Latest news with #TimClayton
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
More Gen Z Delay Having Kids Than Millennials Amid Birth Rate Decline Fears
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. Gen Z Americans are more likely to delay having kids due to economic conditions than millennials, according to a new report from AI platform It's what analysts say could be a concerning trend as the birth rate continues to decline, creating larger implications for the economy, workforce and global politics. Why It Matters The CDC recorded a "historic low" for the U.S. general fertility rate in 2023, aligning with global trends seen in several developed countries. The Congressional Budget Office projected that U.S. fertility will remain below replacement for decades to come. A newborn baby girl is reunited with her mother straight after birth in a hospital environment. A newborn baby girl is reunited with her mother straight after birth in a hospital environment. Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images What To Know In a new report from Gen Z, which consists of those born between 1997 and 2012, was slightly more likely to delay having children than their elder millennial counterparts. Roughly 39 percent of Gen Z said they had delayed having a child because of the current economic climate, while only 36 percent of millennials said the same. Katie Trowbridge, a multi-generational workplace strategist and CEO of Curiosity 2 Create, said the younger generations' decision to forgo parenthood has many reasons beyond just the economics of it, though. "This isn't about apathy. It's about discernment. I see a generation leaning into curiosity, creative and critical thinking, and seeking connection and meaning," Trowbridge told Newsweek. "They're not just putting off parenthood, they're rethinking, redefining, and reimaging what it means entirely." Thoai Ngo, a professor of population and family health at the Columbia School of Public Health, said Gen Z is prioritizing self-growth and career development before starting a family. They've also grown up in a world shaped by climate crisis and economic instability, he said. "Rising costs—student debt, housing, childcare—make financial stability an uphill battle," Ngo told Newsweek. "Climate anxiety and shifting social norms mean that Gen Z doesn't view marriage and children as inevitable milestones." Economic concerns are delaying other major life decisions as well, with 36 percent of Gen Z-ers in the survey saying they've given up on the idea of ever owning a home. Worries over their financial situations have driven 33 percent of Gen Z-ers and 40 percent of millennials to turn to artificial intelligence for personal budgeting, Pearl found, but the larger issue of it being too expensive to have a baby could have significant effects for the already declining birth rate. Declining Birth Rates and Demographic Shifts Research shows that those choosing not to have children—the "child-free"—are an increasingly visible identity group. Demographic breakdowns reveal higher proportions of white, urban, and employed individuals, with younger respondents more often uncertain or undecided about potential parenthood. Concerns over population decline have prompted legislative efforts, such as Ohio's proposed "Natural Family Month" bill to promote marriage and child-rearing. Policymakers and public figures, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have advocated for policies aimed at increasing the birth rate. Meanwhile, discussions about climate change, reproductive rights, and economic factors remain central to the choices facing younger adults. "Ultimately, Gen Z is rethinking commitment and stability in a deeply uncertain future. If we don't address the structural barriers—economic insecurity, lack of family supports, climate threats—we'll see continued delays and declines in family formation, with broad impacts on our social and economic systems in the decades to come," Ngo said. Child-free Americans cite various reasons for forgoing parenthood. A significant subset of young adults, 23 percent, said having children was irresponsible due to climate change, according to a recent Newsweek/Independent Center poll. The same Newsweek report found one in three Gen Zers and millennials do not have and do not want to have children. What People Are Saying Moira Corcoran, a CPA and finance expert on Pearl, said in the report: "This data tells us that Americans, particularly younger generations, are feeling a sense of hopelessness when it comes to their financial outlook. With so many saying saving feels futile at this point, many are looking to make drastic changes to their lives in a way that's reminiscent of the 2008 recession." "Between postponing major life decisions like having a child or owning a home to cutting back on summer travel, it is clear consumers are approaching a state of panic – they need ways to access affordable, professional financial advice to navigate these ever-changing economic conditions." Katie Trowbridge, a multi-generational workplace strategist and CEO of Curiosity 2 Create, told Newsweek: "Gen Z isn't just delaying parenthood because of the economy. They're questioning the world they're inheriting. From climate anxiety and student debt to unstable jobs and rising costs, they're asking big questions like: Can I afford to raise a child in a world that doesn't feel built for thriving?" Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "It shows that in today's economy, it often takes both parents working full-time just to stay afloat. With prices rising and housing becoming less affordable, there's less room — and frankly, less patience — for adding more financial weight. We also saw birthrates start to decline decades ago as more women entered the workforce and opportunities expanded — and that trend is only continuing." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Not only do inflationary pressures continue to way on the cost of living, but this generation that is newer to the workplace will more than likely be hit harder by many of the layoffs announced over the last six months." "And while the decision to not have children right away because of economic factors may not be fun, it is the right call. Having children is more expensive than ever, and having the maturity to understand it would be impossible to assume the role of parent under one's current income is pivotal for long-term financial growth." What Happens Next There are serious implications if the birth rate continues to decline as recent years would suggest, but these concerns tend to revolve around the workforce and national productivity. "The real concern lies in who's worried — and that's often those viewing the issue purely from an economic lens: fewer workers, fewer contributors to GDP, and slower growth," Thompson said. "Long-term, that could mean more economic stagnation. As populations age, we'll spend more on healthcare and social support and less on innovation and expansion. That's the deeper issue — not population size, but how the age imbalance affects productivity and prosperity."
Forbes
03-04-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Recent MLS Malpractice Verdict Shows Perils Of Being A Team Doctor
Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images On March 28, 2025, an Oregon jury awarded former Portland Timbers goalkeeper Jake Gleeson $20.4 million in damages against Dr. Richard Edelson, a Timbers doctor. Gleeson had alleged that Edelson was negligent in performing surgery on Gleeson's legs in 2018, resulting in painful infections which required 14 additional surgeries and ended his career. The verdict highlights the complicated relationship among teams, team doctors, and players, including concerns over divided loyalties, sponsorship arrangements, and potentially costly liability. Doctors for professional sports teams have a variety of duties, including specifically: (1) providing healthcare to players; (2) helping players determine when they are ready to return to play; (3) helping clubs determine when players are ready to return to play; (4) examining players the club is considering employing (e.g., potential draft picks or free agents); and (5) helping clubs make decisions about a player's future with the club, including the possibility of a contract extension or release. These duties do not necessarily align. Trust is an important element of the doctor-patient relationship. But trust can be diminished if the doctor is able to relay the patient's medical situation to the patient's employer for purposes of evaluating the patient's employment. Yet, players generally execute broad waivers permitting the disclosure of their health information by team doctors to team officials or such disclosure is explicitly permitted by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the league and players union. The leagues and unions recognize these conflicts and consequently seek to contract around them. For example, the CBA between the NFL and NFLPA declares that 'Club medical personnel's primary duty in providing player medical care shall be not to the Club but instead to the player-patient.' Implicit in this obligation is the recognition that team doctors have duties beyond their 'primary' one, i.e., duties to the teams which may be in conflict with the players' interests. The CBAs governing the NHL, MLS, WNBA, and NWSL all contain the same 'primary duty' language. The MLB and NBA CBAs are silent on the issue. Recognizing the existence of these conflicts does not diminish the fact that team doctors for professional sports teams are generally among the leading experts in their fields. Nevertheless, there is a conflict of interest inherent in the structure through which doctors provide healthcare to players in these leagues. For these reasons, in a 2016 report I co-authored with Glenn Cohen of Harvard Law School and Holly Fernandez Lynch, then of Harvard and now at the University of Pennsylvania, we recommended a division of responsibilities between two distinct groups of medical professionals. Player care and treatment should be provided by one set of medical professionals (i.e., the Players' Medical Staff), appointed by a joint committee with representation from both the league and union, and evaluation of players for business purposes should be done by separate medical personnel (i.e., the Club Evaluation Doctor). The structural conflict of interest and trust concerns between team doctors and players can be exacerbated by the manner in which team doctors are selected. Nearly every team in the major American sports leagues has a sponsorship arrangement with one or more healthcare organizations. Those agreements typically include (or are executed alongside agreements which include) the right for the healthcare organization to be the practice of choice for the players' healthcare needs as well as the right for the healthcare organization to select the team doctors for the club. The leagues take different approaches on this issue. The NFL and MLB have policies which explicitly prohibit healthcare providers from paying for the right to provide healthcare. The NBA and WNBA at least have language in their CBAs requiring that selection of the team's healthcare providers shall not be 'based primarily on a sponsorship relationship.' Other leagues are more permissive (see this report at p. 62). In MLS, it is common for the club's team doctor to work for a healthcare provider that is a sponsor of the club and for that sponsorship arrangement (i.e., payments from the healthcare provider to the club) to be contingent on the team using the healthcare provider for player medical care (Disclosure: from November 2018 to March 2021, I was General Counsel of D.C. United of MLS). Indeed, in the Gleeson case, Dr. Edelson is a part of Sports Medicine Oregon, which advertises itself as the 'Official Team Doctors of the Portland Timbers.' The Timbers did not respond to a request for comment about the verdict or the sponsorship relationship between the club and Sports Medicine Oregon. MLS also did not respond to a request for comment. Again, it is important to acknowledge that team doctors are highly qualified. Indeed, doctors with a history of working with teams sometimes switch their organizational affiliations whenever the club changes sponsors to ensure continuity. Nevertheless, the existence of sponsorship arrangements can contribute to a lack of trust between the players and their healthcare providers. The damages awarded to a plaintiff in a lawsuit must be rationally connected to the harm actually suffered by that plaintiff. In cases where a plaintiff's earning capacity has been harmed (such as in a wrongful termination case), the damages are going to be higher when the plaintiff had a high salary. This simple legal concept is thus particularly important where a highly paid athlete is the plaintiff. For example, in February 2023, former Philadelphia Eagles player Chris Maragos was awarded $43.5 million in a medical malpractice case against the Eagles' team doctors, a verdict upheld on appeal. A jury agreed that the doctors' failure to properly treat Maragos' knee injury prematurely ended his career, depriving him of significant future career earnings. Similarly, numerous medical malpractice cases brought by NFL players over the years have been resolved for millions of dollars (see this report at p. 449). In the Gleeson case, while MLS players earn substantially less than NFL players, most are still paid a few hundred thousand dollars per year. For that reason, the jury awarded him $2.145 million in lost earning capacity (the bulk of the award was for non-economic damages, e.g., pain and suffering). Ultimately, the risk associated with treating professional athletes is reflected in higher insurance premiums for the doctors and their organizations. When coupled with sponsorship fees (as permitted in some leagues), the cost to be a team doctor is not insignificant.
