• 56 million US workers lack employer-provided pension or retirement savings plans.
• A new AARP report highlights the financial insecurity facing workers without retirement plans.
• Those workers would likely have difficulty living solely off Social Security.

Many Americans don't feel ready for retirement — and their jobs aren't stepping in to fill in the economic gaps.

A new analysis from the AARP Public Policy Institute finds that, in 2022, 56 million Americans — nearly half of the private-sector workforce — worked for employers who didn't offer pension or retirement savings plans.

Workers with less education and lower earnings were less likely to have access to plans. Specifically, AARP said that about 75% of private-sector workers with less than a high school degree, 50% of workers with some college, and 31% of workers with a bachelor's degree do not have a retirement plan. On top of that, about 79% of workers earning $53,000 or less annually and 21% of workers earning over $53,000 do not have retirement plans.

David John, one of the AARP report's authors, told Business Insider that even while those workers would get Social Security benefits, they likely wouldn't be enough to supplement other expenses.

"The fact is that if you are a career lower-income individual, yes, Social Security is going to replace a higher proportion of your earnings, but you still have the emergencies that are going to come up," John said. "And that includes things like car repair, cost of medication, house repair — hot water heaters don't really care who you are at the time they decide to fail."

The AARP report said that, with the average Social Security benefit totaling around $1,767 a month in 2022, most retirees will need additional income sources to stay financially afloat.

"We have a substantial number of people who don't have sufficient retirement savings to supplement their Social Security. Social Security is it for a substantial number of people," John said. "And that means, essentially, that they may not have the kind of retirement that they dreamed of."

The report uses data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey on employer coverage, which provides data on Americans' work, earnings, and education, and adjusts it by factoring in additional data from the Survey of Consumer Finances and IRS to bring the findings in line with the overall population, allowing the researchers to break out specific demographic groups.

Financial security remains a top concern for many older adults. A recent report from the Alliance for Lifetime Income's Retirement Income Institute found that in 2024, over 30 million Americans born between 1959 and 1964 — the tail end of the baby boomer generation — will start turning 65, meaning many of them will increasingly start to rely on retirement savings. Without a retirement plan, some previously told BI they would likely have to continue working to supplement their Social Security.

Some states have taken steps to aid workers who do not have access to retirement plans through their employers. California created a program in 2019 called CalSavers, which requires employers in the state who do not sponsor a retirement plan to provide individual retirement accounts that employees are automatically enrolled into unless they opt out. John said that some variation on that type of plan could work at the federal level.

"The basic model or the basic way the state programs are structured can be a guide to help create a national solution to the retirement coverage problem," he said.

The latest Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees report found that Social Security will only be able to pay out full benefits for the next 11 years if Congress does not intervene.

John said that the lack of coverage goes beyond just weighing down individuals — it could also have a drag on the wider economy.

"If we have a substantial number of people who don't have sufficient resources, they're going to put pressure on governments," he said. Those retirees will likely be more dependent on government programs like housing, healthcare, and senior citizen centers. "There is an expense to the economy and there is an expense to frankly the future by not dealing with this problem."

Do you not receive retirement benefits through work and are worried about your future? Contact these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

The American dream — like a beloved pair of pants you left in the dryer too long — is shrinking.

The idealized image of American life we know today was crystallized in the country's collective imagination in the 1930s. Since then, the idea that anyone can obtain a life that has the house with the white picket fence, 2.5 children, a lucrative career at an office that's a reasonable distance away, and the occasional trip to an enviable vacation spot has loomed large in nearly every facet of cultural and political life.

There's just one problem: The once expansive vision is getting smaller. Not only is it harder to grab a piece of it, like a bag of chips or a roll of toilet paper that has less substance every time you buy it, but even nominally achieving the dream is leaving people unsatisfied. Americans are having fewer kids, their houses are getting smaller, they're schlepping further to work, and they're spending less time on vacation.

Americans are taking notice of the diminishing returns. Among the 8,709 US adults surveyed by the Pew Research Center from April 8 to 14, 41% said that achieving the American dream was once possible but no longer. That's particularly true for younger Americans; 18- to 29-year-olds were the most likely to say that the American dream was never possible, and only 39% said that it's still possible. Their millennial counterparts felt similarly, though they were slightly more bullish on the possibility of the American dream.

At the same time, Americans are increasingly less satisfied with their personal lives, Gallup polling from January found. The share of Americans who are "very satisfied" with their personal lives has been plummeting, the poll found, and sits near record lows — other times it's gotten this bad were during the economic crisis of 2008 and its fallout in the following years. And even among those who might have achieved the American dream — higher earners with college degrees — life satisfaction has slipped.

Call it the shrinkflation of the American dream.

The central element of the American dream is owning a house. Having a roof over your head is the cornerstone of security and stability; research has found homeowners are less stressed than their renter counterparts, and beyond having a place that they can call their own, they have growing equity. But nowadays, the homes that many Americans live in rarely have enough room for a big dog — much less a picket fence.

In 2013, the median square footage of a new single-family housing unit was about 2,460. In 2015, new homes peaked at about 2,470 square feet — and then spent the next six years shrinking. In 2021, homes started to slowly get bigger again, and then they once again constricted. By 2023, the figure had fallen to about 2,180 square feet. An analysis by the National Association of Home Builders found that the share of single-family homes built with two bedrooms or fewer hit its highest level since 2012 — and the share of new homes built with four bedrooms fell to its lowest level since 2012.

Of course, homes getting a little smaller isn't necessarily a bad thing — many advocates for increasing the housing supply argue that the dedication to giant homes has made it tougher to build the number of new units that the country needs. But shrinking homes are coupled with another biting reality: Americans are paying more for less. In the same period that Americans have seen their homes shrink, home prices have grown by nearly $200,000. The median listing price per square foot was $127 in 2016; by 2024, that rose to $224 — meaning Americans were shelling out more per square foot, even as their square footage decreased. By one measure, Americans now need to work 110 hours a month to be able to afford their mortgages — meaning mortgages eat up the bulk of their earnings.

With those prices, it's no wonder first-time homebuyers are older than ever. The National Association of Realtors found that the median age of first-time homebuyers hit 38 in 2024, a record high. In 1981, the median age of a first-time buyer was 29; in 2014, it was 31.

It's not all peaches and rainbows for American renters, either. The median rent price in the US is $2,035, Zillow found. Rent.com, meanwhile, found that median rental asking prices hit about $1,619 in October. That's nearly a $300 increase from May 2019. So if renters are paying more, surely they're still at least getting some bang for their buck? Nope, apartments are getting smaller, too. In 2016, the median square footage of a new unit in a building that had two or more units was 1,105 square feet. Apartments have been shrinking since then: In 2023, new units were clocking in at a median of 1,020 square feet — and the measure reached its lowest recorded level in 2021 as housing prices and demand soared.

A house is just a house until there are people in it; only then, the saying goes, is it a home. But increasingly, American homes are occupied by fewer people. Not only is there a slight rise in single people buying a house, but also the pitter-patter of babies' feet is becoming less common in the hallways of American homes these days. The share of homebuyers without a child under 18 in the house rose to a new high of 73%. That comes as Americans are having fewer kids: The average number of births per woman in the US has fallen from nearly four in 1960 to 1.7 in 2022.

It should come as no surprise that Americans are having fewer children given the economic and social pressures working against them. If it's hard for anyone to break into the ranks of homeowners, it's even more difficult for parents. Housing costs aren't the only deterrent, young parents are also floundering amid rising childcare costs and the loss of the social connections that are critical to raising kids. At the same time, more Americans seem to be on board with choosing to go child-free. DINKs — double-income, no-kid couples — have been on the cultural rise. But just because it's harder for people with kids and more acceptable to forgo them doesn't mean that people are giving up on starting a family. Many Americans want to have children or have even more kids, but it's out of reach.

Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who's researched the gap between the number of children Americans intend to have versus their ultimate childbearing, told me that having kids is often seen as the "last step" in accomplishing the American dream. You go to college, you line up a good job, you get married, you buy a house, and then you fill it with kids. There's a problem, though. "Every step along the way has become less and less predictable," she said.

Guzzo's research has found, in part, that Americans still expect to have children — they just don't actually have them. The way Guzzo describes it is many Americans want kids, but with an asterisk: They want kids if they can find a good partner, a good job with family leave and enough pay to afford childcare, and so on.

"People need to feel confident that the next 25 years of their lives and the world in which their children will be raised and growing and becoming adults on their own. They need to feel confident about those," Guzzo said. "And we do not do a good job right now in the United States of making people feel confident about their futures."

Part of the American dream is the ability to actually enjoy it. You can come home for dinner, spend a nice evening with your family, and maybe enjoy some ice cream in front of the TV before heading to bed at a reasonable hour.

Unfortunately, for many people, the free time is getting sapped by a mind-numbing commute. The average travel time to work in 1990 was 22.4 minutes one way. By 2023, it rose to 26.8 minutes. That may not sound like a lot, but that adds up to nearly 4.5 hours a week just commuting to work, or about 10 days a year, assuming they went in every workday. Even if they're going into the office three days a week, that's still nearly 2.7 hours a week commuting, or the equivalent of almost 6 full days a year. Meanwhile, in 1990, Americans spent just about 3.7 hours a week commuting — about 44 minutes less a week. That's a whole episode of "Real Housewives." Even on a small scale, research has found that every minute added to a commute can reduce one's satisfaction with both their job and their leisure time. Most Americans commuting are doing so by car, which can also weigh on workers' mental health — and how well they're sleeping.

And as more Americans have moved away from urban cores — perhaps in pursuit of buying a house in cheaper areas — they're living farther from work. Young families, in particular, have fled larger urban areas and are finding themselves in the farthest reaches of suburbia. If you want the American dream of that larger, cheaper house, you might be paying for it in minutes stuck behind the wheel.

Reveling in the American dream also includes unwinding away from that house and job. But even as more Americans have access to paid vacation, that doesn't mean they're taking it. In July 1980, over 10 million working Americans were on vacation. At the height of the pandemic, that number had halved. And even as more Americans went on vacation in July post-2020, the number of workers vacationing in July has essentially plateaued over the past few years.

As The Washington Post found in an extensive analysis of eroding vacation time, some of that might be chalked up to another form of shrinkflation: Workers saving their vacation days for when they're feeling sick. In a very Dickensian twist, Americans might not be going on vacation because they're too busy being sick or caring for their ill kids instead.

All of this is not to say that the American dream has gone extinct, but there's a marked shift from the idea that things will get better for each successive generation. In a country where growth, expansion, and constantly improving your lot — and your family's lot — are North Stars, a diminishing and sickly American dream is a bit of an existential downer.

After all, in a March 2023 survey of 1,019 American adults by The Wall Street Journal and NORC, 78% of respondents said they were not confident that life would be better for their kids' generation. The share not confident their kids' lives will be better has soared over the past few decades; in 2000 just 42% said the same. In short: Many Americans are feeling like the dream is slipping through their fingers.

Guzzo said that we're seeing a bifurcation of the American dream. For the ultrawealthy, the ability to accumulate the markers of the dream has never been easier. The top 1% holds just over 13% of all real estate by dollar value in the US, while the bottom 50% holds just about 10%. And, as the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta recounted in its December Beige Book round-up, lower- and middle-income consumers are scaling back their vacation plans; they're renting homes for multiple families and eating in rather than splashing out on hotels or fancy restaurants. Instead, the strength in tourism spending comes from those higher-income consumers exploring and going on cruises. For Americans in the middle, those who might have the college degree and career that could set them on that trajectory, the dream is still possible, though it may come later in life. But Guzzo said others, especially younger men without college degrees, feel the American dream has been pulled out from beneath them.

At the same time, there's a bittersweet parallel running alongside the shrinking of the American dream. For decades, things like homeownership or formal recognition of marriage were out of grasp — and, in some cases, expressly forbidden — for many marginalized groups. It's only in recent history that LGBTQ+ Americans and Americans of color have been able to somewhat catch up to their straight and white peers. But now that the American dream is within reach for these people, it's already shrinking.

Juliana Kaplan is a senior labor and inequality reporter on Business Insider's economy team.

• In recent years, remote work and affordable housing drove young Americans to move to rural areas.
• Places like Dawson County, Georgia, are seeing growth among young people seeking space and savings.
• It reverses a decadeslong trend of movement into cities.

Chase Voss, 36, moved this year from Hawaii to rural Georgia to be closer to family.

His new home, Dawson County, is one of the fastest-growing counties in the US for young people, amid a wave of movers into rural areas that's reversing a decadeslong trend toward cities.

Voss, a real-estate agent, said many younger and middle-aged families have moved to Dawsonville from out of state for job reasons. Though there aren't many jobs in Dawsonville itself, which has a population of just over 4,600, some work tourism or nature jobs in the nearby mountains, while others commute the over 50 miles to Atlanta or work remotely.

"Dawsonville is far enough away where they can feel that remoteness but still close enough to the city that they can have access to everything," Voss said.

In recent years, younger professionals have been bucking a longtime trend of their age group: moving to cities. Now, with flexible work arrangements and high housing costs, many are forgoing more densely populated areas in favor of rural America. Those areas bring bigger houses, lower prices, and a different pace of life — and their own new challenges.

Where younger people are moving

A recent analysis of Census data by Hamilton Lombard, a demographer at the University of Virginia, found that 63% of rural counties or counties in small metros experienced increases in their populations of 25- to 44-year-olds between 2020 and 2023, compared to 27% between 2010 and 2013.

Northern Georgia, the Mountain West, and New England were rural regions with particularly strong population growth among young Americans. The 10 counties that saw the biggest influxes of younger adults were largely rural; the most populated of all of those areas is Hays County, Texas, in the suburbs of Austin, which had a population of around 280,500 in 2023. Musselshell County, which is the least populous, had just 5,308 people as of 2023.

That's a big shift from pre-pandemic patterns: From 1980 to 2020, white-collar workers increasingly moved into densely populated areas, per Lombard's analysis. That trend was expected to continue — until the pandemic and the rise of remote work. Since 2020, Lombard found, rural areas and smaller cities have attracted that younger workforce at the highest rate in nearly a century.

Jeannie Steele, a real-estate broker in Townsend, Montana, has seen an influx of young people. Broadwater County, with about 8,000 residents, was the third-fastest-growing county for Americans ages 25 to 44, Lombard's analysis found. Townsend is located about 30 miles from Helena, though Steele said many commute to Bozeman or Three Forks.

Steele said she previously considered her area a retirement hub. However, the construction of a new elementary school starting in 2019 brought many younger families, particularly some working in construction, mining, or medicine. Many are moving from Washington, California, and Minnesota, Steele said.

"We have a lot of people here that come and have this vision of homesteading," Steele said. "They want to grow their own food. They want to have chickens and gardens. Interestingly enough, though, all those things in our environment are difficult."

In Custer County, Colorado — the area that's seen the highest net percent increase of 25 to 44-year-olds — 28-year-old Arrott Smith has seen many more nice cars driving around as younger, well-off remote workers move into town.

"For the most part, that's kind of a weird juxtaposition because it is a very working-class county," Smith said.

Smith, the manager and a roaster at local haunt Peregrine Coffee, said that the area has traditionally skewed older — but saw a big influx of younger workers over the last few years. Smith said that the area's newer residents are buying homes even as costs have gone up.

"To me it's more like the people that are moving here have a romanticized version of what it is to live up here," Smith said.

Going rural can be challenging

Economist Jed Kolko said that, with the proliferation of remote work, Americans moved out of bigger urban areas into nearby suburbs or smaller towns. But headwinds in some occupations might slow down the influx of newcomers.

"If unemployment rises, particularly in the kinds of occupations where remote work is more common, employers might be more able to insist on workers spending more days in the office," Kolko said. "Even if that doesn't cause people to reverse the moves that they made during or after the pandemic, it could still slow down that trend in the future."

Meanwhile, in areas that have seen a rush of new residents like Townsend, Kolko said it's key for housing to keep up with demand. If not, affordability challenges from big cities could spread out.

New challenges confront the residents reshaping these areas. Steele said many people moved to her part of Montana after the TV series "Yellowstone" aired, though she's seen many younger people regret their moves. She said many don't anticipate the challenges of living in a more remote part of the US, such as navigating storms, buying goods in bulk, or dealing with isolation.

Recently, rentals have gone really fast, Steele said, adding that rents, on average, have increased from about $750 in 2019 to well over $1,000 monthly. A more stark comparison is some of the county's single-family homes, many of which were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s; while they sold for about $100,000 in 2017, they range from $390,000 to $400,000 today, Steele said.

Housing affordability pushed Solitaire Miles, a Gen X musician, to move from Chicago to northwestern Indiana in 2013. Miles and her husband lived in the Chicago area for about 13 years. While they were gainfully employed, she said, they weren't earning enough to live comfortably while renting. They couldn't afford a home in Illinois, especially with high property taxes. But in Indiana, they found a home with three-quarters of an acre of land just 50 miles from Chicago for under $200,000.

Miles loves having the space. A quieter pace of living has helped stimulate her creativity and her at-home border collie rescue — they currently have five of their own dogs.

But the area has changed over the past few years; the pandemic also fractured her community.

"After Covid, everything just kind of went downhill. So many people died, a lot of elderly died, or they left and they moved south," Miles said.

She's glad they ended up buying out there, and if and when they choose to sell, they'll make a tidy profit. Even so, though, the move came with its own struggles.

"It was hard. I had the gym that I loved and the spas and my beauty salon and the restaurants — all of our friends," she said. "I mean, I did make friends here, but it took time, and I had to go to places where I knew they would be."

For Voss, the real-estate agent, it took him time to acclimate to the South. As a gay man, he noticed more hostility toward his community, though he said many in Dawsonville have appreciated his advocacy work. He's enjoying rural Georgia for the time being but anticipates splitting his time with Hawaii in a few years.

"Georgia is beautiful, I love it. It's so great for so many people," Voss said. "But for me, because of the mentality of the people here, I just don't see myself staying full-time."

Have you moved to a rural area and regretted it (or loved it)? Contact these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

• The CFPB finalized a rule that allows banks to cap overdraft fees at $5 or set the fee at an amount that covers losses.
• The rule, which will take effect in October 2025, is projected to save Americans $5 billion annually, or $225 per household.
• The CFPB previously found that banks were charging Americans unnecessary overdraft fees.

Americans who spend more than they have in their bank accounts won't be burdened with hefty fees come October next year.

On Thursday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that it finalized a rule that would limit overdraft fees at the bank. Overdraft fees are charged when customers make a withdrawal that results in a negative account balance. However, the CFPB found that some banks charged higher fees than they needed to cover their losses, leaving consumers in a financial bind.

The new rule updates federal regulations for banks with more than $10 billion in assets. It provides those banks with options for lowering overdraft fees, including capping them at $5. For banks that choose to offer overdraft as a service for their customers, the rule allows banks to set their fee at an amount that covers costs and losses. If banks do want to keep making profits off of overdraft fees, they'll have to disclose the terms of it like they do with credit cards and other loans.

These changes are expected to save Americans up to $5 billion each year, or $225 per household, the CFPB said.

"For far too long, the largest banks have exploited a legal loophole that has drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts," CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. "The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."

Lower-earning Americans are disproportionately impacted by overdraft fees, per a previous report from the CFPB. The agency found that around a third of households with income below $65,000 were charged with an overdraft or a non-sufficient fee, compared to just 10% of consumers in households earning over $175,000. Americans of color and those without a college degree were also more likely to live in households affected by those fees.

The CFPB's finalization of the overdraft rule comes as the future of the agency is unclear. President-elect Donald Trump tapped Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which aims to get rid of government waste. The two DOGE leaders said they would accomplish that goal, in part, by eliminating some federal agencies, including the CFPB.

"Delete CFPB," Musk wrote in a late November post on X. "There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies."

Chopra responded to Musk's remarks during an MSNBC interview on December 7, saying that getting rid of the CFPB would be "mayhem" and "begging for a financial crisis."

"I don't understand why people would want financial crime," Chopra said, "and if they say it's duplicative, who else will do it?"

Have you paid overdraft fees or struggled with banking fees? Contact these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

• President-elect Donald Trump said in an interview that he "would consider" raising the federal minimum wage.
• It has been at $7.25 per hour since 2009; however, 30 states and DC have increased their minimum above the federal level.
• Here's where it stands in every state and the raises both parties have proposed.

President-elect Donald Trump said he'd consider raising the federal minimum wage. It's been $7.25 per hour since 2009, though 30 states and a slew of cities have adopted higher rates.

"It's a very low number," Trump said in an interview with "Meet the Press" that aired on December 8. While he didn't commit to a specific level, he said that a federal minimum of $8 or $9 "might have very little effect" because of the low cost of living in some areas.

Any raises to the federal minimum wage would directly affect workers in at least the 20 states where, as of July, the minimum wage was at or below the federal level, per the Department of Labor. Most minimum wage jobs are in the service sector, largely in food preparation and serving-related positions.

Washington, DC, has a higher minimum wage than any state in the country at $17.50, though some US cities have raised it even more. Washington state, with a minimum wage of $16.28, and California, with a minimum wage of $16, came in second and third, respectively.

On January 1, 21 states — and 48 cities and counties — are set to see their minimum wages increase, mostly as a result of existing laws, per the National Employment Law Project. In the most recent election, Missouri voted to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026, and Alaska voted to hike its minimum to $15 by mid-2027.

The last federal minimum increase was in July 2009, from $6.55 to $7.25. Since then, overall prices based on the consumer price index have gone up around 47% in the US as of November.

Trump pointed out in his "Meet the Press" interview that the cost of living varies across the country, and a federal wage might not be a one-size-fits-all solution.

"The other thing that is very complicated about minimum wage is places are so different," he said. "Mississippi and Alabama and great places are very different than New York or California in terms of the cost of living and other things."

Indeed, regional price parities data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that Mississippi and Alabama had among the lowest costs of living in the country in 2023, while California and New York were more expensive than the national average. Alabama and Mississippi don't have state minimum wage laws. The minimum wage in New York is $16 in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester, and $15 for the rest of the state.

While Trump said wage changes like California's — which hiked it to $20 for fast food workers in April — might go too far, "there is a level at which you could do it, absolutely." He said before making any changes, he'd want to speak to governors.

President Joe Biden backed a $15 wage, which every Republican senator and eight Democrats ultimately voted against. Some lawmakers on the left have gone even further, with Sen. Bernie Sanders pushing to raise the wage to $17 by 2028.

Some Republicans have also proposed raising the federal minimum wage. While he was still in the Senate, Vice President-elect JD Vance cosponsored a bill to gradually increase it to $11, although that bill also includes additional measures like raising penalties on employers that hire workers living in the country illegally.

The Trump-Vance transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on Trump's potential plans for the minimum wage.

• Unmarried women in the US without kids at home have a median wealth surpassing unmarried men.
• The former tend to be baby boomers, who have benefited from stock and real estate booms.
• Some of them told BI about how they are traveling solo and living life to the fullest.

Ruth Schick, 85, considers traveling in retirement her third career.

She began her solo travel in earnest in 2000 after her husband died. She's been to every continent and every state in the US. Her favorite domestic expedition was retracing Lewis and Clark's route. She's been to Antarctica twice.

"Any number of people have said, 'well, why would you want to go there?' But my only piece of advice is, whether it's travel or something else, don't fritter away your life," she said. Before retirement, she worked as a community college counselor and in historical research.

Schick is one member of a group that's doing surprisingly well in the US: women who aren't married and don't have any of their own kids under 18 at home. Those women tend to be older, and any children they may have had are now adults.

Based on a new analysis of 2022 data from the Pew Research Center, this group's median wealth has surpassed that of unmarried men, with or without kids. Their wealth benefited from rising home values, savings, and no husband or young children. As the US approaches a peak in boomer retirements and birth rates decline, their ranks will likely grow.

The chart above shows the median wealth of US households by marital status and the presence or absence of children under 18. In 2022, unmarried women without kids had a median household wealth of $87,200, while unmarried men had a typical net worth of $82,100. Women classified as unmarried were either divorced, widowed, partnered, or have never tied the knot. Pew could not divide unmarried men by parental status because the group with children living with them was so small.

Big nest eggs, empty nests

So why are unmarried women without kids doing better than their unmarried male counterparts? It's all about age, said Richard Fry, a senior researcher at Pew and the author of the analysis.

The former group is 61, on the median, part of the baby boomer generation. Baby boomers, ages 60 to 78, have had the time and good market fortune to accrue valuable assets through big stock and real estate booms in recent decades.

Unmarried men tend to be younger; they're 50-year-old Gen Xers on the median. Plus, men don't live as long as women. As of 2022, women's life expectancy at birth in the US was 80.2 years old; for men, it was 74.8.

"Your wealth is what you've built up, it's what you've accumulated, it's your nest egg," Fry said. "And effectively it takes time for people over their working lives to build a nest egg."

Despite the benefit of time to accrue wealth, Fry said that by some measures, like wages, women are still far behind men.

"But they're not so far behind in terms of building a nest egg. And wealth is important because you don't always want to work; someday, you want to retire." Wealth is an especially important cushion in case of a sudden loss in income or a health emergency. "Wealth is nice to have around because you can maybe tap it to sort of tide you over the bad economic times."

Older single women were more likely to own their homes and have fewer debts than younger single women, Fry said. Both older single men and women had a median of around $200,000 in home equity. Older single women had around $90,000 in their retirement accounts, compared to $125,000 for older single men.

That's not to say that married couples are falling behind or wage gaps don't exist. Men still outearn women and accumulate larger net worths and married Americans are accumulating much more wealth than their single counterparts. But the data does show that these Golden Girls are doing better than one might expect given those facts.

For Patricia Wahlen, 80, a nest egg has meant the ability to travel the world. Wahlen said she didn't have a passport until she was 46 — she was busy working as a professional fundraiser and parenting two kids. After her husband died when she was 61 — she said he'd only want to visit locations with golf courses — she got the travel bug. She's been to 85 countries; she liked visiting Scotland, where her father was from, and she hopes to return to Turkey someday.

"I love the travel. I love reading about the places I'm going to go to and arranging the trips and seeing the world. I just feel so lucky. I've seen most of the world," she said.

Wahlen said she signed up early for a pension fund, inherited some stock when her parents died, and lived frugally throughout her career. When her husband died, she didn't inherit anything from him — instead, she attributed her finances to managing her savings and retirement well.

Beyond her travels, Wahlen is in two book clubs and another social group of seven women.

"I just can't imagine staying home and doing nothing," she said. "My friends are all exactly having lives just like mine."

Women are unhappier than men for most of their lives — until age 85

Many women are still struggling in retirement and living off paltry incomes; women over 65, in particular, are more likely to live in poverty than older men. And many boomers are dealing with their own retirement and savings regrets, such as not saving enough or investing in a nest egg. Business Insider has spoken with several women over the age of 65 who have had to "unretire" or take other measures to make ends meet while surviving off Social Security.

Conversely, research finds people's self-esteem peaks around age 60 and stays high for the next decade, while satisfaction with being single also increases. And other research suggests that while women are unhappier than men for most of their lives, they take the lead on happiness after they hit age 85. On the whole, studies have suggested that single women are happier than their married counterparts.

For some single women over 65, retirement has meant an opportunity to spread their wings. According to internal data provided to BI by Road Scholars, an educational nonprofit travel company that caters to the 50+ crowd, just 29% of women over 65 setting out on adventures through the company in 2014 were solo travelers. By 2024, that rose to 37.4%. In total, over 19,000 women over 65 traveled solo in 2024 through the program.

Schick, who worked as a counselor at a community college for decades, said she and her husband never had a huge amount of income coming in. They were both on education salaries; she had a pension that she contributed to for 22 years. But thanks to those savings and her husband's thoughtful approach to retirement while he was ill, she's been able to fulfill her travel dreams. Her house and car are paid off, and she's prioritizing putting her income toward travel.

"I'm making the most of what I have, and I know that that's the attitude of most people that I know or that I relate to." She said many of the people she knows in a similar position have the same outlook: "Life isn't over just because you're getting older."

Are you an unmarried woman over the age of 65? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Baby boomers were hit the hardest by inflation in 2023, driven by rising healthcare costs.
• Healthcare costs outpaced overall inflation, and they make up a greater share of boomers' budgets compared to younger Americans.
• Gen X fared better due to different spending patterns.

Senior discounts might be particularly handy these days for America's retirees and older workers.

In 2023, those 65 and older experienced the highest inflation rates among age groups based on the items they buy, per an analysis from Wells Fargo economists. The analysis found that mounting healthcare costs, which have outpaced broader inflation, particularly weighed on baby boomers, who are aged 60 to 78. Simultaneously, older Americans did not spend as much on things like gas, where costs deflated.

It's not just healthcare that ate away at boomers' wallets. Business Insider analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual consumer expenditures survey for 2023, and looked at how Americans 65 and older spent on different categories compared to all households.

Across all age groups, health insurance made up around 5% of annual spending in 2023; for Americans over 65, it was just over 9%. That's likely making a big dent in their finances, with health insurance prices rising nearly 7% year-over-year as of October 2024 per detailed consumer price index data from BLS, more than double the broader year-over-year inflation rate that month of 2.6%.

In addition to spending more on health insurance, Americans over 65 disproportionately spent on healthcare itself in 2023; they devoted 13.4% of their annual spending to healthcare, while Americans of all ages allocated just 8% of their spending on the same expenses. They also outspent other Americans on life and other personal insurance.

Other items those age 65 and up spent more of their incomes on than other age groups saw mounting inflation. For instance, older Americans devoted around 0.2% of their spending to postage — a small expense, but one where prices have grown by nearly 11% year-over-year.

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

As boomers aged at home, they also spent a greater chunk of their annual expenditures on maintenance, repairs, insurance, and other expenses. Year-over-year, prices for the repair of household items grew by 5%.

Meanwhile, Gen X households have weathered inflation better than other generations. Wells Fargo's analysis showed that Americans ages 45 to 54 experienced 1.8% inflation year over year, while those 55 to 64 had 1.9% inflation. This is because Gen X, on the whole, spent less of their budgets on items with high price growth like housing and healthcare.

To be sure, a recent Gallup survey of 1,001 adults suggests Americans are doing well in retirement. Gallup found that three in four retirees said they could live comfortably off their savings, compared to less than half of nonretired Americans who expect to have enough for a comfortable retirement.

Still, even wealthier Americans told BI they've been hit hard by inflation.

Over 2,000 older Americans told BI their biggest regrets over the last few months in a voluntary, informal survey. An overwhelming majority said they're worried about their finances. A majority wished they had saved more or invested better for their retirement, as hundreds said they're still working or relying heavily on Social Security to get by.

Hundreds said health conditions, the death of a spouse, and job loss have contributed to less rosy finances. A few dozen said they weren't sure how much to save for retirement and spent too much shortly after retiring, hurting their wallets.

Many said they've cut back on experiences and more expensive purchases to focus on essential goods. Others said they've fallen through the cracks in the nation's social safety net, making too much for government assistance but not enough to feel comfortable.

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

• Trump is nominating GOP Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer to be his Secretary of Labor.
• She's a political moderate who's backed a pro-union bill that many Republicans don't like.
• That's earned her some initial praise from Democratic senators — and skepticism from the right.

As President-elect Donald Trump builds out his prospective cabinet, one nominee has emerged as a potential favorite of Democrats — and a headache for Republicans.

Trump announced last month that he's nominating Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a first-term Republican who just lost a tough reelection fight in a Democratic-leaning Oregon district, to serve as his Secretary of Labor.

Unlike most Republicans, she's positioned herself as an ally of labor unions, has co-sponsored major Democratic pro-union bills, and has earned the backing of some prominent labor leaders ahead of her Senate confirmation battle next year.

"Oftentimes, you'll get a nominee out of a Republican administration who has had an anti-labor record," said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. "Her track record would suggest she could be a good advocate."

Chavez-DeRemer is one of just three House Republicans who've cosponsored the PRO Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that would override state-level "right-to-work" laws that Republicans have long supported while strengthening workers' ability to form unions. She was also one of just eight House Republicans to cosponsor a separate bill that would guarantee public-sector employees the right to organize.

"I've only heard good things," said Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. "She's a supporter of the PRO Act, and that's like the holy grail of labor."

Several Democratic senators have offered conditional praise for Chavez-DeRemer, indicating that they're willing to support her nomination if she commits to strengthening labor unions in her new position.

Meanwhile, many Republicans are declining to weigh in on her support for pro-labor legislation, saying they'd like to meet with her first. But a handful of them, particularly those who are more supportive of right-to-work laws, have publicly expressed reservations about her.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote on X that he needed a "better understanding of her support for Democrat legislation in Congress that would strip Louisiana's ability to be a right to work state, and if that will be her position going forward."

"I don't know her, don't really know much about her record, other than what I've read," said Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. "Some of those things she supports would give me some concern."

A spokesperson for Chavez-DeRemer told BI that she would reserve comment on her nomination out of respect for the confirmation process, but that she looks forward to advancing the Trump administration's policies.

An 'early test' of the GOP's relationship with labor under Trump

Chavez-DeRemer's nomination comes as the GOP's relationship with labor has begun to shifted, with self-styled populists like Sens. JD Vance of Ohio and Josh Hawley of Missouri pushing for the party to take a more worker-friendly approach than it has before. And in recent years, organized labor and labor unions have enjoyed a bipartisan resurgence of support.

Fetterman argued that it was "smart" for Trump to nominate Chavez-DeRemer, given the drift of union voters into the GOP in recent elections. "I think that means that he's making a move to continue to grab even more votes out of the unions," said Fetterman.

But Chavez-DeRemer won't have singular power of labor policy in America, and Trump's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board will likely be especially consequential for workers and organized labor.

Biden's NLRB — which weighs in on labor-related cases and can investigate different labor disputes — has, among other labor-friendly moves, ruled that captive audience meetings are unlawful and set new precedents making it easier for workers to organize.

By contrast, Trump's NLRB took steps that ultimately weakened workers' organizing ability, including curtailing organizers's abilities to leaflet at employers' property and restricting areas where union organizers could be.

"Donald Trump has not exactly been an ally of working families and and labor. So if she's confirmed, we'll see how she does," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who said he wanted to make sure his fellow Oregonian got a "fair shake" in her confirmation hearings. "I'll be listening closely to her testimony."

In a statement offering conditional praise for Chavez-DeRemer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts argued that Chavez-DeRemer's nomination offers an "early test" of whether Trump will "stand strong with workers or bow down to his corporate donors and the Republican establishment's opposition."

"If Republican Senators block Trump's labor nominee for standing with unions, it will show that the party's support for workers is all talk," said Warren.

Hawley, who supports Chavez-DeRemer's nomination, said that her confirmation will indeed be a "test of whether or not the party is going to follow this president on his agenda for labor and for workers."

For now, many Republicans appear to be in wait-and-see mode — and a GOP desire to show party unity could help keep Republican support from cratering.

"My bias is supporting President Trump in staffing his administration with the people he wants around him," said Johnson.

"I don't support the PRO Act. I think the PRO Act is not good policy," said Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. "But I'll assess every nominee on the merits."

• As many Americans struggle with a high cost of living, Gen X is in a particularly tight spot.
• Aged 44-59, the generation hasn't experienced millennials' wealth spike or baby boomers' pensions.
• Gen X has the highest income of all, but also the highest debt.

America's generational middle child is feeling the squeeze.

A growing subset of Gen Xers — who were born between 1965 and 1980, and are 44 to 59 years old — are struggling to pay their bills, picking up additional work, and cutting down spending on necessities, a new Philadelphia Fed survey shows.

That doesn't leave much space for discretionary spending, which could be adding to their lagging sentiment.

Meanwhile, the generations on either side are faring well. Millennials have seen a wealth boom in recent years driven by real estate and stock market returns, and baby boomers also have their pensions.

While Gen X saw their own gains from stock and real estate booms, they're also still stuck in an expensive middle-age phase, dealing with their own debts, preparing for retirement, and shouldering the burden of their children and parents.

Gen Xers have the highest income and highest debt as they navigate the 'sandwich' phase of life

Gen Xers are struggling with their personal finances across a variety of measures, a survey of around 5,000 respondents from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found.

As of October 2024, a quarter of Americans 46 to 55 were skipping some debts or monthly bills.

For some Gen Xers, that might mean skipping out on spending on some of life's more enjoyable things. Since the Philadelphia Fed's LIFE survey first began, the share of 46 to 55-year-olds cutting back on discretionary spending has grown. As of October 2024, over half of that surveyed age group said they were cutting back on discretionary spending.

"I rarely go out or buy new things or nice things. I usually shop for clothes secondhand, and the expenses that I'm really worried about — and they're just increasing — are my medical expenses," Wendy Graham, a Gen Xer in Philadelphia who works in the nonprofit sector, told BI.

Barbara Lose, a 57-year-old Gen Xer in Florida, said that she is struggling to pay rent; she lost her job over the summer.

"I just want to go through life and have a job where I can make enough money to go out to dinner and have a couple glasses of wine once a week. That's all I want out of life," Lose said. "I want to be able to pay my bills and take myself out to dinner once a week. I don't think that's asking too much, but apparently, it is these days."

Of course, cutting back on discretionary spending may not be all bad. As a Bank of America Institute research note finds, Gen X has seen its discretionary spending drop the most of all generations. The analysis attributes that, in part, to Gen Xers trying to sock away more for retirement and investing more.

Gen Xers do have the highest income of the generations, raking in a mean of $136,776 annually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys found. They also have, on average, $157,556 in total debt — the highest among the generations.

"I'm still to this day paying off student loans," Graham said.

But as Bank of America notes, Gen X is in the "sandwich" phase of life: Some are juggling supporting adult children and elderly relatives. Their sandwich stage comes as more parents are also supporting their young adult children.

"I know a lot of people that are in this situation that are my age, they're really getting squished between having to take care of their children and having to take care of their parents," Graham said. That could be putting pressure on spending on necessities. Nearly a third of Americans ages 46 to 55 were cutting back on essential spending as of October 2024, the Philadelphia Fed's survey found.

"I had to have some dental care done last year. I owe about $800 for that," Graham said. "So there just isn't enough. There's not enough extra to go around, and healthcare costs are just continuing to increase. I don't see any relief from that in the future."

All of those factors taken together might explain another Gen X phenomenon: taking on more work. While 18- to 35-year-olds were still the most likely to say that they took on an additional job as a form of financial coping, the share of 46- to 55-year-olds doing the same has increased by a little over half since January 2023.

"We're still a very adaptable generation," Lose, who's on the hunt for work, said. "I still have a lot of great ideas and energy and willingness to work in this body of mine."

It's no wonder, then, that Gen X's vibes are not so great. Elder millennials' and Gen Xers' consumer sentiment is the lowest among the different age cohorts captured by the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment survey.

Are you a Gen Xer struggling to make ends meet or feeling forgotten? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Donald Trump's new DOGE commission, tasked with cutting spending, has floated laying off federal workers.
• Government employees said they were preparing by networking and freshening their résumés.
• Amid the concerns with DOGE, some employees said there could be benefits to its aims.

Federal employees are reporting mixed feelings about President-elect Donald Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency and its ideas to cut costs by laying off workers and enforcing return-to-office mandates.

Some are worried, some are optimistic, and most are considering their other career options, 10 people who spoke with Business Insider said. Most asked for anonymity for fear of professional repercussions.

"We're just workers. We work in a nonpartisan way," one Department of Health and Human Services employee said, adding that they were nervous, especially because they recently bought a home. "It kind of feels like we're being villainized."

On the other hand, Jesus Soriano, who's been a program director at the National Science Foundation for 13 years and is president of the agency's American Federation of Government Employees union, said that while employees were scared, there were "reasons for optimism with DOGE."

Trump said his picks to lead the unofficial commission, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, "are technologists."

"They have — both of them in their own fields — translated science into products that have tremendous impact on the public and that contribute to America being a preeminent powerhouse," he said.

Musk is the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and other various companies, and Ramaswamy started a tech-focused pharmaceutical company called Roivant Sciences.

In the wake of the DOGE Commission, many government workers said they were updating their résumés, networking more, or assessing new career options — regardless of their political beliefs.

"Everyone is putting their ducks in a row," a Department of Housing and Urban Development administrative worker of 10 years who worked under Trump's first term told BI. "You can't be lackadaisical, regardless that the government may take forever to do something. You better be one step ahead at all times."

While it's still unclear how exactly DOGE would cut government spending, Musk and Ramaswamy have pledged to eliminate some government agencies, which could mean laying off thousands of federal workers, and compel others who have been working from home to return to the office.

The federal government is the largest employer in the US, paying more than 2 million civilian workers. The Departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and Defense are among the top employers, with workers earning average salaries near $100,000. Just under half of all workers across 24 agencies were telework-eligible as of May 2024, according to an Office of Management and Budget report.

"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don't want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn't pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home," Musk and Ramaswamy wrote about their cost-cutting plans in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

Brian Hughes, a Trump-Vance transition spokesperson, told BI the administration "will have a place for people serving in government who are committed to defending the rights of the American people, putting America first, and ensuring the best use of working men and women's tax dollars." He didn't offer any details on cuts.

Soriano, the National Science Foundation program director, said government workers were "still scared." He said five colleagues he'd talked to were actively seeking new jobs or opting to retire.

Increased efficiency is a welcomed idea. In-office mandates, not so much.

Trimming government spending and improving efficiency is an idea often discussed on both sides of the political spectrum.

President Ronald Reagan pursued a similar goal with the Grace Commission, a team of 160 private-sector executives who proposed more than 2,000 cost-cutting measures. President Bill Clinton also attempted to reduce federal spending and improve government efficiency with the National Performance Review, led by federal employees.

The efforts had mixed results. Many proposals from the Grace Commission that relied on congressional acts didn't end up happening, while executive orders were successful in reducing the head count of federal workers. Clinton's panel similarly succeeded in cutting 300,000 federal workers but managed to get only a quarter of proposals that required legislative action through Congress.

An operations manager at the US Postal Service who has worked in the department for 27 years told BI every company had inefficiencies, and "that's what we all strive to decrease."

He has concerns, however, about people stepping in to make suggestions for the Postal Service without having "tribal knowledge" of the department.

"If you're just going to be appointed to this type of commission or committee with no knowledge of what exactly the Postal Service does, then that could potentially be a problem," he said.

DOGE's intent to eliminate remote work is also a concern for some workers. The HUD employee, who'd been working remotely, said return-to-office enforcement would "absolutely" be enough to cause them to resign. They're preparing for layoffs under DOGE by looking at other employment opportunities, and they said their colleagues at HUD were taking similar steps.

Joyce Howell, an attorney at the Environmental Protection Agency — who's been at the agency for more than 31 years and serves as executive vice president of its AFGE union — said the incoming administration had stoked concern about layoffs at the EPA and fears that its mission could be compromised.

"We have town halls once a month, and we've actually broken our Zoom account in terms of the number of people attending," she said of union meetings.

Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in the Journal op-ed that the commission would target more than $500 billion in what they called unauthorized government spending. They said federal employees who were laid off would be offered early retirement. At a town hall in October, Musk said he would consider giving laid-off workers up to two years' severance.

An employee at the Food and Drug Administration said it wasn't that easy: "We're here to support a mission. We have families to feed, and it's not as easy as just quitting our jobs," the FDA employee said.

"We're just normal, everyday people — we're being portrayed as inefficient, lazy people," they added. "It feels like they're coming for us just for their own agenda, not realizing that we're the backbone of the federal government."

Another federal-government lifer said many workers like them — people who'd been there for years — were nervous they might be the first to go. The career tenure of a median federal government worker was 6.5 years in 2024, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, well above the median 3.5 years private workers have spent in their roles.

One senior official at the Commerce Department said they anticipated a civil-servant brain drain. "The scientists are the most concerned," the official said, with those in climate, meteorology, and environmental science particularly worried.

The Department of Education has meanwhile been singled out as an entire agency that could be on the chopping block.

Sheria Smith, the president of the AFGE union at the Department of Education and a civil rights attorney at the agency, said department elimination was "on the lower end of concerns" because it would take time and need to go through Congress.

Rather, being turned into a "Schedule F" workforce, which allows government agencies to reclassify workers and remove certain protections that make them easier to fire, could mean employees who aren't "aligned with the executive wholly" could be laid off based on performance.

And given the widespread denigration of the Education Department and return-to-office threats, people are most likely looking for other work. "I'd be surprised if they weren't," Smith said.

Are you a federal worker willing to share your story? Contact these reporters at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

• The post-pandemic concert frenzy has slowed, and mid-sized acts are feeling it.
• Fans are still willing to shell out for once-in-a-lifetime experiences, but mid-tier productions are undersold.
• Rising tour costs and social media influence are reshaping concert ticket pricing dynamics.

Jaylon Jackson decided it's time to slow down his spending on concerts.

The 21-year-old dog groomer estimated he spent roughly $5,500 on at least 12 shows over the past two years.

But when Hozier announced LA tour dates, with tickets selling for around $130, he decided to skip them.

"I'm very bummed out. I love his music dearly, but I really do want to value the amount of money I spend to see an artist," Jackson said. For him, that means saving his money for a top-tier production; seeing a Beyoncé tour would be his dream.

He's not the only concertgoer making that calculation. While Sabrina Carpenter concerts with their Broadway-level sets are still selling out and Taylor Swift's global Eras tour is wrapping up 18 months of sold-out shows, tickets for popular artists with mid-tier production value concerts are going unclaimed. Think of the canceled Black Keys and Animal Collective tours.

As the post-pandemic "revenge" spending frenzy cools, people are getting more selective with their disposable cash. Pressured by social media and overwhelmed with choice, they're choosing to save up for the most epic concert experiences possible. At the same time, midlevel artists are having to pay more and more for tour expenses, and can't lower prices enough to entice more fans.

"I spend a lot of time thinking about who I want to go see and how I want to make the most of what I pay for," Jackson said. And when it comes to what's worth splashing out on, "I want to see a good production, I want to see choreography, I want to see lights."

Taylor Swift or bust

Taylor Swift's Eras Tour tickets had an average face-value price of $254 in 2023 and a resale market price of $3,801.

Meanwhile, resale tickets on SeatGeek for a late November Kacey Musgraves concert in Texas are going for just $33, almost half the face-value price. Some tickets for a December Justin Timberlake concert in Arkansas are currently going for around $10 on SeatGeek. Later dates for both artists are going for more.

There's an entire Twitter account devoted to tracking falling show prices, showing how it pays to wait. Data provided to BI from ticket resale company Automatiq shows that artists like Post Malone and Morgan Wallen have seen thousands of resale tickets sell below cost for specific dates.

Chris Leyden, the director of growth marketing at SeatGeek, calls this a bifurcation in the market. Right now, some artists are seeing their highest demand ever for tours. On the flip side, there are more deals out there for fans who might want them.

Data shared with BI from SeatGeek shows that while the average price of a concert ticket has risen since 2019, there's been an uptick in tickets under $100 in the past year.

"It's sort of like the extremes have spread out as well, where we're seeing concert tickets sell for the most we've ever seen them," Leyden said. "But on the flip side, we're certainly seeing plenty of concert tickets that are still selling for a relatively good deal."

It wasn't clear it would be like this post-lockdowns, when Americans were spending billions to see live shows, and artists were eager to get back on the road and make some money.

Jonathan Bricker, an assistant music business and management professor at Berklee College of Music, said that post-pandemic, artists were booking tours further and further in advance, with a huge surge in touring. But they also encountered a double-edged sword of inflation: It costs much more for artists to buy gas or rent equipment — leading to higher ticket prices — as fans feel more pressure on their wallets from higher housing and food costs.

Mike Finn, the tour manager for Imagine Dragons and a professor at Berklee, said that many tour vendors, such as trucking or lighting companies, have drastically increased prices.

"They're pricing it for a one percenter of the touring industry," he said. That's making it "near impossible" for mid-sized acts and creating a chicken and egg situation, he said. Artists have to raise their prices to pay their vendors, but cash-strapped consumers want those higher prices to be worth their while. It's leading to some of those lower resale prices: Fans are making it clear that the higher price points aren't working for them.

After all, with ticket prices getting driven up, "the experience expectations are being driven up," Finn said. "They're going to want a night to remember."

Some of that might be a social media effect, where the biggest and flashiest shows get a ton of hype. Music lover Jackson pointed to examples like Charli XCX and Troye Sivan's Sweat tour, which seemed to go viral every week, or Sabrina Carpenter's Short n' Sweet tour. With social media, he said, there's a real influence to go see bigger artists — and post about it.

"In the past year or so, we've seen more people willing to spend a premium price on seeing their favorite artist live," Joseph Bocanegra, a StubHub spokesperson, said. "Fans view these types of events as a bucket-list item, like their team playing in the Super Bowl, rather than something to do on a Saturday night."

Music fans are acting more like sports fans

Automatiq's data showed that the average ticket price for the $50 to $200 range — the price point where many middle-size artists are likely residing — fell by nearly 23% from the first month that they were on sale to the last month that they were on sale. In the final month of being listed on resale sites, nearly 37% of tickets in that price range sold below cost.

"Nearly 40% of concert tickets in the U.S. for 2024 currently have an average price sold for under $50 on StubHub, including Ice Spice, Omar Apollo, and girl in red, and nearly 80% have an average price sold for under $100," Bocanegra, the StubHub spokesperson, said.

That might be good news for fans, who are waiting out ticket prices that might not be the right fit for their wallets. But for artists, the new volatility might be leading to their own reckonings.

Finn said he's working with one musician whose tour of amphitheaters and clubs sold out earlier this year in pre-sale. So for the next dates, they booked bigger rooms and charged higher prices — but tickets didn't sell as well.

"We were seeing 50, 60, 55% sold in the same areas that we blew out," Finn said. "And I think that's just because, again, of the oversaturation that's happening across the board in the touring industry."

He doesn't want to proclaim a grim future for mid-sized acts. Instead, he thinks there's some leveling out that needs to happen.

"Some of these lighting companies, can they offer discounts for certain size tours — or busing companies or trucking companies? How can they help the economy and the ecosystem of touring by lowering some of the prices?" Finn said.

In the meantime, these dynamics have led music fans to act like a different kind of live events lover: Sports fans. Leyden said that 40% of fans buying concert tickets on SeatGeek are buying them the week of the event — and 18% of that is happening the day of the event.

"Sports buyers historically have been much more last minute," he said. That makes sense: Baseball fans have so many games to choose from that they can afford an impromptu decision. With a multitude of concerts available — and prices tumbling — music lovers are starting to pick up on that same behavior.

"Right now maybe the sweet spot is to buy the day of the event," Leyden said, "but maybe three days out is actually the sweet spot in the future because there's so much demand of last-minute buying."

Have you gotten any good concert deals recently or changed your ticket-buying behavior? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• In recent years, young Americans moved to rural areas at rates not seen in decades.
• But that doesn't mean they're turning rural counties red.
• Millennials and Gen Zers became more conservative, like the country as a whole.

In the years leading up to the election, young people flocked from urban areas to rural counties at record rates — but they didn't necessarily bring their big-city politics with them.

In fact, nine of the top 10 counties to which Americans aged 25 to 44 moved between 2020 and 2023 voted for Trump this year. All of those top counties happen to be classified as rural or have under 250,000 residents.

This is based on a Business Insider analysis of 2020 and 2024 election results as reported by The New York Times, and a September report on migration patterns among younger Americans by University of Virginia demographer Hamilton Lombard.

Even Hays County, Texas — the only county in that group that voted Democratic in both 2020 and 2024 — got more red, as seen in the table below. The colored swing column in the table shows the percentage point change in vote share for Trump between 2020 and 2024. The blue squares mean fewer of that county's votes went to Trump in 2024; however, the majority still went Republican in both elections, as seen in the last two columns. Counties in red swung even more toward Trump in 2024 than in 2020.

The politics of America's counties are changing

Rural areas moved right, and big cities like New York got substantially redder between 2020 and 2024, said economist Jed Kolko. He said some of the shift in already-conservative areas might be because movers wanted to go somewhere that aligned with their politics. City dwellers also may have gotten more conservative.

"The people who leave big blue cities probably don't have the same politics — or don't have exactly the same politics — as people who stay," Kolko said. "And wanting to move to a community where people have similar views could be on the list of reasons why someone moves."

Millennials and Gen Zers — both represented in that 25 to 44 group — have swung more to the right. Vice President Kamala Harris' margins among those groups shrunk in 2024 from President Joe Biden's lead in 2020, exit polling from CNN as of November 6, the most recent data available, showed.

While turnout of voters aged 18 to 29 rose in 2020, it fell again in 2024. Those who did vote went more conservative. In 2024, 46% of young voters voted for Trump, compared to 36% in 2020, an analysis from the nonpartisan Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement found.

To be sure, early exit poll data has a wide margin of error. As more votes are counted in the coming days and months, more precise data on the shape of the 2024 electorate will be released.

Data also shows that while age may not be as determinative of political affiliation as it once was, where people migrated from might be a bit more instructive, per the bipartisan public policy organization the Economic Innovation Group. Red areas with migration influxes from blue counties saw, in some cases, smaller swings towards Trump, and in at least one such county Trump lost vote share.

Some of those voting swings might be chalked up to increasing political polarization along educational lines.

"There's been a trend over many elections that places where more people have a college degree vote more democratic," Kolko said. "That trend was even stronger in 2024 than it was in previous years."

Did you move to a rural area, or somewhere that aligns better with your politics? Contact this reporter at [email protected].