Some people are down on the economy — here’s why we should care

posted in: Adventure | 0

By Elizabeth Renter | NerdWallet

When you ask people how they’re doing, you often get a knee-jerk “fine” or “good” without much introspection. But lately, when you ask people about the economy, they have clear feelings.

Related Articles

Business |


Best cities for freelancers and self-employed workers 2024

Business |


Hitting the road? Expect higher gas prices over Memorial Day

Business |


Here’s how much you have to earn to qualify as middle class, new study says

Business |


St. Paul credit union program pairs borrowing and saving to financially empower underserved communities

Business |


The IRS gets back on its feet. Time to crack down on wealthy cheaters

Over the past several years, the economy has been remarkable, in a literal sense; there has been a lot to talk about. Inflation rose to levels we hadn’t seen in about 40 years, and home prices climbed roughly 50%. The Federal Reserve stepped in to fight inflation. Interest rates reached territory they hadn’t touched in 20 years or more, but they did so without triggering a recession. Economic growth has remained high and the labor market strong. All of these factors have resulted in a cacophony of narratives about the economy, which is very likely playing a role in people’s perceptions.

A new survey from NerdWallet, conducted online by The Harris Poll among more than 2,000 U.S. adults, reveals a disconnect that illustrates these perceptions well. When asked how they feel about a variety of economic and financial topics now compared with 12 months ago, Americans were nearly twice as likely to feel worse than better about the state of the U.S. economy in general. Yet they were slightly more likely to feel better than worse about the state of their own personal finances.

Over the past 12 months, the survey period we asked about, the economy has actually remained strong, and the post-pandemic recovery has carried on better than expected. Consumers continue spending, which is typically taken as a sign of confidence. It may be tempting to disregard negative sentiment if we can’t confirm it’s rooted in current economic reality. But that sentiment may provide clues to yet-unseen problems and potentially drive behavior changes that could have significant economic impact.

Half of Americans are feeling worse about the economy

People’s perceptions are colored by their background, personality traits and exposure to information, among many other things. And these perceptions don’t always reflect demonstrable reality, particularly when you ask about how people feel. Asking about perceptions and focusing on an emotional component can give people explicit permission to detach their experience from what the actual evidence might show. And often, it’s likely our feelings that govern our behaviors, whether we’re talking about managing relationships or spending money.

About half (49%) of Americans say they feel worse about the state of the U.S. economy in general now compared to 12 months ago, according to the NerdWallet survey conducted in April. Just 26% feel better. Among the questions asked, this one garnered the strongest opinions — it had the lowest rate of people who neither felt better nor worse.

Twelve months before this survey, the economic indicators most people would encounter in daily living were pretty close to where they are now. Unemployment was a low 3.4%; now, it’s still low by historical standards, at 3.9%. Gas prices were relatively the same: $3.71 per gallon on average then and $3.73 now. One major improvement over that one-year period can be found in price growth, however. Inflation in April 2023 was near 5%. Now, it’s closer to 3.5%. In fact, wages are now growing faster than prices.

When asked to look more locally — how they feel about the state of their personal finances now versus 12 months ago — one-third (33%) of Americans feel better and 29% feel worse. Parents of minor children are more likely (39%) than non-parents (31%) to feel better.

What’s driving the disconnect?

The disconnect between how people feel about the economy at large and how they feel about their household finances seems counterintuitive. By most official measures, the economy is strong. If feelings or perspectives run contrary to that, one source of the negative sentiment could be personal experience. In other words, if I feel bad about the economy when the economy is doing well, maybe it’s because my personal financial situation is not so great. But a modest segment of Americans hold these two seemingly disparate feelings simultaneously: 18% of those who feel worse about the economy now than they did 12 months ago say they feel better about their personal finances over the same period.

There are many other possible explanations for the perception of a worsening economy, including:

1. We could be measuring the economy wrong (maybe it’s not doing as well as we think). The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t just shake the economy, it shook economic data too. This explanation might not be the most likely, however, as the people responsible for economic data are experts in their field. If someone’s going to get it right, it’s likely them. Data collection, benchmarking and seasonal adjustments have all been impacted and continue to be accounted for.

2. Exposure to negative stories in the news or social media could be coloring people’s outlook on the economy’s health. The last high inflation period was a relative lifetime ago, in the 1980s. Then, our primary sources of economic information came at regularly scheduled and limited intervals: in the morning newspaper or in front of the evening newscast, for example. Now, economic data is everywhere you look, translated by both experts and social media influencers alike. This consistent attention to the economy’s measurements could be having an outsized impact on our perception of its well-being.

3. The housing market could be playing an outsized role in overall economic perspectives. If there’s one section of the economy that is undoubtedly difficult, it’s the housing market. Under current conditions — high home prices, a paltry number of homes available for sale and high borrowing costs — even if someone has taken steps to position themselves to buy, they’ll be met with difficulties. Healthy household finances can only get you so far if you’re trying to buy a home in this unfriendly market, and confronting these roadblocks on the path to a long-term financial goal can be very discouraging.

4. We’re aware that even though we might be doing better personally, others aren’t so fortunate. Aggregate measures of the economy conceal a lot of nuance. Unemployment is low on a national scale, but people are still unemployed. Wage growth is outpacing inflation, but not everyone is receiving raises. Even if you personally aren’t experiencing any downside to this economy, knowing that others are may color your views. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing — empathy across the economy can drive meaningful community involvement and policies that improve the well-being of others.

What we shouldn’t do is assume that people just don’t understand the economy and write off the disconnect as immaterial. At some point, how we feel about the economy can impact how we act. It can affect decisions such as whether now’s a good time to buy a new car, invest in the stock market or start a new business. For business owners, it can impact hiring and investment decisions. And all of these spending and saving decisions can ultimately impact the health of the economy, feeding into official data. Consumer expenditures account for about two-thirds of total GDP, for example. So how we feel about things, no matter the driving force, can impact economic reality. And that makes this sentiment worth listening to.

Elizabeth Renter writes for NerdWallet. Email: elizabeth@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @elizabethrenter.

Quick Fix: Chicken Milanese with Spaghetti Pomodoro

posted in: News | 0

By Linda Gassenheimer, Tribune News Service

Bring a taste of Italy to your table with this quick and easy dinner. Thin chicken cutlets with a light, crisp coating is a winner.

The thin cutlets take less than 5 minutes to cook. They’re finished off with some capers and lemon juice. I serve them with spaghetti and tomato sauce, Spaghetti Pomodoro.

Related Articles


Quick Fix: Steak Fajita Pizza


Gyoza is an easy-to-make Japanese comfort food


Recipes: Celebrate spring by making these dishes with asparagus


This Asparagus, Sorrel and Pine Nut Salad is easy, bright and delicious


Recipe: Steven Raichlen’s Italian-inspired Grilled Artichokes

HELPFUL HINTS:

Any type of pasta sauce can be used. Look for one that has reduced sodium.

Any style of long pasta such as linguine, fettucine or spaghettini can be used.

COUNTDOWN:

Place water for pasta on to boil.

Prepare all ingredients.

Start pasta cooking.

Make chicken dish.

Complete pasta dish.

SHOPPING LIST:

To buy: 3/4 pound chicken cutlets, 1 container plain panko breadcrumbs, 1 small piece Parmesan cheese, 1 bottle ground oregano, 1 small bottle capers, 1 lemon, 1 bunch fresh basil, 1 package spaghetti and 1 bottle reduced-sodium pasta sauce.

Staples: olive oil, egg, salt and black peppercorns.

Chicken Milanese

Yield 2 servings

Recipe by Linda Gassenheimer

3/4 pound chicken cutlets

1/4 cup plain panko breadcrumbs

2 tablespoons freshly grated Parmesan cheese

2 teaspoons ground oregano

Salt and freshly ground black pepper

1 egg, slightly beaten

2 teaspoons olive oil

1 lemon cut into wedges

1 tablespoon capers

Place chicken cutlets on a cutting board and cover with plastic wrap.
Pound the cutlets flat to 1/4 inch thick with a meat bat or heavy skillet.
On a plate, mix panko crumbs, Parmesan cheese, oregano and add salt and pepper to taste.
In a small bowl, slightly beat egg with fork. Dip the chicken cutlets into the egg and then into the panko crumb mixture, making sure both sides are covered.
Heat oil in a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat and add the cutlets. Cook 2 minutes, turn over and cook second side 2 minutes. A meat thermometer should read 155 degrees.
Divide the cutlets between 2 dinner plates and squeeze juice from the lemon wedges on top. Sprinkle the capers over the chicken.

Per serving: 359 calories (34 percent from fat), 13.5 g fat (3.4 g saturated, 4.8 g monounsaturated), 223 mg cholesterol, 44.9 g protein, 11.8 g carbohydrates, 1.2 g fiber, 404 mg sodium.

Spaghetti Pomodoro

Yield 2 servings

Recipe by Linda Gassenheimer

4 ounces spaghetti

1 cup reduced-sodium pasta sauce

1/4 cup fresh basil leaves, torn into small pieces

Salt and freshly ground black pepper

Bring a large saucepan 3/4 full of water to a boil. Add the spaghetti and cook for 9-10 minutes or according to package instructions.
Remove 1/4 cup pasta water to a bowl.
Drain the spaghetti and add to the bowl with the pasta sauce.
Add the basil and salt and pepper to taste. Toss well.
Divide into 2 portions and serve with the Chicken Milanese.

Per serving: 277 calories (9 percent from fat), 2.8 g fat (0.4 g saturated, 0.6 g monounsaturated), 3 mg cholesterol, 9.3 g protein, 53 g carbohydrates, 4.2 g fiber, 42 mg sodium.

Linda Gassenheimer is the author of over 30 cookbooks, including her newest, “The 12-Week Diabetes Cookbook.” Listen to Linda on www.WDNA.org and all major podcast sites. Email her at Linda@DinnerInMinutes.com.

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Double lung transplants weren’t typically recommended for lung cancer patients. But a new technique has been successful

posted in: News | 0

By Avani Kalra, Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO — For decades, double lung transplants were not considered a viable option for treating lung cancer.

“It had been done, but it had always failed,” said Ankit Bharat, chief of thoracic surgery at Northwestern Medicine. “When you took out the lungs, the cancer cells would spread to the rest of the body, and it would come back a matter of months after the transplant.”

But after developing a new technique to replace damaged lungs during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Northwestern Medicine’s Canning Thoracic Institute has now performed more than 40 successful lung transplants on cancer patients in just two and a half years.

The operation has a 100% success rate for lung cancer patients today, and in January the hospital completed its first transplant on a patient with lungs affected by both COVID-19 and lung cancer.

Art Gillespie, a captain with the University of Chicago Police Department, contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 while visiting his uncle in a nursing home. While hospitalized with the virus, Gillespie discovered he had Stage 1 lung cancer.

Though he received treatment for COVID and chemotherapy, he developed pulmonary fibrosis, a disease that causes scarring in the lungs and makes it difficult to breathe. Ultimately, Gillespie had two-thirds of his right lung removed to treat the cancer, and, despite the operation, needed daily oxygen.

Later, Gillespie received a one-to-two-year life expectancy prognosis.

Related Articles

Health |


Melinda French Gates to donate $1 billion over next 2 years in support of women’s power

Health |


After liver transplant, Brent Worwa now runs ‘Mr. Sparky of St. Paul’

Health |


Nearly 400 independent pharmacies have closed in Minnesota since 1996. Why?

Health |


As states loosen childhood vaccine requirements, public health experts’ worries grow

Health |


Eric Snoey: Wait times down. Patient satisfaction up. Why not let AI run the ER?

“2022 was primarily me just becoming much more sick,” Gillespie said. “My quality of life at that point was pretty impacted. My ability to do anything, even speaking, was very taxing.”

Bharat said that Gillespie was a good candidate for a double lung transplant, especially because the transplant treatment for lung cancer had been directly developed from the technique for COVID-affected lungs.

While lung transplants had typically been performed by removing the lungs one by one, cutting first the vein that takes blood from the heart to the lungs and then the vein that takes it back, surgeons had to figure out a way that would prevent COVID bacteria from moving from the lungs to the heart, according to Bharat.

Doctors developed a technique to cut the veins simultaneously and later discovered the same technique could stop the spread of cancer cells.

“We had to make the same modifications for lung cancer,” said Rade Tomic, a pulmonologist at Northwestern Medicine who also worked on the transplant treatment. “We had to make sure we didn’t spread the cancer, or let it enter the bloodstream.”

Doctors also implemented a second step that worked to ensure the removal of cancerous cells and COVID-19 bacteria from the rest of the chest. After the lungs are removed, doctors irrigate the remaining airway and chest cavity.

Gillespie said he was initially resistant to the double transplant. He’d already had a lung surgery, and did not want to undergo another major operation. But it ultimately seemed like the only option.

Gillespie had the operation in January after being placed on the transplant list in September. He is on the way to a full recovery, he said, and hopes to return to work in the near future.

“I’m a grandfather,” Gillespie said. “The first thing I thought about was having that additional time to spend with (my grandkids), and watch them grow. That’s just an indescribable benefit.”

Tomic said these new transplant techniques will have a far-ranging and widespread impact. The treatment is already being used for other conditions such as pulmonary fibrosis, and is a lifesaving intervention for later-stage lung cancer patients who may not have another option, he said.

“The goal is to help the patient, give them a chance at a new life and an opportunity to get their life back,” Tomic said. “They are going to have a much, much longer survival than they would’ve had without the lung transplantation.”

©2024 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Pregnant? Researchers want you to know something about fluoride

posted in: News | 0

By Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — Adding fluoride to drinking water is widely considered a triumph of public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the cavity-prevention strategy ranks alongside the development of vaccines and the recognition of tobacco’s dangers as signal achievements of the 20th century.

But new evidence from Los Angeles mothers and their preschool-age children suggests community water fluoridation may have a downside.

study published in JAMA Network Open links prenatal exposure to the mineral with an increased risk of neurobehavioral problems at age 3, including symptoms that characterize autism spectrum disorder. The association was seen among women who consumed fluoride in amounts that are considered typical in Los Angeles and across the country.

The findings do not show that drinking fluoridated water causes autism or any other behavioral conditions. Nor is it clear whether the relationship between fluoride exposure and the problems seen in the L.A.-area children — a cohort that is predominantly low-income and 80% Latino — would extend to other demographic groups.

However, the results are concerning enough that USC epidemiologist Tracy Bastain said she would advise pregnant people to avoid fluoridated water straight from the tap and drink filtered water instead.

“This exposure can impact the developing fetus,” said Bastain, the study’s senior author. “Eliminating that from drinking water is probably a good practice.”

Related Articles

Health |


Melinda French Gates to donate $1 billion over next 2 years in support of women’s power

Health |


After liver transplant, Brent Worwa now runs ‘Mr. Sparky of St. Paul’

Health |


Nearly 400 independent pharmacies have closed in Minnesota since 1996. Why?

Health |


As states loosen childhood vaccine requirements, public health experts’ worries grow

Health |


Eric Snoey: Wait times down. Patient satisfaction up. Why not let AI run the ER?

About 63% of Americans receive fluoridated water through their taps, including 73% of those served by community water systems, according to the CDC. In Los Angeles County, 62% of residents get fluoridated water, the Department of Public Health says.

The data analyzed by Bastain and her colleagues came from participants in an ongoing USC research project called Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors, or MADRES. Women receiving prenatal care from clinics in Central and South Los Angeles that cater to low-income patients with Medi-Cal insurance were invited to join.

Between 2017 and 2020, 229 mothers took a test to measure the concentration of fluoride in their urine during their third trimester of pregnancy. Then, between 2020 and 2023, they completed a 99-question survey to assess their child’s behavior when their sons and daughters were 3 years old.

Among other things, the survey asked mothers whether their children were restless, hyperactive, impatient, clingy or accident-prone. It also asked about specific behaviors, such as resisting bedtime or sleeping alone, chewing on things that aren’t edible, holding their breath, and being overly concerned with neatness or cleanliness.

Some of the questions the mothers answered addressed heath problems with no obvious medical cause, including headaches, cramps, nausea and skin rashes.

Among the 229 children — 116 girls and 113 boys — 35 were found to have a collection of symptoms that put them in the clinical or borderline clinical range for inward-focused problems such as sadness, depression and anxiety. In addition, 23 were in the clinical or borderline clinical range for behaviors directed at others, such as shouting in a classroom or attacking other kids, and 32 were deemed at least borderline clinical for a combination of inward and outward problems.

What interested the researchers was whether there was any correlation between a child’s risk of having clinical or borderline clinical behavioral problems and the amount of fluoride in his or her mother’s urine during pregnancy.

They found that compared to women whose fluoride levels placed them at the 25th percentile — meaning 24% of women in the study had levels lower than theirs — women at the 75th percentile were 83% more likely to have their child score in the “clinical” or “borderline clinical” range for inward and outward problems combined. When the researchers narrowed their focus to children in the clinical range only, that risk increased to 84%, according to the study.

The researchers also found that the same increase in fluoride levels was associated with an 18.5% increase in a child’s symptoms related to autism spectrum disorder, as well as an 11.3% increase in symptoms of anxiety.

The amount of fluoride needed for mothers to go from the 25th to the 75th percentile was 0.68 milligrams per liter. As it happens, that’s nearly identical to the 0.7 mg per liter standard that federal regulators say is optimal for preventing tooth decay.

Bastain said that allowed the researchers to compare what might happen to children in two parallel universes: a typical one where their mothers consumed fluoridated water during pregnancy, and an alternate one where they didn’t.

“You can use it as a proxy for if they lived in a fluoridated community or not,” she said.

What that thought experiment shows is that children in the fluoridated community face a higher level of risk. That said, it’s not clear when that risk becomes high enough to be worrisome.

“We don’t know what the safe threshold is,” Bastain said. “It’s not like you can say that as long as you’re under the 75th percentile, there are no effects.”

The study authors’ concerns about the effects of fluoride on developing brains didn’t come out of nowhere.

The National Toxicology Program — a joint effort of the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration — has been investigating the issue since 2016. In a report last year that reviewed an array of evidence from humans and laboratory animals, a working group concluded “with moderate confidence” that overall fluoride exposure at levels at or above 1.5 mg per liter “is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”

The working group added that “more studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.”

2019 study of hundreds of mothers in Canada — where 39% of residents have fluoridated water — found that a 1-mg increase in daily fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.7-point reduction in IQ scores in their 3- and 4-year-old children.

And among hundreds of pregnant women in Mexico, a 0.5-mg-per-liter increase in urinary fluoride went along with a 2.5-point drop in IQ scores for their 6- to 12-year-old children, researchers reported in 2017.

Bastain and her colleagues write their study is the first they are aware of that examines the link between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral outcomes in children in the United States. The results are sure to be controversial, Bastain said, but there’s a straightforward way for pregnant people to reduce the possible risk.

“It’s a pretty easy intervention to get one of those tabletop plastic pitchers” that filter out metals, she said. “Most of them do a pretty good job of filtering out fluoride.”

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.