fight for their place in the Olympics." Venues have yet to be determined, with the cricket competitions possibly extending beyond Los Angeles. The iconic Oakland Coliseum, the former long-time home of the Athletics and Raiders, is in the mix and will host nine Major League Cricket matches in June as the new home of San Francisco Unicorns, a franchise backed by Silicon Valley venture capitalists. The Oakland Coliseum will host cricket matches this summer (Photo by) MLC's future at the Coliseum is unknown - it is currently a one-season arrangement - but hopes are high that it can be extended long-term and perhaps even be used as an Olympic venue. "I certainly hope the Coliseum could be an Olympic venue," Unicorns co-owner Anand Rajaraman told me. "It is the best stadium in America for cricket. A lot of it depends on what the Olympic Committee want to do, but from a cricket point of view it is the best option." As I reported previously, Seattle is also vying to be in the mix although have not yet developed cricket infrastructure. The east coast is a possibility too due to a more favorable time difference with the lucrative Indian market. New York did stage eight T20 World Cup matches in June at its $30 million modular stadium in Long Island. The cricket ground was torn down immediately after the tournament, but billionaire Mukesh Ambani, the owner of MI New York in the MLC, reportedly has plans to build a world-class facility in the famous city. Expansion is set for MLC with two teams to be added to the six-side tournament in 2027. Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago are on the shortlist with infrastructure a key staple and the successful cities could also be in the running to host Olympic matches. The U.S national teams are expected to host numerous international nations during the home 2028 season ahead of the Olympics.
