• China has imposed tariffs on some US goods in response to Trump's trade plan.
• Chinese authorities also announced a probe into Google and put two companies on its "unreliable entities list."
• Experts warn US tariffs on China may raise prices for electronics and other goods.

China hit back at President Donald Trump's trade plan on Tuesday morning with two tiers of tariffs on American goods.

China's Ministry of Finance said it would impose a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas and a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery, and some vehicles.

The announcement comes days after Trump said he would put a 10% tariff on all Chinese imported products, building on his campaign promise of a robust tariff policy.

In a statement announcing China's tariffs, the Ministry of Finance said the US' moves violate World Trade Organization rules.

"It is not only unhelpful in solving its own problems, but also disrupts the normal economic and trade cooperation between China and the US," the statement said. The tariffs will go into effect on February 10.

Chinese authorities also announced a probe into Google and put PVH Corp — the holding company for Calvin Klein — and Illumina, a US biotech firm, on its "unreliable entities list."

The State Administration for Market Regulation said in its announcement that Google violated antitrust laws. The regulator did not provide further details.

Meanwhile, China's commerce ministry said PVH and Illumina took "discriminatory measures against Chinese companies" and "seriously damaged" the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese firms.

None of the companies immediately responded to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Separately, China's Commerce Ministry and its customs administration announced export controls on strategic metals and minerals, including tungsten-related materials and bismuth-related materials, to "safeguard national security interests."

The US needs to 'solve its own fentanyl issue'

Trump has said his tariffs are a mechanism to hold China, Mexico, and Canada accountable for what he views as their role in the illegal flow of fentanyl into the US.

The president said China is "sending fentanyl to Mexico and Canada" and worsening the fentanyl crisis in the US. He suggested a 60% tariff on China on the 2024 campaign trail.

China has said fentanyl is the US' own problem and that Beijing would challenge the tariffs at the World Trade Organization.

"The US needs to view and solve its own fentanyl issue in an objective and rational way instead of threatening other countries with arbitrary tariff hikes," a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said on Sunday.

Vishnu Varathan, Mizuho's head of macro research for Asia excluding Japan, wrote in a Tuesday note that China's tariff move "ups the ante on an escalatory tit-for-tat trade conflict" if Trump lifts tariffs.

Trump has also placed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico — but later delayed the measures until March after reaching agreements to strengthen border protections with Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbam and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Cutting a deal with China may be harder.

"The overarching geo-economic dimensions to US-China trade means that resolution will be far more fraught than is the case with Mexico and Canada," Varathan wrote.

Trump's approach to trade with China echoes his first term in office. Throughout 2018 and 2019, the president placed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese products, including tech equipment and plastics. In 2019, China responded by placing 10% retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion of US imports.

Some lawmakers and billionaires have urged the president to rethink his tariff plan, saying that it will cost small businesses and American consumers.

China is a major producer of US electronics, and it's likely that cellphones, laptops, and other devices could become more expensive.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Programs like Medicaid and SNAP are means-tested and based on the poverty line.
• Some older Americans face a dilemma: working more can reduce crucial benefits.
• Navigating benefit thresholds is complex for retirees looking to boost their income.

Claudia Rufino, 72, tries not to make too much money.

She's one of millions of Americans that rely on programs like Medicaid and housing assistance, and she said earning a higher paycheck could reduce her benefits.

"I want to be contributing to society because that's the right way to do things," Rufino, who first retired in the early 2010s, previously told Business Insider. "But I get punished if I work too much."

Unretirement is growing among older Americans who hope to stay social and supplement what's in the bank. But some crucial social safety nets like Medicaid, SNAP, and rental assistance have income limits for providing aid, pushing many older adults like Rufino to make sure they aren't earning too much to cut off their benefits.

Rufino primarily lives on her $1,103 monthly Social Security and earns a few hundred dollars a month as a stipend working with foster children in Salt Lake City. She said the school district she works with recently offered her a higher-paid position, but she had to turn the offer down because it would put her income slightly over Utah's Medicaid threshold, spiking her out-of-pocket costs for care and prescription drugs.

She added that a higher paycheck could reduce her rental support benefits, pushing the cost of her means-tested housing unit beyond what she can pay. She wouldn't be able to afford rent in her area because she has very little savings, she added.

"Going back to work is not worth it for me in my situation," Rufino said. "I don't make enough money to make it worthwhile."

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Some low-income older Americans struggle to navigate benefit thresholds

The share of Americans receiving government aid has increased over the past several decades. Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security made up 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022 — totaling $3.8 trillion — which is a 9 percentage-point increase from 1970, per a report published in September 2024 by the Economic Innovation Group. The report said that the aging US population and skyrocketing healthcare costs are the main reasons for the shift.

At the same time, the US poverty line has remained largely unchanged since the 1960s. The threshold, which is currently $15,650 annually for one person, is adjusted each year for inflation but does not account for local cost of living or changing economic conditions.

Qualification standards for safety nets like SNAP and Medicaid are largely based on this measure — Americans making up to 133% of the poverty line can receive individual Medicaid benefits in states that expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act, for example — but exact limits can vary by program and state. Millions of low-income Americans live slightly above those aid cutoffs, but can't afford essentials.

Judith Murray, for example, relies on her $1,311 monthly Social Security and $1,174 monthly SNAP allotment to get by in central Illinois. The 64-year-old said she has to stretch her monthly checks to cover basics for her seven-person household, which includes some of her children and grandchildren, and her fiancé, who recently lost his job: "It sounds like a lot of money, but it's really not." she told BI.

Murray said she's been low-income for her entire life and hasn't been able to build savings. She has been out of the labor force for several years and receiving disability benefits, but is now considering going back to work to help her family pay their housing and utility bills.

Still, Murray said she's worried that any changes to her current income would reduce her SNAP benefit and make it difficult to buy enough groceries for her household. She added that her monthly SNAP was reduced this month because of the annual Social Security cost-of-living increase she received, and her household is a few months behind on bills because her fiancé lost his job.

"It makes no sense," she said. "It is scary as hell for people to not be able to take care of their families."

Tim Shaw, director of the benefits transformation initiative at the Aspen Institute and the senior policy advisor for the Aspen Financial Security Program, said that benefit qualification thresholds can be stressful to navigate, especially for older adults reentering the workforce.

"Often eligibility for different programs like SNAP, Medicaid, SSI, housing, they're not the same," he said. "If a household qualifies for multiple benefits, they're trying to track the income limits of several programs at the same time, which can get really confusing and cause people to not take that new job or not take that raise."

Shaw added that some safety net programs, like SSI, which provides benefits to disabled Americans, have asset limits. People receiving SSI can't hold more than $2,000 in assets — like the value of their homes, cars, and savings accounts — without disrupting their benefits. Other programs, like SNAP, have both work requirements and income caps, which leaves beneficiaries walking a tightrope with how much they can earn.

Going back to work helps some retirees boost their income, but it's a trade-off

Although some low-income older Americans like Rufino and Murray feel caught in a benefits catch-22, others find that returning to the labor force is in their best financial interest. BI has heard from older adults who chose to work beyond retirement age or 'unretire' during their golden years as a way to stay active or supplement their savings.

Social Security retirement benefits also do not have the same income restrictions as poverty line-based programs — recipients can hold a part- or full-time job without it impacting their monthly checks.

Karen Smith, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said that qualifying for safety nets isn't "an all-or-nothing game." She said staying in the workforce or going back to work can help older Americans stretch their savings longer and boost their monthly earnings. For some, she said this increased income can reduce or negate their need for safety nets altogether.

"I would say most people absolutely would benefit from going back to work," she said.

Murray isn't sure what she will do next. Because she's over age 60 and has been out of the workforce for years, she's concerned she won't be hired. Even if she does land a job, she said she needs every dollar of benefit support she receives to keep her family afloat.

"This is by no means an easy road," Murray said. "We still have birthdays to celebrate. We still have Thanksgiving to do and other holidays. When you see me out there buying a birthday cake with my SNAP benefit card, just to understand that I don't want to let my little ones down anymore than you do."

Are you struggling to navigate benefits thresholds? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• LA's wildfires put added pressure on the city's 2028 Olympic hosting gig.
• Historically, most host cities have faced costly overruns.
• LA could be in a stronger position than other cities because of its existing sports venues.

Los Angeles' wildfire rebuilding efforts could be at odds with another multibillion-dollar expense: hosting the Olympics.

The city's recovery efforts face a hard deadline ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics. Historically, most host cities have faced costly overruns, and LA is already likely to face serious economic challenges in the wake of the fires.

However, Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist at Smith College, told Business Insider that LA could be in a stronger position than other cities to handle Olympic costs because of the city's existing sports venues.

"I think the 2028 games will provide an opportunity for Los Angeles to show how it's rebuilt itself," Zimbalist said.

While many sports facilities were sparred from the fires, the city's economic losses could reach $275 billion, per the data platform AccuWeather. The estimate accounts for direct costs like emergency response and construction, along with indirect costs like lost employee wages, housing displacement, and hits to the local business scene and job market. Additionally, some experts estimate it could take the city years, or up to a decade, to rebuild.

Zimbalist said he thinks LA is in a good position to "break-even" economically as the Olympics host, in large part because it doesn't have to build any new sporting venues. This will significantly reduce the construction and infrastructure costs that often balloon host cities' spending.

The LA Olympics Games have an operating budget of $6.9 billion, according to the latest estimate provided by LA2028, the private committee responsible for putting on the Olympics and raising funding for the games.

The money is expected to come from International Olympic Committee funding and revenue generated from the Games — which are tied to things like international sponsorship income, ticket sales, and licensing merchandise. These funds will go toward hosting the sporting events and the opening and closing ceremonies, including investments in the city's airport and a downtown convention center.

LA2028 did not respond to BI's request for comment.

LA may be in a strong position to host 2028

If the costs of hosting the Olympics exceed the generated funds, LA has pledged to contribute $270 million to close the gap. If this isn't sufficient, the state of California has committed an additional $270 million, and if that doesn't cover it, LA would be on the hook for the rest. As of July, LA2028 was $1 billion short of its sponsorship goal.

Zimbalist said this insurance policy to cover some of its exposure in the case of a budget overrun is standard for every host city. As things stand, he doesn't expect the Games to go over budget, though he said it's "far from a sure thing."

"I don't see there being a public deficit here overall because there's so little building to be done," Zimbalist said.

While LA might be able to avoid drawing upon public funds, the Olympics are likely to cost US taxpayers. Zimbalist said LA is counting on the federal government to help provide as much as $5 billion in funds for transportation and security costs ahead of the Games. In comparison, the federal government's contribution to the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was about $2 billion when adjusted for inflation.

In 1984, the last time LA hosted the Olympics, Zimbalist said LA generally avoided negative economic impacts, which he said was driven by the availability of existing venues, significant IOC funding, and solid financial management from the city's Olympic committee. He said that LA could benefit from the same factors this time.

Host cities often lose money on the Olympics

Many Olympic host cities spend beyond their budget due to unforeseen expenses, construction costs, or an inability to produce enough tourism revenue, per the 2024 Oxford Olympics Study. And, with a higher number of events and athletes, the study reported that the Summer Games are especially expensive.

The Oxford Olympics Study — which analyzed the cost of past Olympics in 2022 US dollars — found that the Summer Games held between 1960 and 2024 went over budget by an average of 195%. In the past two decades, the most expensive Games was Rio 2016, costing $23.6 billion with a cost overrun of 352%, some of which was shouldered by taxpayers.

"When you add it all up, most cities end up with a deficit that could be on the order of $10 or $20 billion, sometimes more than that," Zimbalist said.

In December, Paris announced that it closed the 2024 events under budget, but this only included the operating costs of the Olympics during the 17 days they were held. When operating costs, capital costs related to the Games (like building sporting venues), and indirect capital costs (like investments in Paris's rail system) are all accounted for, Zimbalist estimated that the total spending approached $20 billion.

To be sure, Zimbalist said there are benefits to hosting the Olympics that economic indicators can't measure. While LA will likely still be recovering from the wildfires, he said the Olympics could provide the city with the opportunity to show its progress.

Have you experienced financial challenges due to a natural disaster? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Natural disasters are increasingly threatening older homeowners' financial stability and savings.
• Many older adults' biggest financial assets are their fully paid-off homes.
• Rising costs, insurance issues, and disasters are derailing some Americans' retirement plans.

Linda Sims was away visiting family in October 2017 when her next-door neighbor called: Sims' house was on fire.

Within hours, the entire structure — and much of the surrounding northern California canyon — was wiped out by the Tubbs wildfire. The flames destroyed years' worth of Sims' and her husband's memories, possessions, and the house they planned to sell one day to add to their retirement savings. Had the couple been home that night, Sims is sure they would have died.

"We wanted to live in the country, but we paid a big price for doing that: financially, emotionally, and physically, with our health," she said, adding, "The disaster aged us."

As the US experiences more severe and frequent natural disasters, homeowners are scrambling to protect themselves. Older adults like Sims are in an especially vulnerable position, as disasters threaten their savings and largely paid-off homes.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Over 60% of homeowners aged 65 and older have fully paid off their mortgages, per an analysis of 2024 Census data by the trade publication Construction Coverage. A report published in 2023 by the retirement firm Vanguard also found that 80% of Americans age 60 and over are homeowners, and housing wealth accounts for 48% of the age group's median net worth.

But many can't afford to downsize into retirement or rental housing and struggle with the rising costs of utilities and insurance, even with the house paid-off. For these people, climate events are derailing meticulously made retirement plans.

Disasters are a rising risk for older homeowners

Since the fire seven years ago, Sims, 81, and her husband moved four times because of rising housing costs. She told Business Insider that the couple had worked hard to save for retirement throughout their careers, but most of that money was invested in the house they lost in the fire. Despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars they received in insurance and settlement money, it didn't come near to covering the full cost.

With limited savings left, Sims recently moved in with one of her children so that she could reduce her housing costs to cover the steep price of the memory care her husband now needs. She said what she receives monthly in Social Security barely covers her daily essentials.

"There was nothing I could do but just watch the money flow out of my account that I had saved," Sims said.

The catastrophic financial impact of disasters isn't a new problem for Americans, but it is a growing one. Since 1980, more than 400 weather and climate events in the US have exceeded $1 billion in damages when adjusted for inflation, per the National Centers for Environmental Information. Many of those storms, wildfires, and extreme temperature waves occurred in the past decade.

The heightened risk has driven some home insurance companies to raise premiums, restrict coverage, or cut plans altogether. Several parts of California and Florida have been deemed "uninsurable." And, even for those with insurance, the payouts can be slow and pale in comparison to the damage.

"We lost half the value of our house or more because we didn't have enough insurance. Every two years, we went in and upped the insurance," Sims said, explaining that she tried to increase the total amount of disaster coverage on the house several times before the wildfire. "But that's all the insurance companies would allow in one of those areas."

For older Americans, losing their home can also mean losing their biggest asset, especially for those with houses in high-demand markets. A fifth of Americans 50 and older have no retirement savings at all.

With savings swept away by disasters, older adults struggle to start over

After building up a successful wholesale bakery business, Joe Steelhammer didn't expect to be living in his car. The 73-year-old lives in a suburb of Houston on his Social Security income, which he said isn't enough to pay rent.

Steelhammer told BI his financial challenges began when 2017's Hurricane Harvey swept through the area, flooding the property where he owned a house and a commercial kitchen. He had been working full-time baking cakes, quiches, and desserts for restaurants and hotels. His vegan chocolate truffle cake was especially popular, he said.

When the floodwaters receded, Steelhammer's home and kitchen were entirely destroyed. He said insurance provided some relief — but not nearly enough to cover his losses. He struggled to continue paying off the loans he took out to start his business, he added.

Although Steelhammer said he had carefully planned for his retirement years, the loss of his home and business completely drained his savings, and the COVID lockdowns prevented him from regaining a reliable income through baking. He said he recently tried to apply for low-income housing, with no luck yet.

"I had a decision to make: I could either afford rent or I could eat and pay my bills," Steelhammer said. "I chose the latter of the two, and I started living in my vehicle."

For older adults facing retirement losses from a natural disaster, it can feel impossible to start over.

Tim Shaw, director of the benefits transformation initiative at the Aspen Institute, suggested that people expand their savings portfolio, instead of putting all their money into a major asset, like a house. Even saving a small amount of money in an emergency account can help protect retirement savings and financial health if something unexpected happens, Shaw said, but he acknowledged that no one can fully prepare for an emergency.

"There's a big question now, especially if you live in an area with a high risk for these sorts of disasters, whether putting all of your money and assets for retirement into a home is the right choice, or whether there's usefulness in diversifying and putting some of that money into retirement savings instead," he said.

To be sure, natural disasters can impact people at any age or stage in their financial journey. Sims wishes more people understood the way a disaster can impact every facet of life, even those who feel prepared for aging.

"We budgeted and followed that budget, we knew exactly how much money we needed, and we planned on our needs for the future," Sims said. "But we didn't plan for a wildfire."

Have you experienced financial challenges due to a natural disaster? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Trump's mass deportation plan could strain retirees' wallets.
• Immigrants in the country illegally pay taxes that support Social Security and Medicare but don't receive their benefits.
• Deportations could also increase healthcare costs and shrink the industry's workforce.

President Donald Trump's immigration policies could hurt retirees' wallets and make it harder for them to access healthcare.

Trump said his immigration crackdown would improve the economy and boost American jobs. However, some economists and financial researchers told Business Insider that dramatically reducing the immigrant workforce could drain Social Security and Medicare tax funding, spike housing costs, and contribute to broader inflation.

This comes as America's 65-and-older population is growing, and the birthrate isn't keeping up, meaning that the number of working-age taxpayers may not be able to support the growing demand for retirement benefits without population increases from continued immigration.

Trump's mass deportation plan aims to remove millions of immigrants living in the US illegally. On January 20, Trump declared a national emergency, allowing him to use Pentagon resources for the deportation efforts. He also has begun efforts to limit immigration at the US-Mexico border, and the federal government is reportedly planning to carry out deportation raids this week in major cities.

Trump's press team did not respond for comment by the time of publication.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Mass deportations could strain Social Security and Medicare funding

Millions of Americans who rely on Social Security checks — which average $1,976 monthly — may face lower payments in the next decade if the Trump administration carries out large-scale deportations. Some economists told BI deportations could reduce Social Security funding because immigrants living in the US illegally pay the payroll taxes that fund Social Security while being ineligible to receive benefits.

Deportations could reduce the program's cash flow by $20 billion annually, per an actuarial estimate provided to BI by the Social Security Administration. While a small part of the roughly $1 trillion in benefits paid out a year, this could exacerbate an already dwindling Social Security fund set to dry up by the mid-2030s.

The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy determined immigrants living in the US illegally paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes in 2022. Additionally, the same group paid $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes that year but is not eligible for the benefits.

Deportations are likely to reduce healthcare options

Deportations could disrupt healthcare operations nationwide and drive up costs, and this would heavily impact older Americans.

Using 2021 Census Bureau data, the think tank Migration Policy Institute calculated that around 30% of the nearly 2.8 million immigrant workers in healthcare are not naturalized citizens, which includes legal permanent residents, people with temporary status, and those living in the US illegally.

A reduction in staff could come when the US needs more people in the field. The National Center for Health Workforce projected in November that demand for direct care workers — such as home health aides — and long-term care nurses could rise by 39% between 2022 and 2037, or nearly a million workers. Growth in demand for these roles is driven by the aging population and increasing longevity.

Older Americans would be disproportionately affected by rising healthcare prices. 2023 data from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys shows Americans 65 and older spent an average of about $8,027 per household on healthcare in 2023, more than any other age group, per 2023 data from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

To be sure, some conservative think tanks have argued that deportations could save the US money on reduced services for immigrants, such as welfare for older Americans.

Deportations could ding older Americans' budgets

Beyond impacting the retirement system, mass deportations could make everyday costs more expensive, especially for older Americans. Baby boomers were among the hardest hit by inflation in 2023, thanks to the generation's higher spending on healthcare and insurance, per a December report by Wells Fargo.

The housing market could also be rocked by deportations. Nearly a quarter of the construction labor force is living in the US illegally, per an analysis of 2018 and 2019 Census data from the Center for American Progress. For older adults, a reduction in the number of construction workers could make it more costly to repair their existing homes or downsize into smaller retirement housing. This comes as many baby boomers who own homes can't afford rising home repair costs, insurance premiums, and property taxes.

• Donald Trump took the stage virtually at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday.
• He made a series of promises and threats about corporate tax rates, tariffs, and more.
• He also criticized Europe over its lawsuits against Meta and Google.

President Donald Trump is back, and he's making sure the whole world knows it.

Trump's virtual appearance at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was full of promises, along with threats directed at CEOs, banks, and Europe more broadly.

Trump said his message to businesses worldwide was simple: Build in America or pay up.

"If you don't make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then very simply, you will have to pay a tariff," he said.

The president has threatened to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, which he said could begin as early as February 1. Trump had proposed a 60% tariff on China during his presidential campaign, but he said earlier this week he was considering a 10% tariff on goods from the country.

Trump said he hopes the tariffs will incentivize both domestic and foreign companies to manufacture goods in the United States because "other nations take advantage of the US." He also sees tariffs as a means to pay down the national debt, lower inflation, and create jobs.

"Under the Trump administration, there will be no better place on earth to create jobs or build factories than right here in the USA," Trump said.

Still, some economists have told BI that tariffs on goods like cars, food products, and medicine could force companies to raise prices for Americans.

For those companies that do end up moving production to US shores, Trump offered a bottom-dollar tax deal of 15%, which he described as the lowest rate of any large country.

"My message to every business in the world is very simple: Make your product in America," Trump said. "We will do the low taxes. We're bringing them down very substantially even from the original Trump tax cuts."

In renegotiating trade deals with China and the EU, Trump said he's not looking for "phenomenal," just "fair."

He also criticized the EU's regulatory enforcement actions against tech giants like Apple, Google, and Meta (who were major donors to his inauguration and whose CEOs were prominent guests), saying the fines are a form of unfair taxation.

"Whether you like them or not, they're American companies, and they shouldn't be doing that," he said.

Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, asked about how his administration would balance his many executive orders with continuing GDP growth and bringing inflation down.

"I think it's going to actually bring down inflation. It's going to bring up jobs," Trump responded, adding he would work to bring down the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% if companies make their products in the United States.

"The 15% is about as low as it gets and by far the lowest of a large country," Trump said, adding it would "create a tremendous buzz." He added that he brought the corporate tax rate down from 40% to 21% in his first term. (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 cut corporate taxes from 35% to 21%.)

The president also called out big banks, accusing them of discriminating against conservatives.

"Many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America," he said. "I hope you're going to open your banks to conservatives because what you're doing is wrong."

In a public statement, Bank of America said it "welcomes conservatives" and would "never close accounts for political reasons and don't have a political litmus test."

The president also thanked Saudi Arabia after it announced it would invest $600 billion in the US, but Trump added he would ask for more.

"It's also reported today in the papers that Saudi Arabia will be investing at least $600 billion in America. But I'll be asking the crown prince, who's a fantastic guy, to round it out to around $1 trillion," Trump said, referring to Saudi Arabia's ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. "I think they'll do that because we've been very good to them."

"I'm also going to ask Saudi Arabia and OPEC to bring down the cost of oil."

He said that Saudi Arabia didn't "show a lot of love" by not lowering the price of oil already, which he said would have the added benefit of ending the Russia-Ukraine war "immediately."

"You got to bring down the oil price. You got to end that war," he said. "With oil prices going down, I'll demand that interest rates drop immediately. And likewise, they should be dropping all over the world. Interest rates should follow us."

At that, Steve Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone Group, said: "I'm sure the crown prince of Saudi Arabia will be really glad you gave this speech today."

• Trump's first day in office on January 20 included proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
• Trump's tariff plans could raise the costs of some medications for Americans.
• Additionally, Trump said on the campaign trail he would impose a 60% tariff on Chinese imports.

Tariffs are already a central feature of President Donald Trump's second-term agenda — and those could have a significant impact on what Americans pay for some medications.

In his inauguration speeches and Day One executive orders, the president detailed his plans for imposing sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, including a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada. Trump said the tariff policies could begin on February 1. It follows his tariff proposals from the campaign trail, including a 60% tariff on imports from China.

Some trade policy experts previously told Business Insider that broad tariffs on key trading partners like Mexico and Canada could increase the prices of goods imported from those countries. This could also stretch to key medical drugs like pain relievers, antibiotics, and cancer treatments, several of which are used in the US and manufactured abroad.

Countries like China, Canada, and Mexico not only make prescription and over-the-counter medicines, but they also supply drug ingredients. In many cases, foreign-manufactured medications are more affordable than those directly made in America — but prices and access could change with tariffs.

Trump has previously denied that his tariff policies will increase prices for Americans. Trump's press team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

What tariffs mean for your medicine costs

Under Trump's tariff plans, frequently used medications could become more expensive. Per the nonprofit organization KFF, importing some pharmaceutical drugs or ingredients from other countries has made some medicines more affordable in the US than if they were manufactured domestically due to lower production costs and cheaper labor.

In 2023, Mexico exported 165 of the 350 pharmaceutical products and drug ingredients designated as critical by the International Trade Administration. Although it was a small share of America's total pharmaceutical imports — about 1.5%, per the nonpartisan policy research firm Wilson Center — Mexico supplied key ingredients for medicines like pain relievers and antibiotics. Major pharmaceutical and vaccine companies like Pfizer and AstraZeneca also have operations in Mexico.

Canada, too, manufactures some generic forms of over-the-counter and prescription medications, like pain relievers. Per the Census Bureau, the US imported about $5.8 billion in pharmaceutical preparations in 2023.

Some states, like Florida, have previously proposed importing some prescriptions from Canada to increase affordability. The FDA signed off on imports from Canada to Florida on a range of drugs, including those used to treat HIV, AIDS, and diabetes, and other states are working to get approval to import drugs from Canada in bulk to lower high prices.

Trump proposed even steeper tariffs on China, which could affect drug prices. A 2023 report by the policy analysis firm Atlantic Council found that, between 2020 and 2022, US imports of Chinese pharmaceuticals grew by over $8 billion, and China remains one of America's major medical suppliers. China manufactures many healthcare products used by Americans like pain relievers, cardiovascular medicine, cancer treatments and immunosuppressives, cold and cough medicine, antibiotics, and bandages.

Tariffs and trade restrictions on foreign pharmaceuticals could also lead to higher prices and drug shortages if the US is unable to manufacture cheaper alternatives. Trump has suggested enforcing a "universal tariff" on all imported goods, which may impact other main suppliers of medicine, like Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, and India.

Details are unclear on how exactly Trump will impose these tariffs, and the legal authority he uses would likely determine how soon the US could see the prices of goods change. Still, tariffs are not the only avenue through which Americans' healthcare could be impacted. On Monday, Trump signed a range of executive orders — some related to healthcare — including plans to pursue actions that will "eliminate unnecessary administrative expenses and rent-seeking practices" that raise healthcare costs.

Are you changing how you approach healthcare costs with to the new Trump administration? If so, reach out to [email protected] and [email protected].

• Donald Trump has vowed to deport millions of immigrants in his second term.
• A recent analysis estimated that his plan could drain billions in Social Security tax revenue.
• Many older Americans rely on Social Security to afford essentials.

President Donald Trump's mass deportation plans could have a significant economic side effect: draining the Social Security fund.

As more Americans reach retirement age — many without adequate savings — Social Security can be a financial anchor. The checks average $1,976 monthly, and thousands of older adults told Business Insider they rely on the money to pay for essentials. However, the checks often aren't enough to live on.

Trump's vow to carry out a mass deportation of people living in the US illegally could make matters more difficult because the Social Security fund is largely financed by payroll taxes from American workers. The Social Security Administration told BI that deportations could cut annual cash flow by $20 billion — potentially reducing retirees' benefits over time.

Immigrants living in the US illegally, about 8.3 million of whom work, also pay payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. They are ineligible to claim these benefits themselves.

What's more, the president's deportation agenda is likely to have far-reaching effects on the immigrant labor force in the US. On January 20, he signed an executive order declaring a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, which would allow him to receive Pentagon support for carrying out deportations. He has also taken steps to end birthright citizenship and restrict asylum and other paths for people to enter the country legally.

Trump's team did not respond to requests for comment.

BI broke down the impact of Trump's deportation plan on retirement benefits and what it could mean for retirees.

Deportations could limit funding for Social Security and Medicare

Some researchers are concerned that deportations could further constrict the already dwindling pool of Social Security funds. In 2022, immigrants living in the US illegally paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes and $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes, per the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That same year, the Social Security Administration reported that it doled out benefits totaling over $1 trillion.

The $20 billion that the Social Security Administration estimated it could lose under Trump's deportation plans isn't an astronomically high number, but it still concerns many economists since the fund is already expected to dry up by the mid-2030s.

With Americans living longer and having fewer children, the number of retirees could quickly outpace the number of working-age adults, meaning more people would rely on Social Security as fewer people pay into it. Over the past several decades, immigration has largely helped keep that ratio in check, as immigrants tend to be younger and have more children, adding to the population and labor-force growth.

"Social Security works on a pay-as-you-go system, where today's workers pay for the benefits of today's retirees," Delia Furtado, an economics professor at the University of Connecticut, told BI. "This system works well when the population is growing because there are more workers contributing than retirees receiving benefits. However, with fewer births and people living longer, the system is in trouble."

How retirees may be affected

Older Americans could be affected by Trump's mass deportation plan in a number of ways.

If the Social Security fund is depleted or drained earlier than expected, many Americans could lose their main source of income.

Cecilia Menjívar, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in immigration policy, said deportations could also have a direct impact on both the availability and cost of elder care and the labor market over time.

"When employers don't have enough workers to do the work, they have to shut down," she said.

Menjívar added that mass deportations could also affect the healthcare and eldercare sectors.

A report by the Center of American Progress published in 2021 found that nearly 350,000 healthcare workers were living in the US illegally and working as personal care aides, nursing assistants, and home health aides.

Still, there are complex layers to the US retirement system, some of which would not be as deeply impacted by deportations. For example, Medicare — the main source of health insurance for many older adults — is partially financed by payroll taxes but also collects revenue from beneficiaries' premiums, so the program has more funding sources than Social Security.

• Universal basic income is recurring cash payments for participants, no strings attached.
• Traditional welfare restricts spending to specific categories, like healthcare or groceries.
• Basic-income policy could supplement welfare but likely wouldn't replace the existing safety net.

As America's cities look to alleviate poverty, universal basic income has been proposed by local leaders as a complement to existing welfare.

With a housing-affordability crisis and high healthcare costs, more Americans are leaning on government aid than in previous decades. Government transfers of funds from safety nets such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid accounted for about 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022, a 9-percentage-point increase from 1970, the equivalent of $3.8 trillion, per an Economic Innovation Group analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census data between 1969 and 2022.

Giving people no-strings-attached cash has been piloted in over 100 areas, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, as a supplement to existing aid programs. It offers participants cash to spend on whatever they choose, rather than being restricted to a specific category, as with SNAP and Medicaid.

Some economic-security advocates have told Business Insider that recurring cash payments give families a financial boost to pay bills and land stable work, and tech leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have suggested that basic income might become necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

With Republicans set to hold a majority in Congress and President-elect Donald Trump about to return to the White House for his second term, the country's budget and policy priorities for welfare programs could change, shaping how benefits are funded and who qualifies.

BI looked at the distinctions between basic income and welfare, and what it means for future benefit programs.

How does UBI differ from welfare?

The US's welfare system — also known as the social safety net — consists of a series of federally funded programs that help lower-income people afford essentials. This includes SNAP for food, Medicaid for healthcare, housing vouchers, Social Security, and various programs for families with young children.

Largely, welfare is part of the federal budget, though most states have localized programs, too. Beneficiaries must have a household income near the federal poverty line and are restricted in where they can spend the benefit money. SNAP, for example, covers most food at the grocery store but cannot be used to buy personal-hygiene items like toothpaste or soap.

Basic income, by contrast, is a set of recurring cash payments that can be spent however participants choose. There are two main types of basic income: universal basic income and guaranteed basic income. UBI programs give payments to all members of a population, regardless of income, and don't have an end date. GBI programs give payments to a specific group of the population — such as people experiencing homelessness, single parents, or low-income artists — for a set period of time, typically one to five years. Most of the basic-income pilots in the US have been short-term GBI, not UBI. Other countries have also run GBI pilots.

Could UBI replace welfare?

Basic income is unlikely to replace the existing safety net because of funding and political challenges.

US GBI pilots are financed through a combination of government funds and philanthropy. Still, most of those programs are limited to a couple hundred people for a set period, meaning they cost funders a few million dollars.

Sustaining UBI across the country would require more significant funding through a value-added tax, a progressive tax system based on wealth, or a tax on resources, like a carbon tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, gives residents an annual stipend that's drawn from the state's oil revenue.

True UBI hasn't been implemented in the US, but some politicians have introduced basic-income policies. During his campaign for the 2020 Democratic primaries, the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed a "Freedom Dividend," which would've given $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18. The 2020 census found there were about 258 million Americans over 18, which would've made the total gross cost of that plan more than $3 trillion each year. Yang suggested the dividend be funded through a value-added retail tax.

For comparison, the Social Security Administration reported in 2024 that the benefits cost $1.5 trillion annually. The average monthly payments were $1,788 in November and are largely funded through payroll taxes. Seventy-two million older adults and people with disabilities currently receive benefits.

Any federal change to the social safety net would also need congressional approval. Many Republican leaders have opposed implementing ongoing basic income, arguing that it's not financially sustainable and gives people "free money."

"We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary," Rep. John Gillette of the Arizona House of Representatives previously told BI.

Is UBI a better alternative to welfare?

In most of America's basic-income pilots, cash aid is seen as a supplement to welfare programs, not a replacement. GBI pilot leaders often consult with participants to ensure their basic income will not disqualify them from means-tested programs like SNAP or Medicaid.

Basic-income participants have told BI that the cash helps them afford essentials that might not be covered by traditional safety nets: such as a new crib for their baby, school supplies for their kids, steady childcare, and car repairs.

"Anyone who's had a child knows that this is not like a luxury income," a new mom in Michigan receiving $500 a month previously told BI. "This is just assisting us in our time of need."

Some Republicans and economists have argued against basic income, calling it a "welfare trap" and an "unconstitutional" use of public money. This has led to states such as Iowa and Arizona introducing basic-income bans and lawsuits against GBI programs in Missouri and Texas.

Research from recent GBI pilots suggests that basic income can help lower rates of domestic violence, aid participants in landing higher-paying jobs, and increase housing and food security. Some financial-security advocates also say that basic income can boost local economies by making it easier for lower-income people to maintain steady work and buy consumer goods.

"We are allowing folks to stabilize and to then plan for the future," Sukhi Samra, the executive director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national advocacy network, previously told BI.

To be sure, much of basic-income research is based on short-term trials. Basic income's financial impact on participants in the long run remains unclear, and some participants struggle to afford essentials after their programs end.

Traditional safety-net programs typically do not have an end date, and participants can continue to receive benefits as long as their household income meets qualification thresholds.

• The LA wildfires could cost between $250 and $275 billion in damages while displacing thousands.
• High property values in areas like the Pacific Palisades are contributing to the massive cost.
• Governments, insurers, and residents face long-term financial burdens from the disaster.

The damage and economic cost estimates for the wildfires in Los Angeles are in the hundreds of billions, a bill that will be split among local and federal governments, insurers, and residents.

As of January 14, LA authorities reported that 24 people have died and over 12,300 structures have been destroyed. Meanwhile, more than 40,000 acres have burned, displacing residents and leveling entire neighborhoods. High winds expected this week have firefighters racing to contain the blazes.

And, as the damage increases, so does the price tag.

A new estimate by weather data platform AccuWeather puts the total cost between $250 and $275 billion and calls the damage "catastrophic." The full cost of the wildfires won't be clear until long after the smoke clears, and expensive rebuilding efforts could take years.

The wildfire cost will likely be calculated through direct and indirect damages

Since 1980, more than 400 weather and climate events in the US have exceeded $1 billion in damages when adjusted for inflation, per the National Centers for Environmental Information.

The Los Angeles wildfires could be among the most expensive on record. The total cost of a disaster is calculated from both direct and indirect losses, said Jeff Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.

AccuWeather's estimate accounts for direct costs like rebuilding, relocation, cleanup costs, and emergency shelter expenses. It also factors in indirect costs: healthcare bills for people who were injured or exposed to wildfire smoke, lost wages and housing displacement for employees, along with hits to the local job market, business scene, and tourism industry.

Part of the reason that the LA fires are so costly is because of the area's high property values, Schlegelmilch said. The severely impacted Pacific Palisades neighborhood, for example, is home to several celebrities and has an average home value of $3.5 million.

Beyond direct damages and lost economic opportunity, there are costs that are difficult to quantify. Many LA residents are facing the costs of short or long-term displacement, along with emotional or physical trauma.

A combination of governments, insurance companies, and LA residents could pay the bill

In the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, local and federal governments pick up some of the tab.

The Federal Emergency Response Agency (FEMA) provides a variety of aid like supplying hazard mitigation, clearing debris, and financing emergency shelters, along with offering monetary support to some displaced residents. The federal government often signs off on block grants — money that is directed from national to local governments for a specific purpose, like disaster relief — but it could take months or years for that money to become accessible to local communities.

State and LA-county leaders, the Small Business Administration, and philanthropic groups will also likely shoulder some rebuilding costs for homes and businesses.

President Joe Biden said the federal government will cover 100% of fire response costs and provide a one-time $770 stimulus check for those impacted: "I told the governor and local officials, spare no expense," he said on January 9. Congress has not yet reached an agreement on an aid package, and it's not clear what President-elect Donald Trump's plan will be for disaster relief in California.

Still, most government response programs are not built to provide long-term aid.

"FEMA is not designed to make you whole again," Schlegelmilch said. "It's not designed to completely pay for the cost of rebuilding a new house."

Private and state insurers will be responsible for covering much — but not all — of the property damage for their customers, he added.

However, not all homeowners are insured. Companies like State Farm and Farmers have recently cut or restricted coverage in areas they deem "uninsurable" due to high and rising disaster risks, leaving thousands of LA-area households uninsured or forced to enroll in FAIR, the state's insurer of last resort. This means some residents can expect significant out-of-pocket costs to repair their homes.

Schlegelmilch added that LA residents will feel wildfire impacts in other parts of the economy too.

The cost of construction will likely increase as local residents and businesses look to rebuild, he said. Schlegelmilch expects that the price of hiring contractors, plumbers, electricians, and other specialists will increase with steep demand.

Consumer prices in the LA-area for things like rent, lumber, and building materials may also spike because of price gouging, increased demand, or damaged supply, Schlegelmilch said. He said taxes likely won't change in the short-term, but the overall cost of living in the area could become more expensive with time.

Past natural disaster response shows what LA might expect

Previous devastating natural disasters give a clue into how wildfire costs could be handled in LA.

Following 2012's Hurricane Sandy in New York, Congress provided around $20 billion adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars to affected areas through a Community Development Block Grant. That represents a share of the storm's inflation-adjusted $88.5 billion cost, per the National Centers for Environmental Information. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused $201.3 billion in inflation-adjusted damages, which was partially covered by federal emergency response and recovery grants.

Schlegelmilch said that a key challenge with disaster relief in cases like Sandy and Katrina is that aid can be distributed inequitably between high and lower-income areas because wealthier areas often have stronger insurance and access to resources. He cautions that the same could happen in California.

"Those that are the most vulnerable before often see that vulnerability grow," Schlegelmilch said," adding "a lot of times we see this along racial lines, along socio-economic lines, and we see communities decades later still struggling to recover when the downtown areas are nice and new and everyone says it's back to normal."

Looking forward, Schlegelmilch said that disaster preparedness policies could help alleviate losses and keep residents safe. He said this could look like building with flame-retardant materials, widening roads that allow for emergency vehicles to easily pass through when necessary, and planting less flammable vegetation in dry areas.

"There's actually quite a bit that can be redone in the rebuilding process that can help lower the risk into the future," he said. "There are costs associated with it, and in the short-run, it may be more expensive. But, in the long run, it's a lot less expensive."

Have you experienced steep out-of-pocket or insurance costs due to a natural disaster? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Park City ski patrollers reached a deal with Vail Resorts on January 8 after a labor strike.
• Ski patrollers told BI they must work multiple jobs to survive in mountain resort towns.
• Seasoned patrollers say they may change jobs due to unsustainable wages and steep living expenses.

Days after a historic labor strike in Park City ended, America's ski patrollers are caught between their love of the slopes and the steep price of mountain resort living.

Kali Flaherty, for example, doubts she will ever own a home.

The 26-year-old works full-time in ski patrol at Colorado's Arapahoe Basin. For the past three winters, she has kept trails clear, stabilized injured skiers and snowboarders, helped prevent avalanches, and trained rookie patrollers.

Flaherty said it's her "dream job." But her $23 hourly pay isn't enough to cover living expenses, and she works shifts at a nearby healthcare clinic to make ends meet. She rents an apartment with a few roommates in Breckenridge, about 20 miles from Arapahoe Basin.

Like many ski patrollers, Flaherty is in a bind. The cost of living in resort towns like Breckenridge, Vail, Aspen, and Park City continues to skyrocket, pushing out the employees who keep them operational. Being close to these areas is also key for employees because of high commuting costs and dangerous winter road conditions. Several patrollers told Business Insider that they struggle to afford housing, groceries, and gas, let alone build savings. Some expect they will have to switch industries for higher-paying work, and many current patrollers work multiple jobs to stay afloat.

These financial challenges have culminated in labor disputes. On January 8, Vail Resorts granted the Park City Professional Ski Patrol Association a $2 raise for entry-level patrollers — from a $21 hourly pay floor to a $23 hourly pay floor — and agreed to improve benefits . The deal followed a weekslong patroller strike during the busy holiday season.

Meanwhile, ski patrollers at Arapahoe Basin, where Flaherty works, are voting to formalize their union this month. Several other patroller groups at Vail Resorts and Alterra Mountain Company-owned mountains have unionized or taken collective action in the past few years.

Flaherty wants to be a ski patroller for her entire career — but she said it comes with sacrifices. She hopes Park City's contract helps make it possible for employees like her to build financially stable lives near resort towns.

"I don't see myself being able to buy property up here, which is always the dream," she said. "I would love to not be living with roommates my entire life, but the way that I make money as a patroller now, that's my reality."

Representatives for Vail and Alterra — the parent organizations of the ski resorts where the patrollers BI interviewed work — did not respond to comment requests.

Ski patrollers are facing steep expenses and low wages

The average ski patroller makes $21.56 an hour, per the job platform Indeed. Compensation varies based on years of experience, level of medical training, and safety certifications, said the ski patrollers Business Insider interviewed. For example, an EMT or paramedic license might add a few dollars to patrollers' wages. Patrollers' benefits vary by resort, though most receive free lift tickets — which can range from $120 to $300 a day — as part of their role.

For many patrollers, finding affordable housing in the markets where they work is challenging. The five patrollers BI spoke with rent with several roommates, or have to commute long distances to work. The median monthly rent in a town like Breckenridge is $5,000, per Zillow, a price that exceeds some ski patrollers' total monthly income.

Groceries and gas are also costly in many mountain areas because of limited stores and the high transportation costs for goods. A dozen eggs is just over $4 in Denver, but nearly $7 in Breckenridge.

Kyle Eveland, 24, makes $23.28 an hour as a second-year ski patroller at Breckenridge Resort in Colorado. Before he reports to the mountain every morning to set up avalanche mitigation equipment, Eveland said he shovels snow for a nearby property. He works a full-time construction job over the summer, when the ski resort is closed, and recently began a part-time role pumping concrete between his patrol shifts.

"I would love to do what I love every day and take the sacrifice of not making a lot of money doing that," he said, adding "I pretty much live paycheck to paycheck in the winter. It would be super, super tight if I just patrolled."

Right now, Eveland lives in Breckenridge with seven other roommates. He said he took a pay cut when he decided to join ski patrol, despite the job requiring significant training. He previously worked at Breckenridge as a chairlift operator. Eveland said he may need to leave his patrolling job if he wants to afford a down payment or support a family in the future.

"I got my EMT license and that got me a single dollar raise," he said.

Tate Finigan's experience is similar. The 26-year-old recently began his third season as a ski patroller in Park City. Finigan commutes from Salt Lake City, over a 30-mile drive, every day because he can't afford housing in Park City. When he's not on the mountain, Finigan babysits and walks dogs, and previously picked up shifts as a bartender.

"It's been really hard to try and live in this community that we all so badly want to be a part of," he said.

In a profession that relies on experience, seasoned patrollers aren't sure they can stay

Ski patrolling requires specialized skills: sharp ski competence, outdoor survival and avalanche certifications, and medical expertise. The ski patrollers BI interviewed said that this experience is honed over time, meaning that seasoned patrollers are often best at training rookies and handling on-mountain crises.

Mike Reilly, 33, has been a ski patroller at Park City for six years. He cares about his job, but he isn't sure how long he will remain on staff. Each year, Reilly said it becomes more challenging to pay his bills — even with his second job as a barista. Reilly said that cost of living challenges mean many experienced ski patrollers like him are considering leaving for second, more lucrative careers. He recently finished nursing school.

"I went to nursing school, but that was really out of desperation," he said. "I would much rather patrol and remain a career-patroller, if that meant I could afford to pay rent and not work 20 days in a row."

Max Magill is a 10-year ski patroller at Park City and president of United Mountain Workers, a union that represents ski patrollers, lift mechanics, and other resort employees across the Western US. He told BI that efforts to raise patroller wages are happening across America's ski industry because the job isn't financially sustainable long-term. After a decade in the job, Magill said he's still working side gigs and living paycheck to paycheck.

"The operation of big Western ski resorts with avalanche terrain really does hinge on the work of these experienced ski patrollers," he said. "The guest experience would be completely different if there were not experienced ski patrollers being retained at these resorts."

After the Park City deal was struck, Magill said in a press statement that "the victory will help raise employment standards for all ski industry employees."

To be sure, high living expenses impact other mountain employees besides ski patrollers. Reilly said food service, lift operator, lift mechanic, and ticket scanner jobs are also key to keeping resorts open and safe. Many of these employees make similar wages to ski patrollers.

Flaherty isn't sure she can stay on patrol forever, but she's hoping to keep clicking on her skis for as long as she can. It helps to know others in her profession are also working toward a better future.

"Our patrollers have come together more than ever before," she added. "It has created a positive environment to know that we all have each other's backs."

Do you live in or near a resort town? Are you open to sharing how you manage expenses? If so, reach out to this reporter at [email protected].

• Thousands of LA County homeowners face a volatile home insurance market.
• In recent months, State Farm — California's largest home insurer — dropped thousands of policyholders.
• Some have turned to the state's insurer of last resort.

Thousands of California homeowners at risk due to the Los Angeles County fires find themselves exposed in a volatile home insurance market.

Last year, California's largest home insurer — State Farm — canceled thousands of policyholders' plans across LA County, including the Pacific Palisades and parts of Santa Monica and Calabasas, that are under evacuation orders and warnings as the fires rage. Nearly 70% of State Farm policyholders in the affluent Pacific Palisades neighborhood were dropped by the company beginning in July 2024.

The following table shows the ZIP codes that were under evacuation orders or warnings as of Wednesday afternoon that had the highest rate of nonrenewals from State Farm last year.

Several other major insurers have dramatically restricted their coverage across California in recent years, citing surging costs from more frequent and intense disasters coupled with rising home repair costs and inflation.

Thousands of LA County homeowners who haven't been able to obtain private insurance have joined the ranks of those covered by the state's insurer of last resort — the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan. The FAIR plan is regulated by the state government and backed by a slew of private insurance companies. But its premiums tend to be much higher than typical private insurers and its coverage is often more restricted.

This table shows how FAIR insurance coverage has changed in the above ZIP codes between 2023 and 2024.

As private insurers have stepped back in recent years, the number of residential FAIR plan holders across the state jumped 123% between September 2020 and September 2024. The FAIR plan's dollar-value residential exposure surged from $271 billion in September 2023 to $431 billion in September 2024.

It's not clear how many homeowners impacted by the LA County fires are uninsured. Most mortgage lenders require homeowners to purchase insurance, and some require additional insurance for specific disasters, including fires.

Some major home insurers, including Farmer's — the second-largest in California — have recently begun to expand their offerings in California after the state announced new regulations requiring insurers to cover a certain percentage of homes vulnerable to fire in exchange for allowing them to use future risk modeling to calculate premiums.

In 2023, California had the fourth-highest home insurance nonrenewal rate among states, according to a recently released Senate Budget Committee report. Six of the top 10 counties in the country with the highest rates of nonrenewals by large home insurers in 2023 were in California, the report found.

But rising home insurance costs and rates of dropped policies are nationwide problems. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently reported that average home insurance premiums spiked by 13%, adjusted for inflation, between 2020 and 2023. The share of home insurance policies from large insurers that weren't renewed increased last year in 46 states, the Senate report found. And more than 200 US counties saw their non-renewal rates spike threefold between 2018 and 2023.

Areas more vulnerable to disasters, including flooding, wildfires, and hurricanes, have seen the biggest spikes in premiums and dropped policies.

"Our number one priority right now is the safety of our customers, agents and employees impacted by the fires and assisting our customers in the midst of this tragedy," a representative for State Farm told BI.

A representative from the California FAIR Plan Association also told BI in a statement that the insurer is "prepared" to handle the wildfire impact, and "has payment mechanisms in place, including reinsurance, to ensure all covered claims are paid."

Representatives for Farmer's did not respond for comment.

Have you been dropped by your home insurance company or are you facing a steep premium increase? Email this reporter to share your story: [email protected].

"I wish I saved more for retirement." "I regret taking Social Security too early." "I should have had better health insurance." "I would tell my younger self to take that vacation."

These are among the common regrets described by the more than 3,800 older Americans who since mid-September have responded to Business Insider's informal, nonrepresentative surveys and emailed reporters. Reporters wrote 17 stories, including four in-depth profiles, and created a video detailing six Americans' regrets.

By mid-October, more than 1,000 people had completed the initial survey; that figure grew to more than 1,700 by the end of November. Now the survey has over 2,500 responses. By December, reporters had received roughly 1,000 emails in response to the coverage. We also used more than 300 responses from a survey that asked people over 50 about their regrets as they struggled to find work and interviewed more than 100 older Americans as well as financial planners and retirement researchers.

_{Article credits
Reporters: Noah Sheidlower, Allie Kelly
Editors: Bartie Scott, Emily Canal, Andy Kiersz, Jamie Heller
Copy Editors: Jonann Brady, Emma LeGault, Nick Siwek, Kevin Kaplan
Design and Art: Jenny Chang-Rodriguez, Rebecca Zisser, Isabel Fernandez-Pujol, Derek French, Natalie Ammari, Bryan Erickson
Photographers: Laura McDermott, Rita Harper, Saul Martinez
Video credits
Producers: Sarah Andersen, Barbara Corbellini Duarte
Reporters: Noah Sheidlower, Allie Kelly
Videographers: Brian Hansen, Clancy Morgan, Austin Meyer, Gregory Neiser
Video Editors: Mark Adam Miller, Karim Islam
Motion Designer: Dorian Barranco
Copy Editors: Mark Abadi, Marisa Frey
Deputy Executive Producer: Havovi Cooper
Executive Producer: Barbara Corbellini Duarte
Head of Video: Erica Berenstein}

• Business Insider heard from more than 3,800 older Americans about their life regrets.
• In a video, six people shared their stories and described what they wished they'd done differently.
• Their regrets included retiring too early, not investing aggressively, and letting go of property.

What would you say to your younger self? Six older Americans asked themselves this question and wrote letters for a Business Insider video.

They're a small sampling of the more than 3,800 older Americans who have shared their life regrets in the past three months through reader surveys and emails to reporters. See our full list of stories.

Their letters highlight what they would have done differently and what they're proud of. A former healthcare worker said she wished she had advocated more for herself at work. A truck driver said he shouldn't have sold his home. A health librarian described letting investment opportunities pass. A manager said she retired too early. And a couple said they wished they had prioritized their passions and saved more cautiously.

Scroll down to meet each person and read their full letters.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Hank Faber, 77

Faber, a truck driver in Indiana, said he regretted leaving his farm, which he estimates is now worth over $1 million; piling up debt; not preparing financially for health challenges; and not building a large nest egg for retirement.

He said that while he doesn't expect to retire soon, he's thankful that he kept playing music and found a career he enjoys.

Anita Clemons Swanagan, 59

Swanagan, who held various positions in prisons and hospitals, said she regretted offering too much financial assistance to friends, not prioritizing her health earlier in life, and not advocating for herself to get paid more.

Still, the Illinois resident said she was proud of herself for returning to work after the first of her two strokes, raising her three daughters, and staying positive about the future.

Nancy Seeger, 64

Seeger, a health librarian in Ohio, said she wished she had taken the time to learn investment strategies earlier in life, opened a Roth IRA earlier in her career, and shifted careers sooner.

But she also said she made many smart decisions, including securing good health insurance before her cancer diagnosis and starting a freelance writing gig after navigating a recent layoff.

Misty Miller, 65

Miller, a staff services manager in California, said she regretted retiring too early, overspending in the first year of her retirement, and cashing out her 401(k). But she said that staying connected with many people in her life and continuing to work had kept her positive.

Steve Dacus, 67, and Mary Dacus, 69

Steve Dacus, a retired salesman, and Mary Dacus, a retired secretary, both said they wished they had pursued careers they were passionate about, worked longer before retiring, and been more cautious about saving.

The couple, who live in rural Illinois, said they were proud that they took care of their parents and were looking forward to getting out of their home and moving to a different community.

• More than 3,600 older Americans have shared their financial and other regrets with Business Insider.
• Many said they regretted relying on government programs designed to keep them out of poverty.
• This is part of an ongoing series about older Americans' regrets.

America is getting older — and that shift is straining the federal programs meant to keep older people out of poverty.

Since mid-September, more than 3,600 older adults have shared their life regrets with Business Insider through reader surveys and direct emails. Many spoke about their struggles navigating programs like Social Security, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Medicare. This is part of a series on Americans' retirement regrets.

The overwhelming message was that these programs weren't enough to pay the bills. Retirees said they regretted not realizing this and not saving more to supplement their government checks.

BI followed up with several retirees and asked experts about the programs' performance and improvements they might need. Since most of the retirees rely on programs run by the federal government, the solutions discussed here mainly focus on the public sector. Others may have ideas for private or charitable solutions as well.

To be sure, many American retirees are doing just fine. Baby boomers have benefited from rising home and stock-market values over their lifetimes, and OECD data suggests the US's retirement system is doing well in some areas compared with those of other developed countries. Census data indicates roughly 11% of people 65 and older in the US lived in poverty in 2023, down from about 25% in 1976.

Still, many people are struggling, and the pressures are only likely to grow as the population ages and funding wanes. Some argue that such trends increase the need to preserve or bolster government programs designed to reduce poverty among older adults.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Americans increasingly rely on government checks like Social Security, and the program's funds are diminishing

Pamela Shields, 67, gets $1,470 a month in Social Security payments and an additional $600 from her jobs as a caregiver and a night-shift worker at her local grocery store. She had a long career in customer service and human resources, but she's dealt with unexpected medical expenses and two divorces, and she still provides her children with some financial support.

She said that Social Security wasn't enough to rely solely on and that she feared she wouldn't have enough to retire.

As with all beneficiaries, Shields' Social Security check amount is based on her earnings during her working years. But some major categories of spending — like housing, healthcare, and some utilities — have outpaced inflation in recent decades.

"I really want to be retired and not have to do all this stuff to make a living," Shields said. "But I don't see myself doing that."

Research from the bipartisan public-policy firm Economic Innovation Group suggests that US households like Wood's are increasingly reliant on government assistance like Social Security. EIG found that in 2022, Americans got an average of $11,500 in government payouts, representing 18% of the population's total personal income.

But Social Security may be in trouble, with payouts expected to start shrinking in the mid-2030s. As more baby boomers reach peak retirement age, the strain is expected to grow. Without a solution, they could be the last generation to receive full benefits.

"Social Security has been a very expensive program for a very long time, and it's more expensive particularly as we see upswells in the over-65 share of the population," said Benjamin Glasner, an economist at EIG.

One solution to extend the program's life is to start cutting benefits now. The US Government Accountability Office said in a report this summer that applying an across-the-board cut for all Social Security beneficiaries or cutting some spousal or widower benefits could increase longevity.

Of course, that would put people who are already struggling in an even tighter spot. Ultimately, Glasner said, the US needs more younger workers contributing to the Social Security fund through taxes. He argued that the US should invest more in helping people start and sustain families — the US's fertility rate hit a historic low this year.

"We will not be able to tax or cut our way out of this budgetary mess," he said. He also proposed consolidating various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, to reduce the administrative burden and reduce costs.

Another option is to turn up the nozzle on the program's funding sources: payroll taxes, interest on government securities, and taxes on benefits. Some Democrats, led by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have proposed raising payroll taxes on higher earners to help offset the cost of hiking benefits for everyone.

Gopi Shah Goda, the director of the Retirement Security Project at the center-left think tank Brookings Institution, said the US could consider how other countries address retirement programs, including using general tax revenue, like Australia, and focusing expenditures more on lower-income retirees, like Canada.

Because Social Security is among the federal government's biggest expenditures, some legislators are looking for cost-cutting strategies. House Republicans have proposed raising the age at which Americans become eligible for benefits. President-elect Donald Trump has suggested cutting Social Security income taxes for retirees, which could provide immediate relief but further imperil future funding for the program by reducing tax revenue overall.

Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, has proposed capping monthly benefits at $2,050 beginning in 2033, arguing that this amount would keep more older Americans above the poverty line and keep benefits higher for longer than across-the-board cuts would when funding runs dry. This might mean smaller checks for higher earners, but he argued that Social Security is often inefficient for middle- and higher-income Americans because the safety net discourages them from working longer or saving more.

"Because of the taxes charged to fund those benefits, people tend to reduce their labor supply," Biggs said. "If I'm getting an extra $500 per month from Social Security, that's going to reduce the amount I save for retirement."

One way to help workers save more and extend the life of Social Security would be to increase access to employer-match 401(k)s at work. In a December fact sheet, AARP cited an estimate that 56 million Americans — the vast majority of whom earned less than $50,000 — lacked access to retirement savings plans through their employer.

A handful of BI's survey respondents mentioned wishing they had 401(k) matching at work or jobs that provided financial guidance for retirement.

Still, retirees' average Social Security benefits are over 40% higher than they were in the 1970s when accounting for inflation. Participation in — and contributions to — retirement plans has increased since the 1970s. People are also claiming Social Security slightly later in life.

Researchers said that delaying taking Social Security could substantially improve people's retirement security, provided they have other income sources.

Some Medicare and private insurance plans hike premiums on older people or don't cover some needs

Older Americans told BI that medical emergencies, the need for long-term care, or expensive prescriptions eroded their savings. Whether they have private or government insurance, out-of-pocket costs add up. For those on a budget, affording healthcare and other essentials can be challenging, especially if medical conditions keep them from working.

Ronda Nichols, 60, worked as a paralegal, but her career ended when she slipped on ice in 2008. Her emergency savings weren't enough to cover her surgery, which, with aftercare costs, cost well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nichols, whose Medicare premium is paid for by Idaho, lives on about $1,100 in disability and $300 from her late husband's pension each month, much of which goes toward prescriptions and over-the-counter pain medications.

"Economically this injury has really impacted me, because every month I think if my Social Security doesn't come I'm screwed," Nichols said.

About 68 million people are enrolled in Medicare, which is divided into traditional Medicare and private insurance overseen by Medicare, such as Medicare Advantage plans.

Dr. Joel Shalowitz, a specialist in geriatric medicine who formerly taught at Northwestern University, said older people could save money on health-insurance premiums if private policies and Medicare Advantage health plans were forbidden from steeply hiking rates for older beneficiaries, as some policies on the Affordable Care Act Marketplace are.

Plus, he said, if all Medicare plans offered health savings accounts, older adults could build emergency funds for medical expenses and out-of-pocket costs.

Goda said many older Americans aren't aware that some Medicare plans don't cover long-term care, hearing aids, or dental care. "It's in a way impossible to know every possible outcome of what ailment you might have and how your health insurance will cover the resulting costs associated with that," Goda said.

She suggested that streamlining access to benefits and subsidizing services for people who need long-term care could improve the system. Goda added that an aging population doesn't always correspond to increased dependency. She argued that the US should invest in health throughout people's lives, citing research that childhood Medicaid eligibility for young people with disabilities was associated with higher employment and lower transfer-program costs decades later.

In a 2023 article, David Henderson, a research fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution, said that if Medicare cuts were to happen, Americans might value turning the program into a per capita benefit where each person receives a set amount to spend as they see fit and particularly sick people get double the allocation.

"Spending $900 billion on 65 million people would give each person $13,800," Henderson wrote. "The vast majority of people would value this $13,800 much more than they would value the amount that Medicare spent on their health care."

An outdated poverty line is preventing some older Americans from getting help

The poverty line, set at $15,060 annually for a single person, has been calculated nearly the same way since the 1960s, when housing was cheaper and groceries were a larger component of household budgets. Many government-assistance programs, like SNAP or Medicaid, base their eligibility criteria on this measure.

Older Americans told BI these programs didn't always provide enough aid to pay their bills. Mary and Steve Dacus, both in their late 60s in Robinson, Illinois, receive $23 in SNAP benefits and $2,140 in Social Security income a month. Mary previously told BI that she and her husband felt food insecure, and she called their limited SNAP allotment "pitiful."

Americans over 65 account for the largest increase in households classified as ALICE: asset-limited, income-constrained, employed. These Americans are still working and make too much to qualify for most government benefits but not enough to cover all their bills. Stephanie Hoopes, the national director of United For ALICE, said that removing complicated paperwork and verification steps could streamline applications for aid programs.

She said that raising the federal poverty threshold and expanding eligibility for government-assistance programs could also help many people access essentials. Of course, any safety-net expansion would have to be paid for by higher taxes or changes in state and federal budgets.

Hoopes added that benefits could be adjusted based on how inflation affects the costs of housing, childcare, food, transportation, healthcare, and technology, adding that this "would allow participants to keep up with the cost of their basic needs."

Still, changing the poverty line would most likely mean that government-assistance programs like SNAP would need more funding to operate, and it would increase the number of Americans considered to be in poverty — a politically unpopular move.

Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

• More than 3,400 older Americans have shared their financial and other regrets with Business Insider.
• Some older adults reflected on how parenthood shaped their finances.
• This is part of an ongoing series about older Americans' regrets.

For many people, raising children is the most fulfilling aspect of their lives. But dozens of older US parents told Business Insider that knowing what they know now, they might have made different financial decisions.

Since mid-September, over 3,400 Americans ages 48 to 96 have responded to Business Insider reader surveys or emailed reporters about their life regrets. One survey included the question "What advice would you give someone trying to decide when — or if — they have children?"

Hundreds of respondents said they had children when they were too young and financially unstable, delayed their career to raise a family, or spent too much or too little on their kids. Many said their decisions as young parents had lasting effects. Though many more mothers shared their parenting regrets than fathers, both shared very similar parenting regrets.

It's not all bad, though. Many parents said their financial and professional sacrifices were worth it to build strong relationships with their children. Others said that they did the best they could but that some parenting costs were unavoidable.

All of them stressed that despite having some financial or professional regrets, they love their children and had few regrets about how they raised them.

BI identified five common financial parenting regrets and interviewed seven parents. This story is part of an ongoing series.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Some parents wish they'd waited to have children until their careers were more established

Many respondents said they wished they had waited to have a baby until they were more financially stable. The high costs of childcare and housing made it difficult for some parents to set aside savings for emergencies or retirement, especially early in their careers. An analysis by Northwestern Mutual last year found that the average cost to raise a child until age 18 was about $300,000.

Judy Taylor, 72, told BI she loves her children but regretted having them in her early 20s. Taylor, who lives in Georgia, said she and her husband weren't established enough professionally to afford children and build savings for retirement. When they divorced after 16 years, Taylor shouldered additional costs as a single parent.

Taylor said she had little savings left and relied on slightly over $2,000 in monthly Social Security. If she missed a check, she'd be "dead in the water," she said.

"Babies are so precious," Taylor said. "But having another life to be responsible for can be overwhelming. Just be sure you're ready for that."

Jessica Douieb, the head of wealth partners at JPMorgan, advised that families build a wealth plan focused on short- and long-term goals that factors in education, tax planning, cash-flow management, investments, charitable giving, insurance, and estate planning.

"A frequent misstep is failing to plan for the long term," Douieb said. "In many cases, having children can delay retirement, requiring parents to work longer to support their children, which can affect financial security in later years."

Roxanne Lewis, 61, a mental-health case manager, relied on child support and food stamps to pay her bills as a single mother, though she later remarried and held stable jobs. She said she wished she'd had a nest egg and an established career before having the first of her seven children.

"When I was younger, I didn't think about retirement," Lewis said. "It was mainly about getting the bills paid, making sure the children had clothes and food. It wasn't even a thought in my mind, and nobody had ever mentioned it."

Lewis, who lives in East Texas, said she didn't often speak with them about retirement savings. She intends to work until 67, and while her finances improved after a raise in 2022, she's worried about how retirement may look with a few thousand dollars in the bank.

"I wish that I spent more time with my kids," Lewis said. "Money was a big thing for me, focusing on having enough money so they had what they needed, so I was always stressed."

Some said they spent too much on their children

A few dozen respondents said that while they felt that many of their financial investments in their children were worth it, they regretted spoiling their children — such as buying them a car when finances were tight — or not encouraging them to become financially independent. A few said they were burdened by letting their children live with them after college or stay on their insurance plans.

Douieb said parents who want to be generous with their children should prioritize nurturing their confidence and self-esteem over materially rewarding them.

"I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having ongoing, open discussions about money, reinforcing values like responsibility and self-sufficiency," Douieb said. "When they reach the right age, teaching children about saving, investing, and planning can help them become financially literate and independent, which will help them in the long run."

Some divorced parents described the financial toll of raising children alone or with limited support

Several respondents said divorce and single parenting affected their retirement plans. Some said they struggled to support a family without a second income or with limited child support, while others said being a stay-at-home parent meant they didn't have much savings after a divorce.

A BI analysis of 2023 individual-level census data found that divorced people had lower average 401(k) balances, less savings, and a more limited monthly retirement income than married people. It also found that just 38% of divorced people had a retirement account.

Nina Teasley, 65, lives on less than $2,000 in Social Security in Bethesda, Maryland. Teasley, a mom of four, was a stay-at-home mom for most of her adult life but divorced about 25 years ago. Though Teasley's children are now adults, she said she still felt the financial impact of her divorce.

Teasley said that while being so present in her children's lives was wonderful, she had no savings or retirement plan. When she and her husband split, Teasley took a customer-service job to support herself and her children, but the income wasn't enough to build a nest egg. Now Teasley isn't sure she can fully retire and worries about becoming a financial burden on her adult children.

"I thought I would be married forever," Teasley said. "I married a man who wanted to take care of me and the kids. But I wish I had not let that be. I wish I had decided to go to work and stay at work."

Michelle Patello, a vice president and wealth-management advisor at TIAA, said that there isn't one single approach to raising children after a divorce and that splitting expenses equally isn't always the answer.

"It's important to consider the different income levels when splitting costs," she said.

Some said they regretted being stay-at-home parents

The Pew Research Center found in 2023 that about four in five stay-at-home parents were women. Spending time outside the workforce to raise children meant many moms had less income to build savings and lower Social Security checks.

Older Americans' monthly Social Security income is based on the years they spent in the workforce. Stay-at-home parents' time spent raising children isn't counted toward their retirement benefit.

Wendy DeBord, 73, said she returned to work too late after having her children. DeBord, who lives in Toledo, Ohio, had her first child at 23 and had two more by 28. For 12 years she was a stay-at-home mom and ran a day care at her house. At 45, with little work experience, she took a job as a receptionist at an orthodontist's office. She worked her way up to becoming a public-relations coordinator.

"When I entered the workforce at age 45, I had to start on the bottom rung, so I barely made it to the middle of the ladder by age 70," DeBord said, adding she had a divorce at 50 that hurt her retirement planning.

She said that staying home with her children still felt like the right move, and she cherished watching them grow up. But she said that she started building her 401(k) late and that she reached $300,000 in savings, which she described as sufficient, at 70. She gets about $2,000 monthly in Social Security, which she claimed at 70.

Douieb stressed that stay-at-home-parenting considerations go beyond a parent's finances.

"A child's financial future will be more determined by instilling strong values around money management and savings from an early age," Douieb said. "Parents can create a nurturing environment where financial literacy is emphasized, teaching children the importance of budgeting, investing, and responsible spending."

Adults without children have regrets, too

Though many older parents said they regretted how they handled finances while raising a family, few said they regretted having children. "Every parent wants their child to have a better life than they did — he is the one thing I did right," one survey respondent wrote.

Others said they were happily child-free. "I have no children and no regrets," one person said.

Christopher Gilbert, 61, said he helped raise his nephew but might have been more fulfilled if he had raised children of his own, even with the financial burden. He said he couldn't start a family because of laws banning same-sex marriage, which became fully legal in the US in 2015.

Now gay people "can get married and have kids," Gilbert said, "but that came a little bit late for me."

Gilbert, who lives in Bradenton, Florida, said that while he had some retirement savings, he planned to work his job at a convenience store for as long as possible because it keeps him active and social.

Patello said that Americans should proactively plan for retirement regardless of whether they're parents. "The earlier, the better," Patello said. Even reducing your contributions but continuing to save can make all the difference for you and your family."

Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

• More than 3,300 older Americans have shared their financial and other regrets with Business Insider.
• Some older adults said tight budgets and a lack of savings were contributing to loneliness.
• This is part of an ongoing series about older Americans' regrets.

Taffi Ozenne has a few simple and inexpensive joys in her life.

When she feels lonely, she counts them: a hot-fudge sundae at McDonald's ($3.79), a walk with her dogs (free), and the first puff of her cigarette ($9.63 for a pack) on a sunny afternoon in northern California. The 68-year-old repeats the list over and over.

"In those moments where I'm wishing I had a friend that I could do something with, I just gravitate toward my dogs and say, oh, I got two friends right here — let's go for a walk," she said.

Since mid-September, more than 3,300 older Americans like Ozenne have shared their retirement regrets with Business Insider through a reader survey or direct emails to reporters. Loneliness is a common theme.

Some said they regretted not saving more, as a lack of money makes it difficult to maintain a social life. Many said they struggled to ask friends and family for help, further isolating them from loved ones. For an older generation already facing a loneliness crisis, money woes are making it worse. This story is part of an ongoing series.

With no retirement savings, Ozenne is trying to get by on her $1,739 monthly Social Security payments and the money she cobbles together through part-time jobs at a law firm and a bowling alley. She said her schedule feels nonstop but she needs the work so that her total monthly income is slightly above $3,000, enough to cover her bills.

Ozenne said that her budget didn't allow her to travel or go out with friends and that she felt increasingly isolated. She said she regretted not saving enough to support herself in her 60s or 70s and worries she'll have no one to care for her as she ages.

"It's mentally exhausting," she said, adding, "I don't want to be a burden to anyone."

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Limited retirement savings take a social toll

In a survey of US adults commissioned by Cigna and conducted by Morning Consult in late 2021, 63% of respondents who earned less than $50,000 a year and 41% of respondents over 66 said they felt consistently lonely.

Having limited income can erode social connections for older adults. Social Security checks aren't enough to cover many retirees' bills, and some don't have enough of a nest egg to afford a night out, holiday gifts, or gas to visit family members. Meanwhile, the costs of meals, flights, and concert tickets have crept up.

"My 'golden years' are not golden at all: I live alone and have no friends," one respondent in BI's survey wrote. Another wrote, "I feel hopeless, I'm lonely, and my health is rapidly getting worse."

Joseph Coughlin, the founder and director of the AgeLab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that high costs of social activities, housing, and transportation could lead to social challenges for retirees.

"If you do not have the financial resources, you're pretty much constrained where you live," he said. "You may not be able to afford a place that gives you the opportunity for those chance collisions with friends and, frankly, new people."

Susan Harper lives on less than $1,000 in monthly Social Security, plus SNAP benefits, but she has no nest egg or investments. The 66-year-old recently moved from Oregon to Washington, DC, to live with her sister. They're sharing household bills until Harper can secure low-income housing in the area. (Harper is on a waitlist.) Harper said that while she appreciated her sister, she missed her community. She said she often declined invitations from new friends to go to bars or restaurants because of the cost.

Harper said that while she needed to move to receive financial support from her sister, living in a new city had made her lonely.

"It's just a very difficult time, and it's very isolating," she said. "Especially as I get older."

Older adults regret not having a support system as they age

In the University of Michigan's National Poll on Healthy Aging conducted in March, older adults who weren't working, who lived alone, or who had lower household incomes were more likely to report feeling lonely. About 29% of adults 50 to 80 reported feeling isolated from others some of the time or often within the past year.

Coughlin said social isolation could exacerbate the risk of cognitive and physical decline for older adults, which may increase the likelihood that they need assisted care later in life. Genworth Financial, an insurance company, found that the median monthly cost of an assisted living facility in the US was $5,350 in 2023 — a price many older Americans told BI they couldn't afford.

John Keefe, 84, lives alone in Arkansas on his $2,700 monthly Social Security check and limited retirement savings. Keefe lost his son in 2011 and his wife in 2023. He said they were his main support system.

Keefe said he didn't travel much outside his hometown, and he worries about how he'll take care of himself when he can no longer drive to appointments or the grocery store. He said he wished that he and his wife had built a stronger financial cushion.

"I've outlived everybody," he said, adding that it was especially challenging to make connections as a widowed retiree.

Though there's no one-size-fits-all fix for loneliness, Coughlin offered a few suggestions. He said prospective retirees should think about "longevity planning." In addition to building a nest egg, he said, arranging the social aspects of retirement earlier in life — such as living near friends and family and developing hobbies — could reduce the risk of loneliness later and help people budget.

"Yes, it's about how much money you've saved — but it's also about all those other little things that make you smile and contribute to quality of life," he said. "That has to be planned as much as your 401(k) or whether you had your annual checkup."

Government and local assistance can also be a source of relief for older Americans struggling with finances and loneliness. The National Council on Aging estimates that 9 million older adults who are eligible for SNAP benefits don't receive them, and many forgo aid like Medicare Savings Programs designed to help pay for healthcare and other expenses. Many local senior centers offer free or low-cost social activities, transportation, and benefits counseling.

Ozenne is taking her life day by day. Because she works several jobs, her income is likely too high to qualify her for many forms of government assistance. So she sits at her kitchen table working on her monthly budget, and she stops by McDonald's for a hot-fudge sundae if she needs a pick-me-up. Her days still feel lonely, but she tries to "put on a brave face," she said. It helps to know she isn't the only one in this position.

"There are a lot of people — we're laying in bed awake at night wondering if we're going to make it through this month and if we're going to have enough money to pay bills," she said. "And if not, we wonder: What can give? What can I do without?"

Noah Sheidlower contributed reporting.

Are you experiencing loneliness because of your finances? Are you open to sharing your story with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• Many of the 3,300 older Americans BI heard from recently regret not preparing enough for retirement.
• Financial planners described how younger people could set themselves up now to retire comfortably.
• This is part of an ongoing series about older Americans' retirement regrets.

For many Americans, their golden years can be a time of reflection — and regret.

Since mid-September, more than 3,300 older Americans have shared their retirement regrets with Business Insider through a reader survey or direct emails to reporters. Many said they wished they'd saved more, waited longer to retire, relied less on Social Security, or been more prepared for unexpected financial setbacks, such as a layoff, a medical diagnosis, or a divorce.

"I didn't really think about retirement in concrete terms," one 65-year-old wrote in response to a survey question about how people wished they planned for retirement differently. "I always felt I had time. Now I'm older, wholly unprepared, and without savings or a 401(k)."

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets that you would be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

BI talked to financial planners, wealth managers, and a personal-finance writer about what younger generations could do to avoid similar financial mistakes. This story is part of an ongoing series.

Start saving and investing as early as possible, even with a small amount of money

The amount of money Americans need to save for retirement can vary based on lifestyle and the local cost of living. In a survey conducted by Northwestern Mutual in January, the average respondent said they thought they'd need about $1.5 million to retire comfortably. Wealth managers and financial planners encourage young people with this goal — or any others — to understand their options, start early, and take advantage of employer-match programs.

Brad Bartick, a wealth planner at Baird, said Americans should begin saving for retirement while they're in college or in their early 20s. "Sobering though it may be," Bartick said, "success may require you to work a second job" or "earn a higher level of training or education."

He suggests people create a "ruthlessly honest budget" so they can identify places to cut spending and ways to pay down high-interest debt or build up an emergency fund. If money is tight, start by putting $25 to $50 per paycheck aside for retirement.

"That may not seem like much, but it is the behavior of saving — the habit, if you will — that is most important later in life," Bartick said. "Additionally, time will reward your having started early."

Bartick suggested that people whose workplaces offer retirement plans contribute at least the maximum dollar amount their employer will match and raise their savings rate as their salary increases.

A fact sheet published by AARP in December cited an estimate based on Census, IRS, and Federal Reserve data that about 56 million Americans in 2022 lacked access to retirement-savings plans at work. The vast majority of those people earned less than $50,000, meaning they may not have much surplus cash to save for retirement.

Judith Ward, thought leadership director and a certified financial planner at T. Rowe Price, said that not every employer clearly communicates which resources it offers, so workers may have to research what's available. She suggests people aim to save 15% of their salary annually.

A 72-year-old who responded to the survey implored people to "always, always, always take advantage of a 401(k) program with your employer and max it out," adding: "My mortgage was too big initially, so I didn't participate in the program for a few years. Big mistake."

Those lacking a retirement-savings plan at work can use individual retirement accounts, which most banks offer. Traditional IRAs offer tax breaks up front. Roth IRAs offer tax-free qualified withdrawals later in life. Bartick said higher earners should consider a Roth 401(k), as they're likely to be in a higher tax bracket later in life and can therefore save more money.

Bartick described investing as "the great equalizer" for young people looking to build a retirement portfolio, adding that most people can open a brokerage account and invest with few barriers. While investing can be lucrative, it involves risk and isn't a surefire way to build wealth.

Rob Williams, a managing director of financial planning at Charles Schwab, said the biggest regret he hears is that people waited too long to invest, missing out on years of compounding interest.

Retirees who didn't save or invest enough often rely on Social Security in their later years. Several older adults told BI they regretted collecting Social Security at 62 instead of 67, when their full retirement benefits would have kicked in.

A 77-year-old survey respondent who wrote that they "took Social Security too early" said they regretted cashing in on their benefit before reaching full retirement age. They added that working a lower-paying teaching job hurt their Social Security income and retirement savings later in life.

Prepare in case of a divorce or a spouse's death

Dozens of survey respondents said they regretted how they handled finances with their spouse. Some said they weren't on the same page about retirement goals, while others said the death of a partner disrupted their carefully laid plans.

Ward suggested married couples consider retirement as a household and analyze finances together, even if spouses keep their accounts separate.

"One of the biggest retirement mistakes I see is when a spouse assumes they share the same retirement vision," Ward said.

Many older adults told BI that a divorce hurt their finances. One 67-year-old survey respondent who got a divorce said they regretted "not having a 401(k) and thinking I would be OK because my husband worked hard all his life."

A study published in the Journal of Gerontology in 2022 found that from 1990 to 2010, the divorce rate for adults 65 and older nearly tripled. A BI analysis of 2023 individual-level Census Bureau data found that divorced retirees had lower average 401(k) balances, less savings, and a lower monthly retirement income than married people.

Elizabeth Ayoola, a personal-finance writer at NerdWallet, said people could protect some of their money and retirement savings with prenuptial agreements. However, prenups typically apply only to money and assets acquired before a couple ties the knot, so they provide less protection if the couple divorces later in life. She said that including major assets or money in a trust could be an effective way to secure wealth in a divorce, and she advised couples to have transparent conversations about finances at all stages of their relationship.

A spouse's death can also have detrimental financial ramifications. Older Americans told BI they struggled to get by without their spouses' paychecks or Social Security income. Others said a lack of a will threw them into a complex legal battle and probate process for their spouses' assets.

Ayoola advised couples to write a will and consider a life-insurance policy.

Build a nest egg to lessen the sting of sudden bills or loss of income

Some older Americans told BI that unexpected expenses or events, like medical diagnoses or layoffs, depleted their retirement savings.

One 78-year-old survey respondent wrote that her husband had heart problems and was recently laid off. She described wanting to reduce their housing costs but being unable to. "We are trapped in a large home living on Social Security and draining savings until it's gone," she wrote.

Dozens of older Americans said a layoff affected their retirement planning. Carly Roszkowski, a vice president of financial-resilience programming at AARP, advised older workers to continue updating their résumés and keep their skills sharp in case they're laid off.

Younger people may want to diversify their skills and prepare to pivot careers. They may also want to build an emergency fund to support themselves or loved ones if they lose their jobs.

"Build relationships with colleagues, mentors, and industry professionals. Networking can open doors to new opportunities and provide valuable support and guidance," Roszkowski said. "Reverse mentorship programs can be effective in organizations to help bridge generational gaps and build understanding and collaboration between different age groups."

Several older Americans said they stopped working or used up much of their savings because of a medical diagnosis. Healthcare researchers advise investing in routine checkups, factoring medical emergencies into nest eggs, and researching government-assistance options.

When a 69-year-old survey respondent and her husband began to struggle with health issues in their 50s and 60s, she said it took a toll on their savings: "Because of our health, I had to cash in my 401(k) for medical expenses at a very early age."

Financial planners told BI that people should analyze the value of their last-resort funding sources, like homes or life-insurance policies, so they know the total of their assets in a costly emergency. Ward said a healthy emergency fund for young people should include enough to cover three to six months' worth of expenses. As people age, they should allocate more: Retirees should have one to two years' worth of income, Ward said.

Sudden healthcare costs can drain emergency funds. Williams advised that people — whether they're young or heading into retirement — research their insurance options so they can reduce out-of-pocket costs.

Doug Ornstein, a director of wealth management at TIAA, argued that people paying high out-of-pocket healthcare costs in retirement "probably would have to live really bare-bones instead of being able to leave their kids some money or be able to do some trips and travel."

Benefits counselors can also help people determine the government aid they qualify for — the money may help them conserve savings and cover bills. The National Council on Aging estimates that up to 9 million older Americans are eligible for government assistance but not enrolled.

Ayoola said that benefits like SNAP or Medicaid could help lower-income people save money over time. "I would tell them to look around for as many government resources as possible to supplement their income," Ayoola said.

Are you an older American with any life regrets that you would be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

• Over 2,000 older Americans and counting have shared their financial and other regrets with BI.
• Some experienced financial distress after losing their spouses to illness or accidents.
• This is part of an ongoing series about older Americans' regrets.

Karen Lauer's husband died without a will. On top of the grief of losing the person she loved, Lauer's finances were thrown into chaos.

She's one of many older widows and widowers who have shared their stories with Business Insider in recent months. They're among the more than 2,000 Americans who've responded to a reader survey about their life regrets. This story is part of an ongoing series.

Some widows told BI they lost substantial amounts of their household income or were thrust into complex legal battles for their spouse's assets.

Others regret not outlining a will, skipping a life-insurance policy, or not building savings before their spouse's death: "Having been widowed twice and left with three girls to raise alone, I wish I would've saved money for my retirement years," one survey respondent wrote.

"I hate living without my husband — I needed to prepare for widowhood while making the most of our last years together," another said.

For Lauer, sorting through the pieces of her husband's estate has been painful.

"Because we didn't have a will, I feel like I'm going through a divorce between my dead husband and myself," Lauer said.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

How losing a partner can take a painful financial toll

Lauer, 64, smiles thinking about the man nicknamed "Cowboy Steve." She pictures him cantering on his horse at their ranch in western Nebraska, gathering a thin layer of dust on his leather boots.

Her husband died following an accident last year. Without a will, she said the local court told her that all of her husband's money and assets would go into probate, a legal process used to divide a deceased person's estate, typically among their blood relatives. Lauer said because the ranch was in Steve's name, not hers, she was required to move off the ranch during the process so the house could be sold. She said she's now experiencing homelessness.

She's house-sitting for a friend in Lincoln, Nebraska, but doesn't know where she'll live next. With limited savings of her own, Lauer said she's surviving on less than $2,000 in monthly Social Security payments. She said it's not enough to cover essentials or rent her own apartment.

Lauer's financial experience mirrors that of others. In fact, on average, widows have lower 401(k) balances, less savings, and a more limited monthly retirement income than married retirees, BI found in an analysis of individual-level data from the Census Bureau's 2023 Survey of Income and Program Participation.

The average monthly income of widowed retirees is higher than that of divorced retirees and retirees who never married. But at an average of $2,381 monthly, their income is still several hundred dollars lower than that of married retirees with a surviving spouse. The analysis looked at retirees' income from pensions, Social Security, retirement accounts, or insurance benefits.

Doug Ornstein, the director of wealth management at TIAA, told BI that losing a spouse could have "devastating" financial impacts.

"If the person who handled most of the money passes away unexpectedly or early, the surviving spouse might not have financial literacy," he said. "Or maybe the couple undersaved for retirement — that person has to figure it out themselves."

A report published in June by the financial firm Thrivent found that less than half of widowed women feel prepared to manage their finances after a spouse's death. Twenty-nine percent of women surveyed said they created a will with their spouse, while 41% said they had no financial plan before their spouse's death. The firm surveyed a national sample of 422 female widows in May 2024.

Lauer wishes her "marriage license came with instructions," she said. Steve died unexpectedly, and Lauer said she didn't have enough knowledge about the probate and asset-division process, or how it would affect her livelihood as the surviving spouse. She advises other married people to write a will and make a financial plan as soon as possible.

How to protect your finances if your spouse dies

Ornstein said there are a few key ways that Americans can financially protect themselves if their spouse dies.

The first step is creating a will and having regular conversations about finances as a couple. A life-insurance policy — which people can buy or opt in to through their employer — can provide further financial security to a deceased person's family after their death. Typically, people pay a regular premium for the insurance throughout their career and can name a spouse or children as their beneficiaries.

Ornstein told BI that widows and widowers should work with an estate-planning attorney, financial advisor, and tax professional directly after their spouse dies. He added that, when preparing for those meetings, it's best to collect as many legal and financial documents as possible: a death certificate, a marriage license, bank statements, tax returns, benefits paperwork, insurance policies, and a will.

With an attorney and financial advisor, widows and widowers should apply — or reapply — for benefits such as Social Security and pensions, Ornstein said. They may be entitled to spousal benefits or higher monthly government aid. He added that a surviving spouse would likely have to transfer ownership of assets like a house, credit card, retirement account, or loan to themself or another family member.

"Take things one step at a time," he said in a follow-up email. "It's normal to feel stressed, overwhelmed, and anxious in this situation."

Still, not all widows or widowers have regrets about their money habits, even if they're in a precarious financial position.

Looking back on his 48 years of marriage, Robert Berkeley feels good about how he spent his money. He and his wife, Lourdes, spent decades traveling, dining at their favorite restaurants, and hosting big family holiday gatherings in their eastern North Carolina home. After their respective careers as an intelligence analyst and a dental hygienist, the couple decided to retire in their 60s — living largely on their monthly Social Security checks and the few thousand dollars they had saved.

Twelve years later, in 2022, Lourdes was diagnosed with cancer. The disease was aggressive, and she died within a couple of months.

Now 78, Berkeley is struggling to make ends meet. He and his wife didn't have a life-insurance policy or robust savings. He said it's been difficult to afford housing, utilities, groceries, and transportation without two Social Security incomes. Berkeley receives a $1,650 monthly payment, but he's in debt and behind on bills. He's hoping the part-time security guard job he landed recently will help fill the gaps.

Despite his limited budget, Berkeley feels at peace with past spending habits: "We decided to live our life in our 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, right up to hitting our early 70s," he said. "We weren't the kind to squirrel money away for something that might happen in the future."

The couple lived — and spent — in the moment, he said. He may not have much wealth left as he ages, but Berkeley said it's worth it for the years he had and the memories he made with his "darling wife."

Are you struggling with finances after losing a spouse? Are you open to sharing your experience with a reporter? If so, reach out to [email protected].

• More than 2,000 older Americans and counting shared their financial regrets with BI.
• Many said they had made mistakes that led them to return to work after retirement.
• This is part of an ongoing series about older Americans' regrets.

After retiring less than a year ago, Sylvia, 64, is back at work.

The under $2,000 a month she receives in Social Security isn't enough to pay her bills, and she has little retirement savings, so she recently started a job as a cashier.

Sylvia is one of many older adults who have shared their retirement stories with Business Insider in recent months. Some said they returned to work out of financial necessity; others unretired to stay active and combat loneliness. They're among more than 2,000 Americans who have responded to a reader survey about their life regrets. This story is part of an ongoing series.

Sylvia, who requested to use only her first name for privacy, was hoping to land a part-time role in education or local government near Albany, New York. Though she has decades of experience and has submitted hundreds of applications, she's had no luck getting hired in her field and opted to pick up shifts at the grocery store.

Now, Sylvia isn't sure whether she will ever be able to stop working. She said she's "mad" at herself for not building a strong financial foundation for retirement — she thought Social Security would be enough to get by. The manual labor of a grocery job is taking a toll on her mind and body, but she said she needs the money.

"I'm scanning groceries and I'm thinking: 'I hold a master's degree, I recently received an award from one of our state senators, and I can't obtain professional work,'" Sylvia told BI. "Can you believe that?"

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American with any life regrets you'd be comfortable sharing with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Some older adults can't retire because of their finances

Sylvia's experience isn't uncommon. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that 2.4 million excess retirements occurred in the US as the pandemic began in 2020, meaning the number of retirees far surpassed the Fed's prediction. However, an Indeed Hiring Lab analysis of individual-level Census data found that 1.5 million retirees had returned to the workforce by March 2022.

In a study published in May, the wealth management firm T. Rowe Price estimated that 48% of those working in retirement needed their paycheck, while 45% chose to work for social and emotional benefits. The study was based on survey responses of 2,895 401(k) plan participants and 1,136 retirees in 2022.

What's more, one in five adults ages 50 and over surveyed by AARP and the University of Chicago's NORC research firm in January said they didn't have retirement savings.

But going back to work as an older American isn't so simple. These job seekers may struggle to land a job because of ageism in the hiring process, said Jessica Johnston, the senior director for the National Council on Aging's Center for Economic Well-Being. They could also face difficulty finding a job because their skills don't meet changing technology requirements.

"For people who are trying to reenter, a lot of them need job training," she said. "And the amount of digital literacy required to do a lot of even part-time work is not inconsequential."

Some retirees who return to the workforce for financial reasons are also conscious that earning too much can cost them more in lost benefits than they make in take-home pay. Government assistance programs that some older Americans rely on, like Medicaid or SNAP, have income ceilings. For example, a single person in Utah, like Claudia Rufino, must keep her gross monthly income below $1,670 to qualify for Medicaid.

Rufino feels trapped in that catch-22. As a single mom, she worked multiple jobs in retail and design to support her family, but a tight budget meant she couldn't build savings. After retiring and taking Social Security a decade ago — which currently amounts to $1,103 a month — the 72-year-old said she had been struggling to afford essentials.

To help cover her bills, Rufino took a part-time role working with foster children near her home in Salt Lake City. She said that she earns a stipend of a few hundred dollars a month.

Rufino wishes she had extra money to travel in her golden years: "I want to go see the world, but I don't have the money to do it," she said.

She would pursue a higher-paying job, but she said that would risk her Medicaid benefits, meaning she would have to pay more of her healthcare costs out-of-pocket. She also lives in a subsidized housing unit, and she said a higher income would mean an untenable rent increase. Those are trade-offs she can't afford to make.

"Going back to work is not worth it for me in my situation," she said. "I don't make enough money to make it worthwhile."

Resources for older adults in the job market

Retirement and economy experts told BI that there are resources for older adults who are back on a job hunt.

Johnston said that, for those who can't find work, government assistance programs can help some Americans afford essentials like groceries, housing, healthcare, and transportation.

In August, the National Council on Aging estimated that 9 million adults ages 65 and older would qualify for SNAP benefits but weren't enrolled, with many of those people eligible for other programs as well, like Social Security and Medicare Savings. The group hypothesized that some lower-income older adults don't know they are eligible.

Johnston said lower-income older Americans should take the food, healthcare, transportation, and housing benefits they are entitled to — local senior centers and benefits counselors can help them get started, she said.

"I'm a big believer that you can't budget your way out of poverty," Johnston said.

Allison Shrivastava, an economist for the job-search platform Indeed, added that older adults looking to return to work should lean on their professional networks to get a leg up on open positions and interviews. She also advised that job seekers spend time obtaining updated certifications and technology skills in their field: "It shows that you are willing to learn and you're willing to adapt," Shrivastava said.

To be sure, financial need isn't the only reason that retirees return to work.

Bonnie Cote, 75, returned to the workforce part time as a substitute teacher shortly after retiring about 10 years ago. She spent decades working for the Department of Education near Washington, DC, along with a stint teaching art at a nearby school.

Cote's income supplements her savings and $2,300 monthly Social Security checks, but she says her job keeps her active. She loves teaching, being social, and working with students on assignments and art projects.

Cote said she felt pressured by friends and financial advisors to leave her career in education in her mid-60s and came to regret it. She said she retired too soon, and she's happiest in a classroom.

"It doesn't matter what age you are," Cote said. "You should be able to get a job."

Have you unretired? Are you struggling with finances in retirement? If you're open to sharing your story with a reporter, reach out to [email protected].