• Americans face potential tax bill changes as Trump's 2017 tax package is set to expire this year.
• The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered rates and shifted brackets for filers.
• Republicans plan to prioritize tax policy, aiming to extend cuts and reduce other taxes.

Americans could see their tax bill change next year as a legislative battle looms.

Many provisions from President-elect Donald Trump's major tax package from his first term, 2017's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, are set to expire this year. The legislation lowered tax rates for many Americans and shifted tax brackets. For many everyday Americans, TCJA's expiration would mean the possibility of a larger tax bill — the Tax Foundation estimates that 62% of filers would see a tax increase should TCJA expire.

With the GOP controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, however, it's likely that the bulk of the law will be extended.

"President Trump is committed to lowering the tax burden on the American people who elected him in November with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Wealthy Again," Karoline Leavitt, a Trump-Vance transition spokeswoman, said in a statement to Business Insider. "The Trump Administration will be dedicated to ensuring that American workers keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets while growing the strongest and most resilient economy the world has ever seen."

To determine the potential tax impacts for Americans, we used the Tax Foundation's projections of what tax rates and brackets would be for single filers in 2026 under a TCJA extension and under a TCJA expiration scenario.

TCJA also impacts the deductions that filers can claim on their taxes, but, since those are often determined on an individual basis based on varying circumstances — such as having a child or business — they are not included in these calculations, which cover taxable income after any such deductions and adjustments.

Higher earners would end up with the biggest tax increases if TCJA expires. For instance, an American with $1 million of taxable income would see their tax burden grow by over $12,000 should TCJA provisions expire.

But the tax bills of Americans in the middle income band would see the highest percent increase should TCJA expire. For instance, a filer with $50,000 of taxable income would see their tax burden increase by nearly 20%; comparatively, a filer making $700,000 would see their tax burden grow by just around 2%.

Of course, this doesn't tell the whole tax story. Measures like the Child Tax Credit were expanded under TCJA, meaning that, should the bill expire, parents would owe more or get a smaller refund.

The TCJA also capped how much filers could deduct for paying hefty local taxes. For Americans in high-tax areas, which includes states like New York and New Jersey, the State and Local Tax deduction cap expiring could mean a bigger break on their taxes.

"The change in the tax brackets is only a small part of the story of the TCJA," Ernie Tedeschi, Yale Budget Lab's director of economics, told BI. "Most of the story is actually in the law's changes to deductions, exemptions, and credits."

Republicans are already lining up to tackle tax policy as one of their major priorities once they hold their House, Senate, and White House trifecta. The GOP may go even further than merely extending the TCJA's cuts through proposals from Trump to nix taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security.

But slim Republican congressional majorities will likely mean that any tax changes could be contentious, although Republicans are gearing up for the fight. Rep. Jason Smith, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in his weekly report that he's been working closely with Trump on a bill.

"Passing one big, beautiful bill is the best way to ensure as much as possible of President Trump's agenda is enacted," Smith said. "In one fell swoop, we can secure the border, unleash American energy, and deliver tax relief to workers, families, farmers, and small businesses. These are the policies the American people are demanding. Now it's up to Congress to deliver."

Are you concerned about your tax bill changing, or did it change in the wake of 2017? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

A typical weekend for 28-year-old Olivia looks something like this: On Friday night, she'll catch a game, either in the stands or from the comfort of her couch in her home city of Philadephia. Saturday is for the girls — her book club might go out to brunch or convene at one of their houses. Sunday is for bonus activities like shopping and chores to help get ready for the week. While there might be alcohol at some of those events, Olivia won't be partaking. She's one of a growing cohort of Gen Zers who are opting out of America's drinking culture.

It's a choice that's become increasingly popular in Olivia's peer group. A few years ago, some of her friends would look at her like she was "crazy" for abstaining at social events. Now, some don't even notice — and more are joining her in cutting out alcohol completely, even in a city with a heavy drinking culture.

"I've noticed a lot of my friends have also started to give up drinking, or they're just not interested in spending the money," Olivia, who works in finance, said. "They don't like the feeling of it. Part of that I think, is getting older; part of it is it's just not as cool."

This year, Dry January came with a new warning for Americans: The US surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, published an advisory that said alcohol should come with a cancer warning, as multiple studies pointed to a link between the two — even as many Americans did not recognize it as a potential danger. Alcohol stocks tumbled immediately. But if the fresh warning about alcohol shocked millennials and older Americans, many Gen Zers met it with a shrug.

"The younger generations are just a little more risk averse than we were," Mary Charlton, a professor of epidemiology and the director of the Iowa Cancer Registry at the University of Iowa, told me. "I think they're a little less fatalistic about things." If older generations embraced an ethos of "I'm going to die anyways, I might as well smoke," Gen Z is rejecting that, Charlton said — or, at least, they're more aware of who's making money off of getting them hooked on those substances.

Existential considerations aside, for many younger Americans, drinking has become incidental to a good time. If millennials killed off everything from golfing to casual dining, Gen Z might put the final nail in the coffin of social and economic life centered on alcohol. It's cheaper and more rewarding for them to opt for a different kind of connection. And, for a growing subset of businesses, that could translate into huge dollar signs.

Becca Borowski, a 25-year-old Wisconsinite, said that she drank "way too much" in college. When she was 22, she began getting terrible hangovers and decided she wanted to cut down on her consumption.

"I feel like everyone kind of realized after COVID that we don't really have to drink to have fun," she said, adding: "That's kind of when I started to realize, oh, I really don't enjoy drinking as much. I kind of just enjoyed more so that everyone was there."

That seems to be a common sentiment among her peer group. Gallup polling found that the share of 18- to 34-year-olds who drink alcoholic beverages has tumbled to a record low.

Meanwhile, the share of 18- to 34-year-olds who think even drinking in moderation is bad for health has doubled since the early 2000s. Chloe Richman, a 29-year-old in New York City who cohosts the podcast "Litty and Sh*tty," has been sober for nearly a year. Her decision to ditch drinking came after she started watching videos about popular online wellness trends such as 75 Hard and cold plunges.

"It really got to me, and I was thinking, oh, that's an easy fix for me," Richman said.

She says she only drank on weekends but would go hard when she did. That meant a lost day on Sundays recovering from the inevitable hangover. So cutting out drinking completely seemed like a logical next step. At first, the decision felt "extremely isolating" — going out for a drink was an easy option for socializing that no longer existed. But soon, she became "obsessed with the idea of just treating my body the best it can be," and decoupled fun from alcohol. These days, her evening activities include going to paint at an art café.

The shifting attitudes toward drinking affect not only how Gen Zers spend their time, but it's also had a dramatic effect on how they spend their money. For some businesses, this has become a serious issue: Concert venues are struggling with lower alcohol sales, and some bars are having to pivot their offerings, bolstering their non-alcoholic options and crafting spaces for optimal socializing. At the same time, a Gen Z nonalcoholic economy is quietly booming — and creating an opening for new types of businesses. The global non- and low-alcoholic beverage business has ballooned to $13 billion and is projected to grow even more. An analysis from IWSR found that nonalcoholic drink volume rose by 29% from 2022 to 2023, and the industry is projected to grow by 7% from 2023 to 2027. Nonalcoholic beverages have also captured new fans: In 2023, for instance, 17% of the industry's consumers were new to the nonalcoholic market. It turns out that Gen Zers still want to see each other; it just doesn't have to be over a drink.

As with any social movement, some big corporations are trying to capitalize on the recent shift. The big alcohol companies have already been gearing up for the anti-booze revolution, with many launching alcohol-free versions of their products. Heineken's CFO Harold van den Beck said in an October earnings call that 4% of the company's portfolio is nonalcoholic beverages and that that could increase to 6% or 7% of the total portfolio in the foreseeable future. Even Gen Z icon Tom Holland — who has been sober since 2022 — has launched his own nonalcoholic beer, Bero, which touts itself as "the new gold standard in beer."

Beyond the big businesses trying to get in on the trend, local entrepreneurs are also trying to create a smaller-scale community that caters to Gen Z's booze-free proclivities. Alexandra Zauner, 34, quit drinking 10 years ago. She wanted to create a way for people to socialize without alcohol, something she felt was missing in her own sobriety journey. That led her to create Lucille's, a nonalcoholic bottle shop and tasting room in St. Paul, Minnesota.

"We're seeing more and more people that are craving opportunities to connect, and it's less about the alcohol and it's more about just creating spaces for people that feel exciting and fun and gets people out of the house," Zauner said. She thinks people still want to experience nightlife — they're just opting not to do that at bars. Whether she's at one of her own nonalcoholic events or someone else's, she feels she gets to connect with other people on a deeper level — and have "genuine fun."

That rings true for Borowski, the Gen Zer in Wisconsin, who wants to get out and meet people without feeling the need to down boozy drinks. For her, that's meant pursuing some of her more creative hobbies: She's a student at local pottery studio Cream City Clay, where she's been cultivating a few friendships out of class. Connecting with peers who share her hobbies — rather than just a drink — has led her to more like-minded, creative folks.

"It's really fun to be able to take our friendship out of the class," she said.

At Chaotic Good Cafe in Manhattan — a new board game and role-playing venue — Gen Zers are flocking to play weekly games of Dungeons and Dragons. After being laid off in January 2023, the café's owner, 39-year-old Andrew Panos, combined his love for board games and coffee to create a space that doesn't revolve around alcohol (although it's still available for patrons who want it).

"We get a lot of people in their 20s and 30s coming in just to sit down and do work. We have WiFi and lots of outlets and 45 seats," Panos said. "We encourage people to sit down. So we're getting a lot of people who just want a cozy, warm spot right now."

That's pretty much the definition of an ideal third space — a place to gather that isn't home or the office but open to those who want to hang out for longer unstructured stretches. If millennials found themselves constricted by a loss of third spaces that funneled primarily into bars, Gen Zers' appetite to hang out sans alcohol might bring third spaces back and then some. A quick glimpse at the type of activities Gen Z is resurrecting — like speed dating or book clubs — shows that there's a larger cultural shift undergirding the patrons keeping these businesses afloat.

Gen Z sobriety still has its own nuances — many Gen Zers are still drinking, even if just a little. Others might be more motivated by current wellness trends and an acute need for connection than a long-term dedication to sobriety.

In Ohio, the rock-climbing walls at RockQuest are hopping on a Friday night. The general manager, 34-year-old Tyler Carson, has noticed an influx in younger folks who aren't just serious outdoorsy types. That includes everyone from older high schoolers to college groups to first dates. Carson said that the pandemic was a catalyst, of sorts — people were stuck inside and getting antsy. Now, some are opting for the thrill of the climb instead of the high of an alcohol buzz.

"There's enough fear even when doing it properly that's like, ooh, this is kind of a rush for people, especially new to the industry. And so they get that excitement, they get that thrill," Carson said.

Indeed, some of the Gen Z focus on sobriety might be tied to the overarching wellness culture and a focus on weight-loss and body transformations fueled by drugs like Ozempic. As Meir Statman, a professor of finance at Santa Clara University, said, "thin is in" in America right now, and younger people (many of whom are frequently on camera, whether it be a Zoom call or an Instagram story) are more concerned about how they look to potential mates. Emily Wilson, a 28-year-old in New York City who cohosts the "Litty and Sh*tty" podcast with Richman, said, much of the new wellness culture — including the sober-curious movement — is centered on selling new products to Gen Zers.

"Wellness is kind of a scam, but I think the fact that it's making people be healthier in some ways — like sobriety — is good, but there's definitely other ways where it's like the Ozempic culture is terrible," Wilson said.

While more members of Gen Z are sober-curious or cutting out alcohol, it doesn't mean all members of the younger generation are dialing back, and other substances might see more Gen Z support: 19% of 18- to 34-year-olds surveyed by Gallup in 2023 and 2024 said they smoke marijuana, the highest among age groups. Even weed companies are adapting to the younger generation's desire for a less intoxicating experience — Curaleaf recently launched a new seltzer with a 2.5-milligram dose of hemp THC, half the dosage of its 5-milligram seltzer launched over the summer. Curaleaf chairman and CEO Boris Jordan said their products are getting a boost as young people search for alcohol-free alternatives.

"As cannabis legalization expands and the hemp market grows, we are seeing adults shift from alcohol use to cannabis consumption, particularly in the 21-27 age group," Jordan told me in a statement.

These changes started taking hold even before the surgeon general's advisory, which may help to accelerate Gen Z's shift — and grow the market for alcohol-free fun. After completing her own research on the link between drinking and cancer, Charlton abandoned her habit of having a glass of wine at night as a reward for getting work done. Now, she only drinks socially. She thinks the longer-term effect of the prominent cancer warning might help people broaden their perspectives on how they want to spend their time.

Kam Kobeissi, 44, has witnessed the Gen Z transformation firsthand. Kobeissi, an elder millennial and a nonprofit worker in the Albany region, has never been much of a drinker; in the past year or so, he's been trying to find a community of people who don't rely on drinking-based socializing. But who he finds isn't exactly his cohort: "I'm definitely a minority in my age bracket." As a millennial, he's familiar with the generation's reputation for killing off certain activities and brands (rest in peace, diamonds). Now, he's getting to see the younger generation perform their own economic sleight of hand. When Kobeissi went to check out a board game café the other night, he was the oldest person there by 10 to 15 years.

"I really like this new generation and how it stands out in such different ways from what traditional business and marketing kind of is used to," he said. "I think it's challenging everything across the board."

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

• Gen Xers are moving to retirement hot spots in Florida and Texas.
• Meanwhile, they're leaving behind big coastal cities in New York and California.
• Lower interest rates, remote work, and a strong economy might be driving Gen X migration patterns.

Gen Xers are living like they're 20 years older — or at least moving to the favored locales of their retiree counterparts.

An exclusive analysis of Census data for BI from the University of Virginia demographer Hamilton Lombard reveals the areas in the US that Gen Xers have left behind and where they went.

Between 2020 and 2023, counties in Florida and Texas, many of which are retirement havens, experienced the largest increases in their Gen X populations — defined as those who were between 45 and 54 years old in 2023 — per the analysis.

The analysis also found that the population of that demographic in "retirement destination" counties rose by 5.1% between 2020 and 2023, over three times as fast as the country's 1.6% growth rate in the same period. The USDA defined those counties as having at least a 15% increase in their populations age 60 and up from net migration between 2000 and 2010.

Lombard said it's likely that many Gen Xers were lured to retirement destinations by a strong stock market amplifying retirement savings, remote work options, and a robust housing market. During the first two years of the pandemic, before the Fed began its interest-rate hikes to fight inflation, low mortgage rates could have been another incentive to move.

Gen Xers weren't necessarily retiring early — although some may have been — but instead potentially seizing the moment of a strong economy, Lombard said. It echoes a similar migration in the 2000s housing boom, per Lombard, which also came amid a long stretch of economic growth.

"People felt like they had more options where they could live," he said. "And with interest rates where they were, that was a lot easier to do."

Lombard said that the Gen Xers who moved into retirement areas might fall into three buckets: People who actually retired, flexible Gen X workers who wanted to move in early before fully retiring, and Gen Xers who moved to cater to the first two groups.

He gave the example of a hypothetical Gen X dentist who moved from New York to Florida after their clients relocated or retired.

Lee County, Florida, home to Fort Myers and Cape Coral, saw the largest change between 2020 and 2023, with a net increase of over 10,500 Gen Xers. Meanwhile, over 9,700 net residents moved to Polk County, in central Florida, to the east of Tampa. Another nearly 8,500 net residents relocated to Pasco County on Florida's western coast.

Three Texas counties were in the top six destinations for Gen X movers. Montgomery County, north of Houston, had a net gain of about 7,500 residents, while Collin County, north of Dallas, grew by nearly 7,400. Fort Bend County, southwest of Houston, attracted over 6,900 net residents.

Seventeen of the top 25 counties for Gen X movers were in Florida, while six were in Texas. South Carolina's Horry County, home to Myrtle Beach, and Arizona's Pinal County, home to Florence, rounded out the top 25.

Another popular destination for Gen Xers: The Villages in Florida, often thought of as the Disney World of retirement. Sumter County, Florida, which contains The Villages, gained nearly 2,000 members of that generation from 2020 to 2023, bringing the population to about 9,800.

Gen Xers may have been drawn to the ample amenities — and unique golf cart culture — that the area offers. The median age in Sumter County has fallen slightly from 68.9 in 2019 to 68.2 in 2023, per the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

Gen X is leaving behind LA and NYC

Counties experiencing the largest net declines in this demographic included Los Angeles County, with nearly 66,000 members leaving; Cook County, the home of Chicago, with about 33,000; Kings County, or Brooklyn, at 29,800; and Queens County, with nearly 22,600. Other major urban counties in California, New York, and Texas lost thousands of net residents.

Many of the areas that Gen Xers are leaving behind have high costs of living. The generation has faced its own economic headwinds, and has already been struggling to pay bills and taking on additional jobs to cope financially. Lombard also said that some of that exodus could come from Gen Xers who were already considering moving and saw how willing people were to pay a premium for their homes.

The Gen Xers who opted to move might also be part of the group still clinging to remote work. From September to December, 12.4% of 40 to 49-year-olds were fully working from home, per the latest figures from the Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitude, slightly up from the same period a year prior.

A Gen X influx in retiree-heavy areas has meant more age diversity, and median ages coming down, Lombard said. It can also be an economic boon: The new population has wealth, and is ready to spend it.

"That's really invigorating some of these local economies and that's causing a lot of business growth," he said.

Are you a Gen Xer who moved in the 2020s? Contact these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

• The US economy added 256,000 jobs in December, more than the forecast of 164,000.
• Unemployment was expected to hold steady at 4.2% but fell to 4.1%.
• Economists expect 2025 to be a tough labor market for job searchers.

The US labor market ended 2024 on a high note, adding 256,000 jobs in December, above the forecast of 164,000.

Unemployment unexpectedly dropped from 4.2% in November to 4.1% in December. The consensus expectation was that the rate would hold steady.

"We are very proud of our ability to leave with such a strong labor market," Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su told BI. "People have come into the labor market and are looking for jobs — and they're finding them."

Cory Stahle, an economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab, said there were some concerns in the job market at the start of 2024, but the data indicated signs of equilibrium in the second half.

"In the first half of 2024, we saw unemployment start rising, and it was a pretty good cause for concern," Stahle said. "But then in the back half of the year, we've seen that the unemployment rate has really stabilized."

Labor force participation remained at 62.5% in December. The employment-population ratio increased from 59.8% in November to 60% in December.

Wage growth cooled slightly. Average hourly earnings increased to $35.69 in December, a 3.9% increase from a year earlier. Earnings rose by 4.0% in October and November.

Many sectors saw job growth, especially in healthcare. However, manufacturing, mining and logging, and utilities lost jobs in December.

The new jobs report likely won't derail the Federal Reserve's widely expected pause in its interest-rate easing campaign at its coming meeting after three rate cuts in a row.

CME FedWatch, which shows what traders think will happen to interest rates based on market activity, indicated after the jobs report a 97% chance that rates wouldn't be changed in the first scheduled Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2025 on January 28 and 29, up from around 93% before the jobs report. There are eight scheduled FOMC meetings in 2025, but the Committee's members signaled in December that the Fed plans only two cuts this year.

In a press conference after the December meeting — where the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points — Fed chair Jerome Powell said that "the labor market is now looser than pre-pandemic" and is gradually still cooling down. He added further cooling isn't needed to reach the Fed's 2% inflation target.

"We're starting to see evidence that the Fed's 100 basis points of cuts are translating into real improvements, improvements in the real economy," Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter, said. "While the labor market often lags behind quite substantially, it seems like perhaps the labor market rebound is starting to take hold."

Economists predict the job market in 2025 will be challenging for job searchers, and employers might be cautious in their hiring plans during the start of the year.

"While business sentiment has picked up somewhat since the election, there is still a lot of uncertainty about future policy changes that will likely make businesses hesitant to ramp up hiring, particularly in the first half of 2025," Dante DeAntonio, a labor economist with Moody's Analytics, said in a written statement in 2024.

The new data could provide a little more optimism. Stahle said even if the labor market is cooler than in recent years, "we're really going into the year with a decent amount of momentum."

• President-elect Donald Trump signaled on Sunday that one of his first big moves will be ending taxes on tips.
• The proposal would likely impact a small segment of workers in the US.
• Those workers are likely to be younger and to work in the restaurant industry.

Gen Zers, waiters, bartenders, and delivery workers might end up with a lower tax burden if President-elect Donald Trump gets his way.

In a Sunday post on Truth Social, Trump said, "Members of Congress are getting to work on one powerful Bill," that will eliminate taxes on tips as part of a wider push to extend the tax cuts passed in his first term. The post also said that his plan will be paid for through tariffs. Trump proposed making tips exempt from federal income tax on the campaign trail, as well as slashing taxes on overtime and Social Security benefits.

Economic experts pointed out that Trump's proposal — and one from Harris that followed similar contours — would have little impact on lower-earning workers, with many exempt from taxes already due to how little they make. The Yale Budget Lab found that just around 4% of families on average between 2017 and 2022 reported tips to the IRS.

Ernie Tedeschi, Yale Budget Lab's director of economics, also found that over one-third of tipped workers already had low enough earnings that they owed no federal income tax, meaning they wouldn't see benefits from the proposal.

"It is a relatively low-cost way of trying to provide relief to highly visible low-income workers," Tedeschi told BI. But it could also be felt unevenly among otherwise similarly-paid workers. Tedeschi gave the example of a cashier at McDonald's and a tipped waiter at Waffle House. Both are in fast food service, but the tipped waiter would benefit based on tipping conventions, while the cashier would not.

Even so, a subset of workers would stand to benefit from the proposal. The Yale Budget Lab studied who would be impacted by eliminating taxes on tips. Tipped workers tended to skew younger, per a June analysis of Census Bureau data from Tedeschi. The median tipped worker in 2023 was 31 years old, and a third of tipped workers were under the age of 25.

The Yale Budget Lab also looked at what roles and industries tipped workers are concentrated in. Across industries, restaurants and other food services had the greatest share of total tips — which is unsurprising, considering how compensation is generally structured in that industry. In 2023, the median pay for food and beverage serving and related workers was $14.29 per hour, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Yale Budget Lab also looked at which occupations were getting the lion's share of tips. Waiters and waitresses received over a quarter of all tips, while bartenders raked in about a fifth. Couriers and messengers were also getting a larger share of tips — increasing from under 1% in 2017, per the analysis. That group includes, in part, delivery gig workers.

Some economists and tax experts previously told Business Insider that unless care is taken, some higher-paid professionals could restructure their compensation to take advantage of a tax exemption for tips by reclassifying salary pay as a "gratuity" instead.

The Trump campaign did not respond to BI's request for comment on the policy proposals and their impact.

Should an end to paying federal taxes on tips become law, families impacted could see an average tax cut of $1,700, per the analysis, although lower earners would see a much more modest cut. But right now, nothing is set in stone — Republicans and Trump are still crafting their tax plans, and any potential package could emerge much different than it began.

Are you a tipped worker who would benefit from eliminating taxes on tips? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Trump's 2017 tax cuts are set to expire this year, which could impact Americans' wallets.
• Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered individual rates and doubled the child tax credit.
• Experts shared how individual taxes, along with tax breaks for parents and EVs, could change.

President-elect Donald Trump and the incoming Republican congressional majorities could have a big impact on your taxes next year.

Many provisions from President-elect Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire by the end of this year unless Congress renews the tax bill. On the campaign trail, Trump proposed extending many of the law's provisions and adding more.

"We refer to this next year as the Tax Super Bowl. It's a big one," said Mark Baran, the managing director at the financial and professional services firm CBIZ's National Tax Office in Washington, DC.

If the TCJA is extended, and Trump's new provisions — such as eliminating taxes on tips — are added, many Americans could see their individual tax rates drop, or at least stay low. Additionally, Republicans are eyeing an even bigger increase to the original child tax credit from the TCJA while Biden-era tax provisions like the electric-vehicle credit are on the chopping block.

Trump's 2017 tax package had an immediate effect on many Americans — it brought down individual tax rates for almost all filers, doubled the child tax credit to $2,000 per child from $1,000, and doubled the standard deduction that Americans could claim, among other measures. If the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act isn't extended, more than 62% of filers would face a tax increase in 2026, per an analysis from the Tax Foundation.

"President Trump is committed to lowering the tax burden on the American people who elected him in November with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Wealthy Again," Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to BI. "The Trump Administration will be dedicated to ensuring that American workers keep more of their hard earned dollars in their pockets while growing the strongest and most resilient economy the world has ever seen."

"From a planning standpoint, I would love to see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extended," said Brian Kearns, a CPA and the founder of the financial planning and tax consulting firm Haddam Road.

Kearns said an extension would mean easier planning and lower rates for clients. "Will it happen? I honestly have no idea."

Here are the biggest changes that could be coming.

Tax rates for most Americans will probably stay low

Baran said that taxpayers could be cautiously optimistic about an extension on the TCJA's reduced individual tax rates.

"The election has created a little more certainty. However, the challenges are still there," he said.

The table below compares tax rates and brackets under the TCJA and if the TCJA expires.

A break for high-income filers in high-tax cities and states is a big question mark

Another provision from TCJA that could save taxpayers money is the State and Local Tax deduction, known as SALT. That provision allows taxpayers in areas with high local taxes — such as prominent blue states like New York and California — to claim those taxes as a deduction.

The deduction was unlimited before the TCJA capped it at $10,000, meaning some high-income residents of those high-tax jurisdictions ended up owing more to the federal government after the law went into effect. That's drawn the ire of strange legislative bedfellows, with Democrats and Republicans in those blue states calling to roll back the cap. But there's already Republican dissent over how to tackle the cap, if at all.

Some Republicans — and Trump advisors — proposed raising the amount to $20,000, giving some relief to Americans paying a lot in local taxes. Trump himself has said he would "get SALT back."

But the cap may end up staying where it is. "It would be great if they raised it because there's a lot of people that are needing relief, but I can't tell you where that's going to head," Scott Brillhart, a partner and the director of tax at Founder's CPA, said.

Promises to wipe out taxes on tips and Social Security could be difficult to keep

The tax experts BI spoke with questioned how feasible proposals like eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, Social Security, and auto loans would be — all of which were talking points for Trump on the campaign trail. Brillhart said eliminating taxes on tips could be a "logistical nightmare for employers."

"I think it would be more complicated than the benefit it would be for a lot of this stuff," he said.

But Kearns said that the impact of reducing those taxes could be felt among a big slice of Americans.

"This matters a lot for all different segments of the population. You're younger, you're waitering or waitressing — no tax on tips, that's a big deal," Kearns said. "If you are receiving Social Security, that's a really big deal to not be paying taxes on your Social Security."

The child tax credit is another wild card

Another provision that could impact many Americans is the child tax credit. Parents could lose out on a $1,000 tax break if the TCJA expires this year. However, at least one Republican lawmaker — Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri — is pushing a potential increase from $2,000 to $5,000. Vice-president-elect JD Vance also floated a $5,000 child tax credit on the campaign trail.

"You, of course, have to work with Congress to see how possible and viable that is," Vance told CBS's "Face the Nation."

Brillhart said that a higher child tax credit would be "very helpful" for many families and should be seriously considered.

Tax breaks for electric cars are on the chopping block

Additionally, Americans interested in going electric may want to plug in now — at least if they want some tax benefits. Brillhart said that the tax credit of up to $7,500 for electric vehicles that President Joe Biden passed in 2022 could be on the chopping block.

"If that is a deciding factor for you to be purchasing an EV, I'm not telling them to go run out and purchase something, but it's something to consider," Brillhart said.

• Minimum-wage workers in California, Vermont, and 19 other states will earn more at the start of 2025.
• Missouri voters passed a referendum in the November election raising the state's minimum wage.
• An analysis found over 9 million workers will likely be affected by the coming minimum wage increases.

Workers in 21 states are set to start the new year with a raise.

When the clock strikes midnight on New Year's Eve, minimum wages across the nation are set to be hiked. In a few states, the minimum wage will rise to $15 an hour, a longtime target rate for advocates.

Hover over the states in the map below to see how much minimum wages will change.

Of the 21 states that will see an increase, 14 are subject to inflation-based adjustments as part of existing minimum wage laws, per a report from the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy Institute. The EPI report estimated that full-time impacted workers in those states will see their annual earnings increase by $420 on average.

In the November election, Missouri voters approved a referendum to increase the state's minimum wage to $13.75 on January 1, 2025, and then to $15 in 2026. Some small business owners in the state are reportedly already bracing for higher costs, and business groups there have already filed a legal petition to attempt to overturn the new proposition. Recent research has found that independent businesses are, on average, able to shoulder minimum wage increases — although higher minimum wages can lead to smaller restaurants shuttering.

A 2022 ballot initiative in Nebraska has the state on a similar trajectory, with workers set to get an increase to $13.50 in January 2025 and then a hike to $15 in 2026.

Alaska will increase the state's minimum wage to $11.91 on January 1 because of an inflation adjustment. Minimum wage workers will get another raise on July 1 because of a ballot measure in the recent election. The state minimum wage will rise to $13 in the summer, $14 the following July, and $15 in 2027. Its minimum wage would be adjusted for inflation after that.

Delaware and Virginia are the only states in the South that will see minimum wage increases at the start of the year. Five states in the South don't have minimum wage laws, and Georgia's minimum wage is below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, based on data from the Department of Labor. That means those states default to the federal minimum.

An analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that over 9 million workers are set to directly and indirectly benefit from increased state minimum wages.

Out of those workers, just over 3 million are directly set to see their pay go up. Even more will be affected indirectly. Over 6 million workers are within 15% of the new minimum wage floor — which, per EPI, means their employers are likely to adjust their wages to compete for talent.

In addition to state minimum wage increases happening in almost two dozen states on January 1, the National Employment Law Project said 48 cities and counties will also have minimum wage increases that day.

Nationally, the federal minimum wage has sat untouched at $7.25 since 2009. President-elect Donald Trump has signaled that he could be open to changing that number, telling "Meet the Press" that he would consider raising the federal rate — although he noted that the cost of living across the country varies, making it difficult to enact one flat rate.

Mike Draper, the owner and founder of screen-printing and retail business RAYGUN, whose 10 stores include a location in Missouri, told Business Insider that minimum wage increases — like the one recently approved by that state's voters — could help bolster workers' spending power. Draper already pays his workers a starting wage of $15.50 an hour.

"This is different from a tax increase, or a rent increase, or a cost of goods increase. None of that money is going to go directly back into your community, for the most part," Draper said, adding: "Increases to worker pay is going to be felt immediately."

Are you set to see your wages go up on January 1? Contact these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

• Airline rewards programs have faced scrutiny over dynamic pricing and devaluation practices.
• Frequent flyers feel burned as airlines adjust rewards, and the DOT is investigating.
• Dynamic pricing can affect point values, leading some customers to prefer cashback over miles cards.

Sean Brown, 46, has logged close to 2 million miles on Delta, his preferred airline. But his loyalty is waning as dynamic pricing and devaluation practices have made their way to airline rewards programs and left some customers feeling burned.

"Unfortunately, there's been a pretty seismic shift in the industry," the healthcare IT executive said, adding, "That has really not sat well with me."

For years, some customers have forgone cheaper or more convenient flights from other airlines so they could earn points and perks with their preferred brand. Frequent flyers would get rewarded for their loyalty with predictable exchange rates to turn points into more flights, seat upgrades, and lounge access, among other perks.

But as air travel ramped up and more and more customers got in on the points grind airlines have gotten much more flexible about how they value rewards, offering some for cheaper and some for much more.

It's caused some previously loyal customers to jump ship — and even Washington is stepping in. In September, the Department of Transportation announced it was investigating major airlines' reward devaluation and dynamic pricing practices.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg told BI he wants to understand the effect that these programs have on competition, and whether they're dissuading customers from getting the best price.

"One of the biggest concerns is devaluation. So the points are worth something one day and something else," Buttigieg said. "Another is some of the hidden pricing where the value of rewards is unpredictable or is concealed."

For Brown, the calculus has already shifted from spending on his preferred airline to whatever gives him the best value.

"I'll just tell you, the sentiment in the plane — doesn't matter where you sit if you're in the front, the middle, or the back," Brown said, "everyone is pretty pissed off at the fact that they're getting gouged left and right."

How points changed

Concern with how airlines calculate, redeem, and communicate about rewards points has reached Capitol Hill.

In May, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra and Buttigieg held a joint hearing on airline and credit card rewards. They wanted to investigate how credit companies might be devaluing their rewards or using what the CFPB called a "bait-and-switch scam" to lure in customers.

"Our initial review of the fine print suggests that credit card companies and airlines have the power to quickly and dramatically devalue those points by making it more challenging to redeem them or by limiting the inventory that can be purchased with points," Chopra said in prepared remarks.

Buttigieg said he's not interested in telling airlines or credit cards how to run their programs — instead, he just wants to ensure that they're transparent, consistent, and fair. He's also trying to figure out how to put his points to use: He and his husband want to use points toward a family trip after his job with the Biden administration winds down.

But his points may not hold the same value as they used to. Brett House, a professor of economics at Columbia Business School, said that airlines "have progressively rejigged their frequent flyer programs to require higher and higher bars to get access to clubs and other amenities or privileges that those programs provide."

It's a confluence of several different factors. First, to attract more customers after the 2020 slump, credit card companies issued all kinds of new perks and ways to earn points, such as higher sign-up bonuses or more points on things like restaurants and food delivery. On average, sign-up bonuses were worth $326 in 2022 — a nearly 20% increase in value since 2019, the CFPB found.

In response, customers hoarded those points, using their balances as a savings account for future travel. The CFPB found that by 2022, cardholders had an average of $156 worth of untouched rewards.

But with appetites for flights high in the wake of the pandemic, Gilbert Ott, the director of partnerships at the travel platform point.me, said there was a "logjam" — due in part to airlines struggling to scale back up again.

"When flights were coming back, they were completely full," he said. That made it a tough sell to convince airlines to make more point seats available, Ott said. To sell a seat for points, rather than cash, it really needed to be worth their while.

Enter: Dynamic pricing.

Airlines have long used fluctuating pricing strategies, but applying them to points and rewards is more recent. The practice has spread to other industries to help companies continually adjust to the highest price customers are willing to pay based on various factors like timing and demand.

American Airlines told BI that dynamic pricing allows them to offer some flights at lower rates. It does seem to work that way sometimes: As The Wall Street Journal reported, the lowest award flight cost on the carrier dropped after it rolled out dynamic pricing.

Delta, Southwest, and American all noted that they offer no blackout dates for rewards. Southwest said that it will continue to offer "uncapped reward seat availability and points that don't expire." A Delta spokesperson said that members can redeem points for things beyond vacation and flights, including premium drinks in its Sky Clubs, cheaper seat upgrades, and checked bags.

All of this adds up to a lot of guesswork in the points game. As Buttigieg notes, airlines used to provide charts showing just how much a flight would cost in points.

"I do think it's an interesting question to consider: Should there be some publicly sponsored source of information that at least tells you what you can expect from the airlines?" Buttigieg said. "But honestly, right now, it's so complex and convoluted, I'm not even sure such a thing is possible."

American told BI that it's "the only major U.S. carrier to continue offering an award chart to help guide members in mileage redemptions," and a search of other airlines did not turn up results for any others.

United reportedly got rid of its chart in 2019, and Delta reportedly pulled their chart even earlier. A United spokesperson said that since it moved to dynamic pricing in 2017, roughly half of its customers have gotten flights "for fewer points than our fixed award chart offered."

A rollercoaster of rewards' values

Thanks to dynamic pricing, depending on demand or timing, a flight might cost 500,000 points on some days and 50,000 on others. By one measure, the average economy rewards prices across almost every airline have risen since 2019.

An analysis from IdeaWorks found that, on average, mileage and point prices have risen by 28% since 2019. But there are still deals to be found. Ott's point.me compares points' values across different airlines and rewards programs. Dynamic pricing, he said, has brought some redemption costs down.

"There are some airlines that charge far less now in economy and just a little bit more in business," Ott said. "But because of the dynamic pricing, you have dates that are 500,000 points and a million points — because there's a seat now available with points on every flight, and there's only some dates where the lowest prices are available. "

For Meir Statman, a professor of finance at Santa Clara University and author of a book on financial behavior, the points game is getting "entirely iffy" and he has moved away from miles cards entirely — instead, he wants cash back.

He's not alone. While airline credit card rewards remain popular, cashback rewards have become the leading motivator for consumers to open new credit cards, per a report from EMARKETER.

J.D. Power's 2024 US Credit Card Satisfaction Study found that most cardholders are using cashback cards — consumers said that they were opting for the cards due to their lack of fees and were using the cashback rewards more frequently as a credit on their monthly statement.

"People figure out that those points for miles are not worth it, Statman told BI, adding, "When I'm getting a thousand miles and I thought that it was worth a cent per mile and now I find that this is worth, God knows what, but surely less than a cent per mile, I may as well get 1% in the form of a dollar than in the form of a mile."

Are you giving up on points or loyalty rewards? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Biden signed a bill making the bald eagle the official national bird of the United States.
• The bald eagle, an iconic American symbol, was endangered but has since recovered.
• The bill received bipartisan support and was backed by eagle advocates.

One prominent member of American society received a promotion with bipartisan support this holiday season: The bald eagle is now the official bird of the United States, a proclamation nearly 250 years in the making.

On Christmas Eve, President Joe Biden signed into law a bill that amended title 36 of the United States Code and designated the bald eagle as the official national bird. The bill was sponsored by Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and co-sponsored by fellow Minnesota Democrat Tina Smith, as well as Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. The bill was introduced on June 20, 2024 — which is also National American Eagle Day.

"The bald eagle has long been a symbol of freedom and patriotism for our nation," Senator Mullin said in a statement touting the bill's passage. "It's only fitting we officially designate the bald eagle the national bird of the United States. I was glad to join my colleagues in leading this bipartisan effort and appreciate the House's swift consideration."

Bald eagles have had a long — and somewhat rocky — history in the US. The bird was officially adopted as part of the country's Great Seal in 1782 and has since become synonymous with patriotism and other American values. But bald eagles teetered on the verge of extinction in the 1900s, and the species was designated as endangered in 1967. Since then, the species has soared to recovery; as of 2020, there were 316,700 bald eagles in the US, although over 40 bald eagles succumbed to bird flu in 2022. More recently, bald eagles have made headlines for adopting rocks, stealing pizza, and fostering abandoned chicks.

The move to officially enter the bald eagle into law drew support from eagle advocates, who have been pushing for the measure. A press release from The National Eagle Center crowed "The Bald Eagle Is Ready To Spread It Wings And Soar As The Country's Official Bird."

"This is an exciting day. The Bald Eagle has symbolized American ideals since its placement on the Great Seal in 1782," Preston Cook, the cochair of the National Bird Initiative for the National Eagle Center and author of "American Eagle – A Visual History of Our National Emblem," said in a statement. "With this legislation, we honor its historic role and solidify its place as our national bird and an emblem of our national identity."

• Blake Lively filed a complaint against Justin Baldoni alleging sexual harassment and retaliation.
• Baldoni's ex-publicist Stephanie Jones also sued his current publicists for orchestrating a campaign against Lively.
• Here's a breakdown of everyone involved in the saga.

While the film "It Ends With Us" has already come and gone from theaters — grossing over $350 million globally along the way — the drama is still unfolding.

Speculation over tensions among the film's actors began brewing over the summer, when costars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni did not interact with each other during the press tour. Around the same time, Lively faced online backlash for her lighthearted promotion of the film, which tackles topics like domestic violence, and past controversies, including a resurfaced 2016 interview.

But a recent bombshell legal complaint from Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and using social manipulation to tarnish her reputation. Since the complaint was made public, costars and fellow celebrities have spoken up in support of Lively — including Colleen Hoover, the author of "It Ends With Us."

The complaint's revelations — which include a trove of text messages and emails from Baldoni's publicists — have also sparked their own separate suit. Publicist Stephanie Jones sued Jennifer Abel, a former employee who worked with Baldoni as a publicist, and Melissa Nathan, a crisis communications professional, alleging that the two orchestrated the campaign against Lively without Jones' knowledge and set out to wreck her firm's reputation.

Here's a breakdown of all the key players in this saga.

Blake Lively

Lively is a prominent actor who played florist Lily Bloom in "It Ends With Us," and produced the film. She is suing costar Baldoni, publicists Abel and Nathan, Baldoni's company Wayfarer Studios, Wayfarer Studios CEO Jamey Heath, Wayfarer's cofounder Steve Sarowitz, and Jed Wallace, a contractor.

"I hope that my legal action helps pull back the curtain on these sinister retaliatory tactics to harm people who speak up about misconduct and helps protect others who may be targeted," Lively said in a statement to The New York Times.

Lively's legal team

Lively's complaint lists legal teams from two firms — Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The attorneys listed on the complaint are Esra Hudson, Stephanie Roeser, and Catherine Rose Noble of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, and Michael Gottlieb and Kristin Bender of Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

Justin Baldoni

Baldoni played Ryle Kincaid in "It Ends With Us" and directed the film; he's listed as a cofounder of Wayfarer Studios. Bryan Freedman, Baldoni and Wayfarer's attorney, said in a statement that accusations against Baldoni and the studio were false.

"It is shameful that Ms. Lively and her representatives would make such serious and categorically false accusations against Mr. Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and its representatives, as yet another desperate attempt to 'fix' her negative reputation, which was garnered from her own remarks and actions during the campaign for the film; interviews and press activities that were observed publicly, in real time and unedited, which allowed for the internet to generate their own views and opinions," the statement said.

Bryan Freedman

Freedman is a heavyweight Hollywood lawyer who's been hired by the likes of Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson. He is representing Baldoni, Nathan, Abel, and their respective companies.

Melissa Nathan

Nathan is a crisis communications professional whose firm, The Agency Group, was brought in by Baldoni and Abel in July, per Lively's complaint. Nathan's past clients have included celebrities like Johnny Depp and Drake.

Jennifer Abel

Abel is Baldoni's publicist, as well as Wayfarer's. She started her own company, RWA Communications, and was previously a partner at Jonesworks, another PR company.

Stephanie Jones

Jones is the founder and CEO of Jonesworks; she's filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, as well as Abel and Nathan, that alleges that Abel and Nathan conducted the campaign against Lively behind her back, used social manipulation tactics against her firm, and stole clients when Abel left Jonesworks.

Abel previously provided BI with a different account of how she left Jonesworks, sharing emails and text messages that show her submitting her resignation in July and planning to launch her own firm.

Kristin Tahler

Tahler, an attorney at Quinn Emanuel, is Jones' lawyer. "For months, this group has gaslit and disparaged Stephanie Jones and her company for financial gain, to settle personal scores and most recently to distract from their disgraceful smearing of Blake Lively," Tahler said of the defendants in Jones' suit.

• 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.

We want to hear from Americans about their financial goals for 2025. Are you looking for a new job? Planning to retire? Applying to college? Tell us all about your goals and the hurdles you may face trying to accomplish them by filling out this form.

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.

We want to hear from Americans about their financial goals for 2025. Are you looking for a new job? Hoping to retire? Applying to college? Tell us all about your goals and the hurdles you may face trying to accomplish them by filling out this form.

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.
• Ages 44 to 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 from 1965 to 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 survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found.

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

At the same time, 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.

We want to hear from Americans about their financial goals for 2025. Are you looking for a new job? Planning to retire? Applying to college? Tell us all about your goals and the hurdles you may face trying to accomplish them by filling out this form.

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 Philadelphia Fed survey of about 5,000 respondents found.

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

For some Gen Xers, that may 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, more than 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 Business Insider.

Barbara Lose, a 57-year-old Gen Xer in Florida, said she was 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 said, Gen X has seen its discretionary spending drop the most of all generations. The analysis attributed that, in part, to Gen Xers trying to sock away more for retirement and investing more.

Gen Xers do have the highest incomes of the generations; last year, they were raking in a mean of $136,776 annually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Surveys found. They also had, on average, $157,556 in total debt last year— 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 older 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. In the Philadelphia Fed's survey, nearly a third of Americans ages 46 to 55 said they were cutting back on essential spending as of October 2024.

"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 may explain another Gen X phenomenon: taking on more work. While 18- to 35-year-olds were still the most likely to say they took on an additional job as a form of financial coping, the share of 46- to 55-year-olds who said they were doing the same increased by a little more than 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 aren't so great. Older 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].