When Love Enables Stagnation: Helping an Unmotivated Adult Grandson

A grandfather watches his 26-year-old grandson, fresh with a master’s degree, spend nights gaming and days sleeping while his daughter quietly keeps him afloat. He worries that helping has become enabling — and asks how to break the cycle without wrecking family ties. That exact letter ran in R. Eric Thomas’s “Asking Eric” column in The Washington Post on March 1, 2026, and it’s a situation many families recognize: good intentions that accidentally shop for someone’s excuses.

Below I unpack that dilemma, offer practical ways to hold boundaries with compassion, and suggest next steps families can use to move from enabling to empowering.

Why enabling happens (and why it’s so sticky)

• Emotional loyalty and love: A parent (or grandparent) often believes shielding a loved one from discomfort is kindness — especially if the child once struggled or is seen as “different.”
• Fear of fallout: Saying “no” feels like risking rejection, guilt, or family conflict.
• Immediate relief, long-term harm: Paying bills, excusing behavior, or covering consequences reduces immediate stress but removes incentives for growth.
• Cultural and economic friction: Today’s job market, mental-health strains, and online lifestyles (overnight gaming, gig economy norms) complicate simple comparisons to earlier generations.

R. Eric Thomas’s advice to the grandfather is practical: start with curiosity and a conversation, ask about goals and obstacles, and work as a coach rather than a commander. He also cautions against simply removing support without a jointly agreed plan — that risks conflict without progress. (R. Eric Thomas, Washington Post, March 1, 2026.)

Practical steps: what the grandfather (and his daughter) can try now

• Open with curiosity, not accusation
  • Ask specific questions: “What are you trying to do next? What’s gotten in the way of job hunting? What would you like help with this week?”
  • Listen without immediate fixes. People are more responsive when they feel heard.
• Set clear, limited supports — not blank checks
  • Replace vague “help” with concrete offers (example: “I’ll pay for a resume rewrite if you apply to five jobs this month”).
  • Tie assistance to measurable steps and timelines.
• Define household expectations
  • If he lives at home, require contributions: chores, job-search hours, partial rent, or a reasonable household role.
  • Create a written, short agreement so expectations are unambiguous.
• Use natural consequences, not shame
  • Let consequences reflect reality: missed rent means losing privileges; not looking for work may mean a plan to move out.
  • Frame consequences as learning tools, not punishment.
• Encourage small wins and structure
  • Replace “find a career” pressure with bite-sized goals: apply to X jobs this week, attend one networking event, join a course or volunteer role.
  • Celebrate incremental progress to build confidence.
• Offer coaching and resources, not rescue
  • Help with practical job-hunt steps (resume, LinkedIn, mock interviews) but don’t submit applications for him.
  • Suggest counseling if there are signs of depression, anxiety, or addiction — mental health often underlies motivation issues.
• Keep the daughter included and aligned
  • The grandfather and mother should present a united, consistent approach. Mixed signals (one enabling, one enforcing) undermine any plan.
  • Encourage the daughter to set boundaries for her own wellbeing, perhaps starting with a small, enforceable change.

What to avoid

• Sudden, total withdrawal with no plan — abrupt cutoffs may sever trust and provoke conflict.
• Rewarding avoidance — paying for leisure, bailing out of obligations, or doing work the grandson can and should do.
• Moralizing or shaming — lecturing about character rarely motivates sustained change.

Ways to structure a short “family agreement”

• Duration: 30 or 90 days, then reassess.
• Responsibilities: hours per week devoted to job search, daily household tasks, and a modest financial contribution if feasible.
• Support offered: two coaching sessions for resume/CV, one budget review, help researching training programs.
• Consequences: loss of certain privileges (car use, gaming time, additional allowance) if milestones aren’t met.
• Check-ins: weekly 20–30 minute progress conversation with one consistent family member acting as coach.

A note on gaming, degrees, and expectations

A master’s degree doesn’t guarantee immediate employment, and the rise of online gaming or nocturnal schedules can be both a symptom and a trap. Distinguish between:

• Legitimate obstacles (mental-health issues, systemic hiring challenges, skill mismatches) that need support and services.
• Avoidant patterns (using gaming to escape job search) that need boundary-based redirection.

If the grandson claims he’s applied but isn’t, request proof (copies of applications, timestamps). Tracking progress removes fuzzy excuses and gives everyone factual footing.

Helpful resources and expert perspectives

• Guidance on moving from enabling to empowering often emphasizes boundaries, measurable expectations, and consistency. Practical guides and therapy-oriented summaries suggest similar steps: set limits, require contribution, and help with skill-building resources. (SkillsYouNeed; BetterHelp.)
• If mental-health concerns arise, a clinician can check for depression, ADHD, or other conditions that frequently reduce motivation. Professional evaluation is not an admission of failure — it’s a tool.

What to expect: pushback and a path forward

• Expect resistance at first. Changing learned dynamics triggers guilt, anger, or manipulation attempts.
• Stay steady. One relaxed boundary breach often erodes progress. Small, consistent enforcement wins over time.
• Be prepared that change may be slow or incomplete. The family can still reclaim peace and reduce enabling even if the grandson’s trajectory takes time.

What matters most

• Preserve the relationship, but stop being the only safety net for harmful habits.
• Turn “help” into a partnership for growth rather than a maintenance contract for stagnation.
• Keep compassion and accountability in balance.

Three quick reminders

• Boundaries are acts of love when they teach responsibility.
• Support can be conditional and still be kind.
• Professional help (career services or mental-health care) often accelerates progress.

My take

The Washington Post letter is a familiar, aching scenario: the line between help and harm blurs when love tries too hard to protect. The best move usually isn’t dramatic withdrawal but a deliberate, compassionate reframe — from bailing someone out to training them up. That means clear expectations, measurable steps, and the willingness to feel uncomfortable for a while. Over the long run, that discomfort is the bridge to self-reliance and healthier family dynamics.

Sources

• Asking Eric: Grandson has no motivation; daughter enables him — The Washington Post (R. Eric Thomas).
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/advice/2026/03/01/asking-eric-grandson-lacking-motivation//

• Avoiding ‘Enabling’ Your Adult Child — SkillsYouNeed.
  https://www.skillsyouneed.com/parent/avoid-enabling.html

• How To Stop Enabling Grown Children & Why It's Important — BetterHelp.
  https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/family/how-to-stop-enabling-grown-children-and-why-its-important/

Reading the Fed’s Signals: Bowman’s January 16, 2026 Outlook on the Economy and Monetary Policy

Good morning at the conference table of the mind: imagine the Federal Reserve’s meeting notes as a weather report for the economy. On January 16, 2026, Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman stepped up in Boston and delivered a forecast that felt less like thunder and more like watching the clouds: inflation easing, but a labor market growing fragile — and policy makers watching both closely. Her remarks at the New England Economic Forum are a practical, plainspoken reminder that the Fed’s job is often about balancing calm and caution.

Why this speech matters

• The speaker is Michelle W. Bowman, Vice Chair for Supervision of the Federal Reserve Board — a policymaker with a voting role on the FOMC and direct responsibility for bank supervision.
• The talk comes at a moment of transition: after several rate cuts in late 2025, inflation readings looking better once one-off tariff effects are stripped out, and early signs that hiring is weakening.
• Bowman’s emphasis: inflation seems to be moving toward the Fed’s 2% goal, but a fragile labor market raises downside risk — and that should shape monetary policy decisions.

Highlights from Bowman’s outlook

• Recent policy changes: the Fed lowered the federal funds target range by 75 basis points since September 2025 (three 25-basis-point cuts), bringing the range to 3.50–3.75%. Bowman voted for those cuts, viewing policy as moving toward neutral.
• Inflation narrative: headline and core PCE inflation have fallen, and when estimated tariff impacts are removed, core PCE looks much closer to 2%. Core services inflation has eased in particular; remaining pressure is concentrated in core goods, which Bowman expects to moderate as tariff effects fade.
• Labor market concern: hiring rates are low and payroll growth has flattened; with layoffs not yet widespread, the labor market could still deteriorate quickly if demand softens. Bowman views the labor-market downside as the larger near-term risk.
• Policy stance and approach: Bowman favors a forward-looking, data-informed strategy — ready to adjust policy to support employment if labor fragility worsens, while noting policy is not on a preset course.
• Supervision agenda: as Vice Chair for Supervision, Bowman also highlighted regulatory priorities — rationalizing large-bank ratings, improving M&A review processes, and implementing the GENIUS Act responsibilities on stablecoins.

The investor and business dilemma

• For businesses: easing inflation can reduce input-cost pressure, but softer hiring and potentially weaker demand mean firms should be cautious about growth plans and workforce commitments.
• For investors: the combination of lower inflation risk and a fragile labor market suggests the Fed is unlikely to pivot aggressively. Markets should prepare for gradual adjustments rather than dramatic rate swings, with a watchful eye on employment indicators.

What to watch next

• Monthly payrolls and the unemployment rate — signs of a pickup in layoffs or a sharper rise in unemployment would increase the Fed’s focus on supporting employment.
• Core PCE inflation excluding tariff adjustments — Bowman explicitly treats tariff effects as one-offs; if core goods inflation doesn’t continue to soften, that would complicate the 2% story.
• Business hiring intentions and consumer demand measures — weak demand would reinforce Bowman’s caution about labor-market fragility.
• Fed communications at upcoming FOMC meetings — Bowman emphasized that policy is not on autopilot and that the Committee will weigh new data meeting by meeting.

A few practical takeaways

• Expect policy to remain “patient but ready”: the Fed’s stance is moderately restrictive but responsive to incoming data.
• Companies should build flexibility into hiring and capital plans — layering contingent plans (e.g., phased hiring, temporary contracts) reduces risk if demand softens.
• Bond and equity investors should monitor real-time labor and inflation indicators rather than relying solely on past rate moves.

My take

Bowman’s speech reads as pragmatic: credit the Fed for recognizing progress on inflation while honestly calling out the economy’s weak spots. The emphasis on labor-market fragility is a useful corrective to narratives that celebrate disinflation as a finished project. Policymaking in 2026 looks set to be a juggling act — steadying inflation without worsening employment — and Bowman’s call for forward-looking, data-driven decisions is the kind of steady voice markets and Main Street need right now.

Sources

• Speech: "Outlook for the Economy and Monetary Policy," Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman, January 16, 2026 — Federal Reserve Board.
  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bowman20260116a.htm

• Speech index: Federal Reserve speeches by Vice Chair for Supervision (contextual background on Bowman’s recent remarks).
  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speeches.htm

When the jobless rate climbs, a political narrative starts to wobble

There’s a particular hum in Washington when a jobs report walks in slightly off-script: markets twitch, talking heads adjust their tone, and political teams scramble for new soundbites. The headline from mid-December was blunt — the unemployment rate rose, even as the economy added a modest number of jobs — and that small shift has outsized implications for an administration that has made “economic comeback” central to its pitch to voters.

Below I unpack why a rising jobless rate matters politically, what’s driving the softening labor market, and why this is more than just a numbers game.

What happened — the quick version

• In the latest Labor Department snapshots, the unemployment rate ticked up to the mid-4 percent range (reports around the December jobs release put it at roughly 4.6% for November), while payroll gains were modest. (wsj.com)
• Revisions and one-off cuts — notably large reductions in federal payrolls earlier in the year — have removed a cushion that previously helped headline job growth. (washingtonpost.com)
• Other indicators — weaker hiring in manufacturing and finance, slower wage growth, and falling private job openings — point to a labor market that’s cooling rather than collapsing. (businessinsider.com)

Why this stings Trump’s economic messaging

• The core of the Trump message has been: my policies deliver jobs and rising incomes. Voters notice the jobless rate more than they notice GDP nuance. A rising unemployment rate is a visceral, easy-to-grasp signal that “the economy isn’t working for people.” (politico.com)
• Politics is about attribution. When unemployment climbs, the incumbent is the default target; opponents and the press will link labor weakness directly to administration choices — tariffs, federal workforce cuts, and policy uncertainty — even if causes are mixed. (americanprogress.org)
• Messaging mismatch: The White House can point to private-sector gains and labor-force entrants as explanations, but those arguments are weaker if people feel longer job searches, slower pay growth, or layoffs in local industries. Numbers that look small in D.C. spreadsheets translate to real pain on Main Street. (whitehouse.gov)

What’s behind the shift in the labor market

• Policy headwinds: Tariff uncertainty and trade policy shifts have raised costs for some manufacturers and importers, prompting hiring freezes or cuts in certain sectors. (businessinsider.com)
• Federal payroll reductions: Large federal workforce cuts earlier in the year removed a steady source of employment and ripple effects into the private firms that depend on government contracts. (washingtonpost.com)
• Monetary legacy and demand cooling: The Federal Reserve’s earlier cycle of high interest rates and their lagged effects are still tamping down investment and hiring in interest-sensitive sectors. That, plus slower wage growth, reduces hiring incentives. (ft.com)
• Structural changes: Automation, AI adoption, and shifting sectoral demand mean some occupations face lasting disruption, complicating the short-term picture. (businessinsider.com)

Voter dynamics and the election arithmetic

• Timing matters. If the labor market continues to weaken heading into an election year, skepticism about economic stewardship becomes a tangible drag. Voters who once prioritized pocketbook improvements are quicker to notice higher joblessness and slower hiring. (politico.com)
• The administration can still shape the narrative (point to private-sector job creation, rising participation, or short-term payroll gains), but repetition works only so long if local experiences tell a different story. Campaigns that rely on economic credibility are particularly vulnerable to a steady, measurable rise in unemployment. (whitehouse.gov)

What to watch next

• Monthly Labor Department jobs reports and revisions: small headline changes can have big political effects once they stack into a trend. (wsj.com)
• Federal employment and contract dynamics: more cuts or restorations will directly affect regions and industries that provide campaign reach. (washingtonpost.com)
• Wage trends and jobless-duration metrics: growing spell lengths or falling real wages are the signals that sway everyday voters more than the unemployment number alone. (wsj.com)
• Fed policy shifts: if the Fed moves aggressively on rates, it will change the trajectory of hiring and investment, with clear political consequences. (ft.com)

Quick takeaways

• A rising unemployment rate punches above its weight politically — it’s shorthand for “economy not delivering.” (wsj.com)
• Policy choices (tariffs, federal cuts) and lingering monetary effects are combining with structural labor shifts to cool hiring. (americanprogress.org)
• The administration can frame the data in ways that defend its record, but sustained labor-market deterioration would make persuasive messaging much harder. (politico.com)

My take

Numbers move markets, but narratives move voters. A single uptick in unemployment doesn’t end a presidency. But in politics, perception is cumulative: a steady string of softer labor reports can erode the economic credibility that incumbents depend on. For an administration that’s built a central narrative around jobs and prosperity, the safe play is twofold — stabilize the labor market with clear, targeted policy and lay out an honest, localized story that connects policy moves to tangible results for working people. Spin only stretches so far when someone in your town has been looking for work longer than they used to.

Sources

• U.S. Unemployment Rose in November Despite Job Gains — Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-report-october-november-2025-unemployment-economy-7f6eea90. (wsj.com)

• Employers added 64,000 jobs in November; unemployment rate at 4.6% — The Washington Post / AP coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/16/jobs-economy-trump-unemployment-federal-reserve/6874b5fa-da3c-11f0-b484-4459fa8e79e5_story.html. (washingtonpost.com)

• Job Growth Slows as Trump Policies Raise Costs and Cut Jobs — Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-job-growth-slows-as-trump-policies-raise-costs-and-cut-jobs/. (americanprogress.org)

• The job market isn't as good as we thought. There might be an upside for Trump. — Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/01/jobs-report-federal-reserve-interest-rates-00488229. (politico.com)

• The politics of the Fed and the labor market — Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/b0495ea7-a6ee-470d-b9ef-e49c2006d058. (ft.com)

(Note: URLs above are non-paywalled where available; some outlets may require free registration.)

A slow bleed: 1.1 million layoffs and the rise of “forever layoffs”

The economy is sending mixed signals: corporate profits and soaring stock indexes on one hand, and a steady trickle of pink slips on the other. In 2025, U.S. employers announced roughly 1.17 million job cuts through November — the most since the pandemic year and a level you have to go back to 2009 to match. That “drip, drip” pattern isn't just a statistical quirk; it’s remaking how people experience work and how companies manage labor. (fortune.com)

What’s new: forever layoffs explained

• “Forever layoffs” describe frequent, small-scale reductions — dozens instead of thousands — that recur throughout the year rather than one headline-grabbing mass layoff. Glassdoor says these rolling cuts now account for a growing share of corporate reductions and have shifted the emotional tenor at work from shock to chronic unease. (fortune.com)
• Challenger, Gray & Christmas counted about 1,170,821 announced job cuts through November 2025, a 54% increase from the same period in 2024. November’s announced cuts were 71,321, down sharply from October but still historically elevated for the month. (reuters.com)

Why this matters now

• Psychological effect: small, repeated cuts keep employees anxious in a way a one-time event doesn’t. Glassdoor’s analysis suggests mentions of “layoffs” and “job insecurity” in company reviews are higher now than in March 2020. That sustained anxiety corrodes morale and productivity. (fortune.com)
• Structural shift: companies are leaning into automation and AI and reorganizing around tools that require fewer people for the same work. Challenger and Glassdoor data show AI and restructuring are explicit drivers of many cuts. (reuters.com)
• Labor market disconnect: hiring plans through November were the weakest since 2010, with employers announcing far fewer planned hires than layoffs — a recipe for “jobless growth” and weak labor mobility. (fortune.com)

The context: not just tech, not just one sector

• Technology remains among the hardest-hit private industries, but telecom, retail, food processing, nonprofits, media, and small businesses have all trimmed staff in 2025. The pattern is broad-based, meaning the risk of churn exists in many workplaces. (fortune.com)
• Federal datasets such as JOLTS suggest the raw count of people separated from jobs may be even higher than announced cuts, underscoring the gap between announced plans and actual labor-market churn. Glassdoor cited JOLTS in noting about 1.7 million separations over the same window, a reminder that announced cuts are a partial view. (fortune.com)

Who wins, who loses

• Winners: Large firms with balance sheets, scale, and access to capital can restructure without immediate pain and can adopt automation to protect margins. Investors can celebrate efficiency; boards may pat themselves on the back. (fortune.com)
• Losers: Workers — especially early-career and white-collar employees who once counted on steady upward mobility — face career uncertainty, fewer entry-level roles, and tougher bargaining power. Small businesses, with thin margins, are also vulnerable and have been shedding jobs in aggregate. (fortune.com)

Economic and social implications

• A K-shaped recovery becomes more entrenched: high earners continue spending while lower-income households pull back, widening inequality and concentrating demand among a narrower consumer group. (fortune.com)
• Consumer confidence and spending patterns may fragment: if many workers live with chronic job insecurity, durable spending and housing decisions will be delayed — a drag on growth that’s hard to capture in headline GDP figures. (fortune.com)
• Political pressure grows: sustained layoffs and weak hiring invite policy debates about unemployment insurance, retraining, AI regulation, and labor protections — issues already emerging in 2025 discussions. (reuters.com)

Practical signals to watch in the coming months

• Hiring plans vs. announced cuts: if the gap narrows because hiring picks up, the worst of the labor-market anxiety may ease. If cuts continue to outpace hires, the “forever” trend is likely to persist. (reuters.com)
• Sectoral shifts: watch how many announced layoffs explicitly cite AI or automation. That will tell us whether the job losses are cyclical or structural. (reuters.com)
• Small business payrolls: ADP’s November data showed small businesses bore most November private-sector losses; continued weakness here suggests consumer-facing parts of the economy could weaken further. (fortune.com)

My take

We’re living through a recalibration of corporate labor strategy. The 1.17 million announced cuts through November 2025 are a headline number — but the real story is how layoffs are being delivered: quietly, repeatedly, and often in ways that avoid the reputational cost of mass firings. That makes the phenomenon harder to measure with a single statistic and more corrosive to worker confidence. For policymakers and leaders who care about sustainable growth, the policy challenge is twofold: soften the human cost (through better transitions, training, and safety nets) and shape incentives so investments in people aren’t replaced wholesale by automation that concentrates gains at the top.

Final thoughts

If this pattern holds, we won’t remember 2025 simply as a year of layoffs; we’ll remember it as the year the employment contract changed. The task ahead is to decide whether that change will become a grinding permanent norm or a painful but short-lived rebalancing. Either way, the millions affected this year deserve policies, corporate practices, and community responses that treat transitions as human — not just accounting — problems. (fortune.com)

Sources

• The ‘forever layoffs’ era hits a recession trigger as corporates sack 1.1 million workers through November — Fortune (December 9, 2025).
  https://fortune.com/2025/12/09/forever-layoffs-job-security-k-shaped-economy-white-collar-recession-challenger-glassdoor/ (fortune.com)

• US planned job cuts fall 53% in November, Challenger says — Reuters (December 4, 2025).
  https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/us-planned-job-cuts-fall-53-november-challenger-says-2025-12-04/ (reuters.com)

A small cut, big questions: why the Fed’s December move matters more than the math

The Federal Reserve is set to act this week — widely expected to shave 25 basis points off its policy rate at the December 9–10 meeting — but the decision feels less like a crisp policy pivot and more like a weather forecast for a very foggy year ahead. Markets are pricing the cut as likely, yet Fed officials remain sharply divided about what comes next. That tension is the real story: a “hawkish cut” that eases today while signaling caution about tomorrow. (finance.yahoo.com)

Why this cut is different

• It’s small and tactical: officials are likely to cut by 0.25 percentage points — a modest easing intended to support a slowing labor market rather than to ignite growth. (finance.yahoo.com)
• It’s politically and institutionally noisy: unusually high numbers of dissents and public disagreement among Fed officials have surfaced, weakening the usual appearance of consensus. (wsj.com)
• It’s defensive, not directional: the messaging is expected to emphasize that further cuts are not guaranteed and will depend on incoming data, especially payrolls and inflation signals. That is the essence of a “hawkish cut.” (finance.yahoo.com)

What led the Fed to this crossroads

Over the past year the Fed has moved from aggressive tightening (to fight high inflation) to cautious easing as jobs growth cooled and signs of economic slowing mounted. With inflation still above target in some measures and the labor market showing cracks, policymakers face two conflicting risks: easing too much could reignite inflation; easing too little could let a slowdown deepen into a recession. That trade-off explains why the Fed looks divided going into the meeting. (wbtv.com)

• Labor market softness has become a central worry — slowing hiring and rising unemployment risk a broader slowdown. (wbtv.com)
• Inflation remains a lingering concern, meaning many officials are reluctant to commit to a path of multiple cuts. (wbtv.com)

How markets will read the move

Expect three distinct market reactions depending on the Fed's communication:

1. “Hawkish cut” narrative — Fed cuts now but signals a pause: short-term yields fall, risk assets rally modestly, but the rally is contained because the door for further easing is left mostly shut. This is the scenario many strategists expect. (finance.yahoo.com)
2. Clear easing path signaled — Fed telegraphs additional cuts: bond yields and the dollar drop further, and equities get a stronger lift. Unlikely given current internal divisions but possible if data deteriorates. (reuters.com)
3. Mixed message or large dissent — uncertainty spikes, volatility rises, and markets trade on headline interpretation rather than on concrete guidance. The Fed’s historic preference for consensus makes any multi-dissent outcome notable. (wsj.com)

CME Fed funds futures currently put a high probability on a 25 bps cut this week, but the outlook for January and beyond is much murkier — traders assign materially lower odds to a sustained easing cycle. That mismatch between near-term pricing and medium-term uncertainty is what creates the “year of unknowns.” (finance.yahoo.com)

What to watch in the Fed’s statement and Powell’s press conference

• Language around “neutral” or “restrictive” policy: small wording shifts will be parsed for signs of more cuts. (wsj.com)
• References to the labor market and downside risks to employment: clear talk of deterioration would open the door to additional easing. (wbtv.com)
• Any explicit guidance on the balance sheet or Treasury bill purchases: the Fed might use Reserve Management Purchases (RMP) or other tools to manage liquidity — an outcome that could surprise markets beyond the headline rate cut. (reuters.com)

What this means for everyday borrowers, savers, and investors

• Borrowers: A 25 bps cut can ease some short-term borrowing costs (credit cards, some variable-rate loans), but mortgage rates and longer-term borrowing are more sensitive to broader yield moves and inflation expectations, so homeowners may see only modest relief. (finance.yahoo.com)
• Savers: Any improvement in savings rates will likely be gradual; banks don’t always pass every Fed cut through to deposit rates. (finance.yahoo.com)
• Investors: Volatility is the likely constant. Strategies that focus on quality, cash flow, and duration management will generally fare better than high-beta short-term plays in an uncertain policy regime. (finance.yahoo.com)

Quick wins for readers who want to navigate the uncertainty

• Keep an eye on jobs, inflation, and Fed communications — those three datapoints will steer the odds for any further cuts. (wbtv.com)
• Reassess duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios: small cuts can lower short-term yields quickly but have a less predictable effect on long-term rates. (reuters.com)
• For households, prioritize emergency savings and fixed-rate borrowing if you expect rates to drift unpredictably. (finance.yahoo.com)

Final thoughts

A rate cut this week would be a pragmatic, defensive step: the Fed is trying to support a labor market that looks wobbly without declaring a new era of accommodative policy. But the split among policymakers matters. When a central bank is divided, its future path is harder to forecast — and that uncertainty can ripple through markets and everyday decisions more than the quarter-point itself. In short: the math of a 25 bps cut is simple; the message the Fed sends afterward is what will determine whether 2026 becomes steadier or more unsettled. (finance.yahoo.com)

What I’m watching next

• The Fed’s statement and Chair Powell’s December 10 press conference for clues about the January meeting and balance-sheet tools. (finance.yahoo.com)
• December labor-market releases and inflation prints for signs that could prompt either more easing or a pause. (wbtv.com)

Notes for readers

• The Fed meeting dates are December 9–10, 2025; markets and commentators are highly focused on both the rate decision and the tone of the Fed’s forward guidance. (finance.yahoo.com)

Sources

• Fed expected to cut rates this week. The outlook for 2026 is far less certain. — Yahoo Finance.
  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/federal-reserve-live-coverage-fed-set-to-cut-interest-rates-for-third-time-this-year-2026-forecast-in-focus-180343716.html (finance.yahoo.com)

• Fed could surprise market with T-bill buying binge — Reuters.
  https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-could-surprise-market-with-t-bill-buying-binge-2025-12-09/ (reuters.com)

• An Unusually Divided Fed Is Expected to Deliver a Rate Cut — The Wall Street Journal.
  https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/federal-reserve-interest-rate-cut-ef7118b8 (news article). (wsj.com)

• Federal Reserve officials sharply split over rate cut amid economic uncertainty — Los Angeles Times.
  https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-11-20/federal-reserve-officials-sharply-split-over-rate-cut-amid-economic-uncertainty (latimes.com)

• Federal Reserve cuts key rate, signals two more cuts this year — Associated Press coverage (various outlets).
  https://www.wbtv.com/2025/09/17/federal-reserve-lowers-interest-rates-by-0-25-percentage-points-in-first-cut-since-december/ (wdef.com)

How a $20 fast‑food wage became a political punchline — and what the data actually shows

Who doesn’t love a good one‑liner? When former President Trump said California’s $20-per-hour fast‑food minimum wage was “hurting businesses,” the quote fit neatly into a familiar story: big wage hike → shuttered restaurants → unhappy voters. But real life, as usual, refuses to be tidy. The first year after California’s sectoral wage increase has produced a muddled mix of headlines, studies and anecdotes — and the truth sits somewhere in the middle.

What happened and why it mattered

• In September 2023 California passed AB 1228, creating a Fast Food Council and setting a $20 minimum wage for fast‑food workers at chains with 60+ locations nationwide, effective April 1, 2024. (gov.ca.gov)
• The policy targeted roughly half a million workers and was one of the largest sector‑specific wage hikes in recent U.S. history.
• Opponents warned of rapid price inflation, job losses, reduced hours and store closures. Supporters argued workers needed a living wage and that higher pay could reduce turnover and boost consumer demand.

Headlines vs. data: why simple answers don’t fit

Political rhetoric loves certainty, but economists use careful comparisons. Since April 2024 the evidence has been mixed:

• Studies and analyses finding minimal negative effects:

  • Research from UC Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment and related teams report that wages rose substantially, employment held steady, and menu price impacts were modest (single‑digit percent increases for typical items). These studies emphasize higher worker earnings without detectable job losses in the fast‑food sector. (irle.berkeley.edu)
  • Other academic teams (Harvard Kennedy School / UCSF) reached similar conclusions about pay gains and limited staffing impacts. (gov.ca.gov)

• Studies and analyses finding measurable job declines:

  • Working papers using Bureau of Labor Statistics payroll data (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) — and critiques from policy groups like the Cato Institute — estimate a small but nontrivial reduction in fast‑food employment in California relative to other states, translating into thousands of jobs potentially lost or displaced. These analyses point to a 2–4% differential decline in sector employment in the year after the law passed. (nber.org)

• Industry and media snapshots added color (and noise):

  • Chains and franchisee groups announced price increases and operational changes; some local closures and staffing adjustments were reported in the press and by trade groups. At the same time, state officials pointed to jobs data showing growth in fast‑food employment in some months. Media outlets highlighted both anecdotes of closures and studies showing limited harm. (cnbc.com)

The upshot: different data sources, time frames, and methods yield different estimates. Short‑run payroll snapshots can show dips that later rebound; survey‑based and restaurant‑level pricing studies can miss informal shifts (delivery volume, operating hours, mix of part‑time vs full‑time). Context, timing and research design matter.

Four reasons the debate stayed messy

• The policy was sectoral and targeted. It applied only to large chains (60+ locations), leaving many small restaurants out of scope — which complicates comparisons and “one‑size” conclusions. (gov.ca.gov)
• Timing and price pass‑through. Chains can respond by raising prices, squeezing profits, automating, or changing franchise decisions. Price increases were modest on average per some studies, but consumer behavior and foot traffic patterns varied across markets. (irle.berkeley.edu)
• Geographic and local wage baselines differ. Many California cities already had higher local wages, so the bite of a statewide $20 floor varied by city and region. (cnbc.com)
• Data source differences. Administrative payroll counts, operator surveys, foot‑traffic trackers and economist regressions each capture different slices of reality. Survey respondents tend to report the most painful anecdotes; large administrative datasets smooth over firm‑level churn but can lag. (nber.org)

What the evidence implies for workers, employers and voters

• Workers: Many fast‑food employees saw meaningful pay bumps. For low‑paid workers, a reliable raise can improve household finances and reduce turnover — which itself can save restaurants hiring and training costs. Several academic teams documented substantial wage gains. (irle.berkeley.edu)
• Employers: Large national chains and well‑capitalized operators can typically absorb or pass through costs more easily than small franchisees and mom‑and‑pop operators. Some franchisees reported tightening margins or operational shifts. Franchise structure therefore matters for who feels the pain. (cnbc.com)
• Consumers: Menu prices rose in many places but, according to some detailed price studies, by relatively modest amounts for common items. Still, for price‑sensitive customers, even small increases can change visit frequency over time. (irle.berkeley.edu)
• Policy makers: The California experiment shows that sectoral wage rules are feasible and politically potent — but also that they require monitoring, local nuance and careful evaluation to spot unintended consequences.

What to watch next

• Updated employment and payroll reports for 2024–2025 (BLS QCEW, state employment dashboards).
• Fast‑food council adjustments: the law created a Fast Food Council that can change wage floors going forward — any upward tweaks will reignite debates. (gov.ca.gov)
• New peer‑reviewed studies that reconcile firm‑level evidence with state administrative data. The early literature includes conflicting working papers; later, more refined analyses will matter for policy learning. (nber.org)

Key points to remember

• Big, immediate headlines are tempting, but the empirical record is mixed — some rigorous studies find little harm to employment, others find modest job declines.
• The distribution of effects matters: workers gained wages, while some operators (especially small franchisees) faced higher costs and operational strain.
• Policy design (who is covered, how enforcement works, and whether wages are phased or sudden) shapes outcomes as much as headline wage numbers do.

My take

Policies that push wages up for low‑paid workers deserve scrutiny, not sloganeering. California’s $20 experiment shows that meaningful wage increases can lift paychecks without catastrophic collapse — but they are not costless. The right takeaway is pragmatic: expect tradeoffs, design for local differences, measure outcomes rigorously, and be ready to adjust. Political one‑liners make for headlines; careful evidence makes for better policy.

Sources

• California Increases Minimum Wage, Protections for Fast‑Food Workers — Governor of California. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/28/california-increases-minimum-wage-protections-for-fast-food-workers/ (gov.ca.gov)

• New Study Analyzes Impact of California’s $20 Minimum Wage for Fast Food Workers — Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (UC Berkeley). https://irle.berkeley.edu/publications/press-release/new-study-analyzes-impact-of-californias-20-minimum-wage-for-fast-food-workers/ (irle.berkeley.edu)

• Did California’s Fast‑Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment? — NBER Working Paper (Jeffrey Clemens, Olivia Edwards & Jonathan Meer). https://www.nber.org/papers/w34033 (nber.org)

• California fast‑food minimum wage coverage and business response — CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/01/california-fast-food-minimum-wage-other-business-may-raise-pay.html (cnbc.com)

• ICYMI: Another study shows fast food minimum wage increase delivered higher pay without reducing jobs — Governor of California. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/10/10/icymi-another-study-shows-fast-food-minimum-wage-increase-delivered-higher-pay-without-reducing-jobs/ (gov.ca.gov)

• Did California’s Fast‑Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment? — Cato Institute research brief. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/did-californias-fast-food-minimum-wage-reduce-employment (cato.org)

A surprising flip: college grads are 25% of the unemployed — what that really means

You’ve probably heard the headline: Americans with four‑year degrees now make up a record 25% of the unemployed. It sounds like a sudden education crisis — but the story is subtler, and more revealing about how the U.S. labor market is changing.

This post unpacks why that 25% number matters, what’s driving it, and what it means for workers, employers, and anyone trying to read the economy’s next moves.

Why the headline feels wrong (and why it’s not)

• A rising share of unemployed workers holding bachelor’s degrees does not automatically mean college is devalued.
• Two broad forces are at work at the same time:
  • The share of U.S. workers with bachelor’s degrees has been steadily increasing for decades — more degree‑holders in the labor force means degree‑holders also make up a larger slice of any labor statistic, even unemployment.
  • White‑collar hiring has cooled sharply during recent hiring cycles, and layoffs in certain industries (notably tech and other professional sectors) have put more degree‑holders into unemployment than in prior years.

In short: more college‑educated people are in the workforce than before, and many of the jobs that typically employ them have slowed hiring or cut back.

The bigger context you should know

• Educational attainment has risen across generations. The Pew Research Center notes that the share of workers with at least a bachelor’s degree climbed substantially over the last two decades. As degrees become more common, statistics that show the distribution of unemployment naturally shift. (pewresearch.org)
• At the same time, macro shifts have curtailed hiring in white‑collar roles. Firms in technology, finance, and professional services trimmed headcount in recent years, and many employers have become more cautious about new hires — a trend highlighted across reporting on 2024–2025 labor developments. This increases the visibility of unemployed degree‑holders in headline snapshots. (reuters.com)
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics still shows that, on average, higher education correlates with lower unemployment rates and higher earnings — the “education pays” pattern remains intact when you look at unemployment rates by attainment, not just shares of the unemployed. That nuance matters: degree‑holders still tend to have lower unemployment rates than less‑educated peers. (bls.gov)

What the 25% figure actually signals

• It signals a slowdown in the kinds of hiring that have absorbed college grads in prior cycles — recruiting freezes, slower openings in corporate roles, and sectoral layoffs. Those trends push degree‑holders into unemployment faster than replacements arrive.
• It also signals composition change: as more people obtain four‑year degrees, they become a larger slice of both the employed and unemployed populations. A record share of unemployed degree‑holders can therefore reflect both real job losses in certain sectors and a long‑term shift in worker education levels.
• It is not, by itself, proof that a bachelor’s degree no longer opens doors. The BLS data continue to show lower unemployment rates and higher median earnings for those with bachelor’s and advanced degrees compared with less‑educated workers. (bls.gov)

Who’s most affected

• Workers in mid‑career white‑collar roles tied to corporate spending, advertising, or enterprise tech have felt the most abrupt swings. Tech layoffs beginning in 2022–2023 and periodic waves of cuts among professional services have a disproportionate effect on degree‑holding unemployment.
• New graduates may face softer entry markets when employers pull back on hiring, while mid‑career professionals can be hit by structural shifts (outsourcing, AI tools changing role scopes, demand slowdowns).
• Geographical and industry differences remain large: local markets and certain occupations still have strong demand for degree‑level skills.

What workers and employers can do now

• For workers:
  • Build adaptable skills that translate across roles (data literacy, project management, communication).
  • Consider expanding the toolkit beyond a single specialization — short courses, certificates, and targeted reskilling can help in tighter markets.
  • Network intentionally and consider lateral roles that keep you employed while you pivot.
• For employers:
  • Reassess talent pipelines: if hiring is slow, invest in retention, internal mobility, and upskilling rather than broad layoffs that can hollow out future capacity.
  • Be explicit about which skills are truly mission‑critical; avoid relying on degree as a blunt proxy for ability.

A few caveats for reading labor headlines

• Watch denominators: percent shares are sensitive to who’s in the labor force. More degree‑holders overall naturally raises their share of unemployment unless hiring rises proportionally.
• Check both unemployment rates (chance of being unemployed within a group) and shares of the unemployed (composition across groups). They tell different stories.
• Sector and age breakdowns matter. National aggregate headlines can mask very different trends across industries and regions.

Key takeaways

• The 25% headline is real, but it’s a composite effect: more degree‑holders in the workforce plus weaker white‑collar hiring.
• Education still correlates with lower unemployment rates and higher earnings — the value of a degree hasn’t been overturned by this statistic alone. (bls.gov)
• The labor market is shifting: employers and workers both need to focus more on adaptable, demonstrable skills than on credentials alone.
• Read both rates and shares, and look beneath national headlines to industries, age groups, and local markets for the clearest signal.

My take

This is a useful corrective to a simple narrative that “college equals job security forever.” The modern labor market rewards adaptability as much as credentials. For policy and corporate leaders, the right response isn’t to declare degrees obsolete, but to invest in continuous training, clearer signals of skill, and pathways that let degree‑holders reskill into growing roles. For individuals, the smartest hedge is to pair credentials with a mindset and portfolio of skills that travel across jobs and sectors.

Sources

• Education pays : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — Unemployment rates and earnings by educational attainment (table and commentary).
  https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/unemployment-earnings-education.htm. (bls.gov)

• Key US workforce trends — Pew Research Center (analysis of worker education and labor‑force changes).
  https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/12/10/key-labor-force-trends/. (pewresearch.org)

• U.S. announced job cuts decline in April, recruitment firm Challenger says — Reuters (context on elevated job‑cut announcements and shifts in hiring).
  https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/us-announced-job-cuts-decline-april-recruitment-firm-challenger-says-2025-05-01/. (reuters.com)

• Bloomberg Business reporting summarized in this post: "Americans With Four‑Year Degrees Now Comprise a Record 25% of Unemployed Workers." (reporting that inspired this piece).