In a market landscape still fixated on fears of stagflation and modest recoveries, Bank of America is sounding a contrarian—and decidedly bullish—note.
According to new note from BofA Research analysts, the next phase for the U.S. economy and equities might not be a routine recovery, but an outright boom.
“Today a confluence of factors argue that the key tail risk that may not be priced in is not just a cyclical recovery, but a boom,” they said.
5 reasons for a boom
BofA analysts cited five pillars supporting this more bullish case.
First is political will, arguing that with U.S. midterm elections a few quarters away, policymakers have strong incentive for near-term, pro-growth initiatives.
Second is Washington’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) targeting domestic manufacturing.
Third is the massive overseas jolt gathering, with Germany recently enacting the largest stimulus package in EU history, while global reflationary forces are building elsewhere.
Fourth, BofA sees a broad expansion of capital expenditures, with hyperscalers such as Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Alphabet set for nearly $700 billion in capital expenditures between 2025 and 2026. In addition, more non-U.S. companies plan to expand manufacturing capacity in the U.S., while municipalities are focused on updating aging infrastructure.
Fifth, BofA cited its proprietary “Regime Indicator,” a blend of macro signals including corporate revisions to earnings per share, GDP forecasts, and other emerging signals. It’s on the verge of flipping from a “Downturn” to a “Recovery”—a change that historically presages a rally in value stocks.
The dominant narrative in this indicator remains conservative, according to the BofA team, led by Savita Subramanian. In June, 70% of fund managers still predicted stagflation, with only 10% foreseeing a “boom” of above-trend growth and inflation. Yet, BofA argues, the catalyst for an upside breakout is real and imminent. If the Regime Indicator does indeed flip to “Recovery” in early August, historical precedent suggests a rapid rotation is likely.
So how healthy are these five factors actually looking?
Will there be enough spending?
Top economies have already pledged massive stimulus. In March, China unveiled plans to issue 1.3 trillion yuan ($179 billion) in special treasury bonds this year, plus 4.4 trillion yuan of local government special-purpose bonds.
Meanwhile, much of the EU’s stimulus still flowing from the earlier NextGenerationEU package is worth up to €806.9 billion (about $880 billion) through 2026. Major European economies have supplemented this with additional investments and, in some cases, targeted fiscal expansion.
Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia have adopted smaller-scale but still significant fiscal measures in 2025 to address sector-specific slowdowns, energy security, and household purchasing power. Most are focusing on targeted transfers, green investments, and industrial support.
Meanwhile, American companies have announced billions in new U.S. manufacturing, infrastructure, and technology investments since Trump took office, but these initiatives were announced before passage of the OBBBA.
Many investments are phased and slated for completion over the next decade, and it’s unclear how much can come online soon enough to play a role in the boom that BofA Research is projecting. Some of them, such as OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate project, are reportedly struggling to raise funding to match the big numbers initially announced.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Are you a step-checker? Do you look at your phone, watch, or other activity tracker a few times a day, to see if you’ve hit the 10,000 steps mark yet? Do you feel guilty if your step count doesn’t ever get over, say, 7,000?
What if the 10,000-steps-per-day mark was just a publicity campaign from the 1960s that caught the public’s attention, and recent science indicates that 7,000 is the true mark that carries a health benefit with it? That is exactly the scenario that’s playing out.
The latest large-scale analysis, published in The Lancet Public Health and drawing from over 160,000 adults across 57 studies worldwide, challenges the fabled 10,000-step mark. Researchers not only concluded that walking 7,000 steps per day was in fact linked to dramatic improvements in longevity and protection against a wide array of diseases, but that going the extra 3,000 steps didn’t make that much of a difference after all.
Why 10,000 steps became ‘the goal’
For years, “10,000 steps” has been consecrated as the gold standard of daily fitness. But the origin of that benchmark wasn’t medical—it was marketing. Ahead of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, a Japanese pedometer called the “manpo-kei,” which translates to “10,000-step meter,” launched a global fitness trend. That catchy round number stuck, becoming the default goal for millions using wearable trackers.
The 10,000 steps benchmark just seems to be one of those things that lodges in your head. PopularYouTubers and fitness influencers run “10,000 step challenges” encouraging followers to meet or exceed the daily target, often featuring “walk with me” workout sessions. It’s been granted official status by digital apps, with the number “10,000” now a default setting on devices such as Fitbit. Corporate wellness programs, social media challenges, and public health campaigns also routinely use the 10,000-step mark as a motivational goal and badge of accomplishment.
The bombshell findings
The new research poured cold water on the idea of 10,000 as a scientific minimum. Compared to the least active group (2,000 steps), those who managed 7,000 steps per day saw:
47% decreased risk of premature death
25% lower chance of cardiovascular disease
38% reduced risk of dementia
6% lower cancer risk
22% lower incidence of depressive symptoms
28% reduction in falls
14% lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes
What’s more, these massive benefits approached a plateau with 7,000 steps; walking all the way to 10,000 steps per day generated only small additional reductions in risk for most conditions. For some diseases—like heart disease—benefits increased slightly beyond 7,000, but for many others, the curve flattened.
“Although 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active,” according to the abstract, “7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some.” The authors add that the findings should be interpreted in light of limitations, such as the small number of studies available for most outcomes, a lack of age-specific analysis and potential biases at the individual study level.
‘More is better’—but only up to a point
Walking more remains beneficial, particularly for those who are mostly sedentary. The study found the greatest jump in health benefits when moving from very low step counts (~2,000) up to 7,000 daily. For the general adult population, 7,000 steps—about three miles—delivers the bulk of the effect. For adults over 60, benefits plateau a bit earlier, around 6,000–8,000 steps, while younger adults may see the curve level off closer to 8,000–10,000.
The researchers also revealed that the pace of walking was far less important: just getting in the steps, regardless of speed, provided the protective benefits.
Rethinking the fitness message
This research could prompt a shake-up in public health messaging, which has long promoted aspirational but somewhat arbitrary targets. Fitness professionals and wearable device makers now have fresh evidence to advise clients and consumers that a daily goal of 7,000 is both realistic and powerfully protective. Then again, 10,000 steps is catchy.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
In just seven years, Social Security will reach a fiscal cliff that could leave millions of American retirees with drastically reduced benefits, according to a recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). The think tank’s new report projects that, unless Congress acts, Social Security’s main trust fund will be insolvent by the end of 2032, triggering automatic and painful benefit cuts for everyone relying on the program.
How painful? Around $18,000 less-per-year for retirees who depend on the program. This is not the first time the CRFB has warned about this, and it’s a common refrain from no less than the Oracle of Omaha himself: famed investor Warren Buffett.
The ticking clock
Social Security and Medicare, the two bedrock programs supporting older Americans, are drawing closer to insolvency than many might realize. The most recent data, compiled from the programs’ own trustees and enhanced by CRFB calculations, forecasts that by late 2032, Social Security’s retirement program will no longer be able to pay out promised benefits in full. At that point, the law dictates that payments must be limited to the amount coming in from payroll taxes—resulting in an immediate, across-the-board benefit reduction.
The scope of the cut: $18,100 shortfall for typical couples
For millions of future retirees, the numbers are stark. CRFB’s estimate reveals that a typical dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 would see their annual Social Security benefit drop by approximately $18,100. The percentage cut is projected to be 24% for that year, instantly slashing retirement incomes for over 62 million Americans who depend on the program.
The pain would be widespread but would vary by income and household type. For example, Single-earner couples could see a $13,600 cut, low-income, dual-earner couples face an $11,000 shortfall, and high-income couples might lose up to $24,000 a year.
Major cuts are headed for social security, the CRFB says.
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
While the dollar cut is smaller for lower-income households, the relative burden is even more severe, devouring a larger share of retirement income and past earnings. Also, these cuts are in nominal dollars; adjusted to 2025 dollars, the actual cut would be about 15% less.
What’s causing the crisis?
Social Security is funded by a dedicated payroll tax, but the gap between what goes out in benefits and what comes in through taxes is growing. The newly enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has accelerated the timeline by reducing Social Security’s revenue through tax rate cuts and an expanded senior standard deduction. According to CRFB, these policies increase the necessary benefit reduction by about one percentage point; if the changes become permanent, the benefit cuts would be even deeper.
Over time, the gap is expected to worsen: by the end of the century, CRFB adds, Social Security could face required benefit cuts of over 30%, unless lawmakers shore up the program’s finances. Despite these dire projections, many policymakers have pledged not to alter Social Security, promising to keep benefits untouched. But if nothing changes, the law automatically enforces cuts when the trust fund runs dry.
The CRFB report urges policymakers to be candid about the situation and to work towards bipartisan solutions that secure Social Security’s future. Ideas could include new revenue sources, adjusting benefits, or a combination—anything to avoid the “steep and sudden” cut that looms for tens of millions. Without meaningful congressional action before 2032, the Social Security safety net will be abruptly—and dramatically—shrunk, so Americans approaching retirement will at least want to pay close attention to Congressional action on the looming cliff.
Buffett’s bugbear
Warren Buffett has been vocal about the dangers of Social Security insolvency and the looming benefit cuts that millions of retirees could face if action is not taken soon. The retiringBerkshire Hathaway CEO has stated that reducing Social Security payments below their current guaranteed levels would be a grave mistake, and urged prompt Congressional action.
Buffett, who has signed the Giving Pledge and has advocated for higher taxes on higher earners, has criticized the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes, arguing that higher earners—including himself—should contribute more. He’s also suggested that Social Security’s finances could partially be eased by raising the retirement age, with the 95-year-old investing legend himself working well beyond the standard end of most careers.
CRFB background
The CRFB is not just any think tank, either, it’s a respected bipartisan institution that stretches back to 1981. Its board has consistently included former members and directors of key budgetary, fiscal, and policy institutions, such as the Congressional Budget Office, the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Federal Reserve. The CRFB regularly produces analyses of government spending, tax proposals, debt and deficit trends, and trust fund solvency (such as Social Security and Medicare), as well as recommendations and scorecards for major fiscal legislation.
The CRFB has consistently advanced a centrist position on budgetary matters, regularly advocating for reducing federal deficits and controlling the growth of national debt. The organization has often criticized large spending bills that are not offset by reductions elsewhere, as well as tax cuts that are not revenue-neutral.
The think tank favors reforms to federal “entitlement” programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, aiming to make them fiscally sustainable, an emphasis that has drawn criticism from the left. For example, Paul Krugman characterized it as a “deficit scold” when he was still with The New York Times.
In the Social Security sphere, the CRFB has supported or proposed ideas like raising the retirement age, adjusting cost-of-living increases (using the chained CPI), increasing the amount of wages subject to payroll tax, and progressive indexing (where benefits grow more slowly for higher earners). They have also weighed proposals for new revenue streams and some means-testing of benefits. On the right wing, the CRFB’s proposed reforms to Social Security have drawn criticism for, as Charles Blahous of the Manhattan Institute put it, creating a structure more like “welfare” than an earned income benefit.
Still, the CRFB is widely respected in policy circles as a knowledgeable, data-driven budget watchdog, with a long track record of analysis and advocacy for sustainable fiscal policy.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
U.S. existing home sales fell sharply in June 2025, dropping to their lowest level in nine months as elevated mortgage rates and record-high prices continued to sideline many prospective buyers. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), existing home sales slipped 2.7% from May to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.93 million transactions, exceeding analysts’ expectations for a more modest decline. Compared with last year, sales were flat overall, with concentrated declines in several regions.
The housing market is traditionally busiest in spring, but this year’s key buying season proved lackluster. The month-over-month decline largely reflected affordability challenges: Mortgage rates hovered close to 7% throughout April and May, when most June closings would have entered contract.
“Existing home sales have been in purgatory since mortgage rates spiked in 2022,” Lance Lambert, editor-in-chief of ResiClub, told Fortune Intelligence. “Some of that’s because strained affordability in many markets is making it harder for sellers to find a buyer at their asking price—which is also why active inventory is rising. And some of it is because many would-be home sellers, who’d like to sell and buy something else, either can’t afford that next payment or don’t want to part with their lower mortgage rate and payment. No matter how you look at it, this is an unhealthy housing market.”
Sky-high prices
On a nationwide basis, home prices climbed to an all-time high, underpinning the market’s affordability squeeze. The median price for existing homes reached $435,300 in June, up 2% from the same month a year earlier and marking the 24th consecutive month of yearly price gains. NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun sounded an optimistic tone about this staggering climb: “The record-high median home price highlights how American homeowners’ wealth continues to grow—a benefit of homeownership. The average homeowner’s wealth has expanded by $140,900 over the past five years.”
Despite weak sales, inventory is slowly rebuilding: 1.53 million homes were listed for sale at the end of June, up nearly 16% from a year ago—the highest level in years—though still 0.6% lower than in May owing to seasonal factors. This puts the market’s unsold inventory at a 4.7-month supply, matching pre-pandemic norms and up from 4.0 months a year prior.
Regional dynamics varied. Sales dropped in the Northeast, Midwest, and South, but edged higher in the West, with year-over-year changes mirroring these splits. Single-family home sales slipped 3%, while sales of condominiums and co-ops were stable compared with May but down 5.3% against June 2024.
One positive for buyers: more supply and slightly longer time on market. Realtor.com reported that active inventory for June rose for the 20th straight month, climbing nearly 29% year over year to 1.08 million homes, and the average home spent 53 days on market, five days longer than a year earlier. However, these gains are offset by persistent undersupply when compared with the pre-pandemic market, and price cuts became more common, with nearly 21% of listings experiencing downward adjustments—the highest June share since 2016.
“Multiple years of undersupply are driving the record-high home price,” Yun said, noting that construction continues to lag population growth and is holding back first-time buyers. “If the average mortgage rates were to decline to 6%, our scenario analysis suggests an additional 160,000 renters would become first-time homeowners and a boost in activity from existing homeowners,” Yun added.
If mortgage rates decrease in the second half of this year, Yun said, he expects home sales to increase across the country owing to strong income growth, healthy inventory, and a record-high number of jobs. For now, though, it’s a familiar story of peak prices and affordability as the main obstacles for would-be homebuyers in the U.S.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
You’ve read about it all over, including in Fortune Intelligence. Maybe you or friends have been impacted: artificial intelligence is already transforming work, not least hiring and firing. Nowhere is the impact more visible than in the labor market.
The technology industry, the original epicenter of AI adoption, is now seeing many of its own workers displaced by the very innovations they helped create. Employers, racing to integrate AI into everything from cloud infrastructure to customer support, are trimming human headcount in software engineering, IT support, and administrative functions. The rise of AI-powered automation is accelerating layoffs in the tech sector, with impacted employees as high as 80,000 in one count. Microsoft alone is trimming 15,000 jobs while committing $80 billion to new AI investments.
But labor market intelligence firm Lightcast is offering a ray of hope going forward. Job postings for non-tech roles that require AI skills are soaring in value. Lightcast’s new “Beyond the Buzz” report, based on analysis of over 1.3 billion job postings, shows that these postings offer 28% higher salaries—an average of nearly $18,000 more per year. The Lightcast research underscores the split in tech and non-tech hiring: job postings for AI skills in tech roles remain robust, but the proportion of AI jobs within IT and computer science has fallen, dropping from 61% in 2019 to just 49% in 2024. This signals an ongoing contraction of traditional tech roles as AI claims an ever-larger share of the work.
AI demand explodes beyond tech
Rather than stifling workforce prospects, Lightcast’s research suggests that AI is dispersing opportunity across the broader economy. More than half of all jobs requesting AI skills in 2024 appeared outside the tech sector—a radical reversal from previous years, when AI was confined to Silicon Valley and computer science labs. Fields like marketing, HR, finance, education, manufacturing, and customer service are rapidly integrating AI tools, from generative AI platforms that craft marketing content to predictive analytics engines that optimize supply chains and recruitment.
In fact, job postings mentioning generative AI skills outside IT and computer science have surged an astonishing 800% since 2022, catalyzed by the proliferation of tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and DALL-E. Marketing, design, education, and HR are some of the fastest growers in AI adoption—each adapting to new toolkits, workflows, and ways of creating value.
Cole Napper, VP of research, innovation, and talent insights at Lightcast, told Fortune in an interview that he was struck by the lack of a discernible pattern for which industries were most affected by the explosion of AI skills present in job postings, noting that the arts come top of the list.
AI skills are in demand
For the workforce at large, AI proficiency is emerging as one of today’s most lucrative skill investments. Possessing two or more AI skills sends paychecks even higher, with a 43% premium on advertised salaries.
In 2024, more than 66,000 job postings specifically mentioned generative AI as a skill, a nearly fourfold increase from the prior year, according to the Lightcast’s 2025 Artificial Intelligence Index Report. Large language modeling was the second most common AI skill, which showed up in 19,500 open job posts. Postings listing ChatGPT and prompt engineering as skills ranked third and fourth in frequency, respectively.
Sectors such as customer/client support, sales, and manufacturing reported the largest pay bumps for AI-skilled workers, as companies race to automate routine functions and leverage AI for competitive advantage.
Christina Inge, founder of Thoughtlight, an AI marketing service, told Fortune in a message AI isn’t just automating busywork, it’s also becoming a tool AI-fluent workers can leverage to increase their own value to a company—and to outperform their peers. Take, for example, someone in sales using AI to create more targeted conversations to close deals faster, Inge wrote. The same can be said for customer service workers.
“[Customer service workers fluent in AI] know how to interpret AI outputs, write clear prompts, and troubleshoot when things go off script,” Inge said. “That combination of human judgment and AI fluency is hard to find and well worth the extra pay.”
In fields like marketing and science, even single AI skills can yield large returns, while more technical positions gravitate to specialists with advanced machine learning or generative AI expertise.
Crucially, the most valued AI-enabled roles demand more than just technical wizardry. Employers prize a hybrid skillset: communication, leadership, problem-solving, research, and customer service are among the 10 most-requested skills in AI-focused postings, alongside technical foundations like machine learning and artificial intelligence.
“While generative AI excels at tasks like writing and coding, uniquely human abilities—such as communication, management, innovation, and complex problem-solving—are becoming even more valuable in the AI era,” the study says.
Winners and losers
The emerging repercussions are striking. Tech workers whose roles are readily automated face rising displacement—unless they can pivot quickly into emerging areas that meld business, technical, and people skills. Meanwhile, millions of workers outside of tech are poised to translate even basic AI literacy into new roles or wage gains. The competitive edge now lies with organizations and professionals agile enough to combine AI capabilities with human judgement, creativity, and business acumen.
For companies, the risk is clear: treating AI as an isolated technical specialty is now a liability. Winning firms are investing to embed AI fluency enterprise-wide, upskilling their marketing teams, HR departments, and finance analysts to build a future-ready workforce.
AI may be the source of turmoil in Silicon Valley boardrooms, but its economic dividends are flowing rapidly to workers—and companies—in every corner of the economy. For those able to adapt, AI skills are not a harbinger of job loss, but a passport to higher salaries and new career possibilities. Still, the research doesn’t indicate exactly where in the income levels the higher postings are coming, so Napper said it’s possible that we are seeing some compression, with higher-paid tech jobs being phased out and lower-paying positions being slightly better-paying.
Napper said the trend of AI skills cropping up in job postings has exploded over the past few years, and he doesn’t expect a slowdown anytime soon. Napper said there’s a “cost to complacency”—one that includes a significant salary cut. He added that the 28% premium, Lightcast plans to release follow-up research on what level of the income latter the trend is hitting the most.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
A seismic generational shift is underway, and its epicenter is Generation Z. Born from 1997 onward, Gen Z is coming of age in a world where traditional milestones like landing a lifelong job, buying a house in your 20s, or chasing wealth for its own sake have become difficult, or borderline impossible, in the modern economy. Gen Z has responded pragmatically, insisting, well, maybe they don’t really want those things anyway.
A massive new study from EY’s Generational Dynamics core team, spanning more than 10,000 young adults across 10 countries and five continents, finds Gen Z is often misunderstood—and their measured approach should define them as the “pragmatic generation.” The authors, Marcie Merriman and Zak Dychtwald, wrote Gen Z approaches “life’s traditional milestones” with a sort of “reasoned skepticism.”
According to Joe Depa, EY Global chief innovation officer, the research reveals how 18- to 34-year-olds are taking a surprisingly pragmatic approach to adulthood, finances, and their future. “Far from being financially reckless,” Depa tells Fortune Intelligence, “this generation is focused on long-term stability — and redefining success along the way.”
Money, for them, is necessary but not the be-all and end-all: 87% say financial independence is important, yet only 42% rate wealth as a primary marker of success, trailing far behind metrics like mental and physical health and family relationships. Put simply, for Gen Z, financial stability is a tool—not a goal. They use money to open doors to flexibility, purpose, and well-being.
Depa says the research “tells a different story” about Gen Z. “The idea that young adults are postponing adulhtood is outdated.” They’re approaching life milestones not with rebellion but with “reasoned skepticism and a global perspective.” As employees and customers, Gen Z will challenge organizations that have been wired around a different way of doing things. For business leaders, understanding this shift will be vital to attracting and retaining talent.
The job hoppers
Where baby boomers and Gen Xers often stuck with one employer for decades, Gen Z is dismantling that concept.
EY’s research found 59% of young adults globally expect to work for two to five organizations throughout their lives, and nearly 20% say they will work for six or more. This flexible approach to employment—embracing job changes and flexible gig work—reflects not only a desire for varied experiences, but a strategic response to rapid change, uncertainty, and a lifetime of economic instability.
“Younger generations are not merely reacting to financial constraints,” the EY Generational Dynamics team writes, but making rational and thoughtful decisions about what aligns with both their own lived experiences and the pitfalls suffered by previous generations. EY says it’s a perspective that contrasts sharply with the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality often espoused by older generations, with Gen Z finding that to be dismissive of their specific context.
Redefining success: inside out, not outside in
Success, in Gen Z’s eyes, is an inside-out project: emotional well-being, strong relationships, and impact outrank titles and salaries. It’s no longer about ticking the boxes of homeownership, lifelong employment, or even traditional family milestones. Landmarks such as marriage and children are being postponed—not out of rejection, but for pragmatic reasons: economic insecurity, housing unaffordability, and a desire to be emotionally and financially prepared.
The rise of job-hopping has replaced the well-worn “script” of adulthood: Only 59% see working for a single organization as a viable path, whereas nearly 20% of respondents said they plan to work for six or more employers in the course of their careers. Linear career ladders and employer loyalty are giving way to “project-based” growth, taking new jobs, and side hustles, all in search of variety, autonomy, and purpose. “Job hopping is not viewed as a negative, but an essential step to open doors and advance opportunities,” the EY team writes.
The average Gen Z respondent reports feeling like an adult earlier than previous generations, and as a result, more than half (51%) said they prioritize physical and mental health as their chief markers of success, with family ties also outranking wealth in many countries. The push for authenticity is also striking; 84% cite “being true to oneself” as extremely important.
Employers, beware (and evolve)
For Gen Z, a job is not a life sentence, nor is money alone enough to keep them engaged. Employers used to loyalty and linear career ladders may be blindsided by Gen Z’s willingness to prioritize purpose, wellness, and flexibility—even if it comes at the expense of job security or long-term benefits. Conventional incentives are losing their grip.
For employers, this new pragmatism is both a wake-up call and an opportunity. Flexibility is mandatory, with hybrid and remote work, fluid hours, and support for “micro-retirements” between jobs becoming non-negotiable.
Gen Z expects employers to have clear values around well-being, sustainability, and social justice—and to act on them. Over 70% want their employer to be transparent about values and pay, and are unafraid to challenge leadership if authenticity is found wanting. This generation will quickly leave if growth stalls: 57% would quit for better professional development. They crave mentorship, personalized learning, and a sense of upward mobility.
Gen Z is less loyal to brands or employers unless that loyalty is returned; nearly half say they have “zero loyalty” to brands, and only about 60% feel any loyalty to their employer. Empathetic leadership and honest, two-way communication are expected, not a bonus.
Gen Z wants to be included in company decisions and expects a seat at the table. This finding aligns with separate research from Glassdoor, whose Worklife Trends report in June 2025 found emotional intelligence is now a standard expectation held by workers, many of them Gen Z. “The bar on what constitutes a good manager has been raised,” Glassdoor chief economist Daniel Zhao previously told Fortune Intelligence.
Employers slow to adapt to these realities won’t just struggle to recruit Gen Z—they’ll risk losing relevance altogether. The pragmatic playbook demands companies redesign everything from hiring and communication to values and pay structures.
The flip side? Gen Z’s pragmatism can also be an asset: They are technologically adept, mission-driven, and resourceful. But their skepticism can also translate into disengagement or even open dissatisfaction if workplaces fail to address their real priorities. Businesses would be pragmatic in their own right to tune into what Gen Z values most—authentic leadership, transparent communication, and support for well-being—if they want to retain this generation.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Delta Air Lines is having a good 2025, reporting strong second-quarter earnings and reinstating its April profit guidance, leading to a substantial stock bump (up roughly 16% from June to July). True, its guidance is down from its January projections, but it’s weathering the storm of the tricky global economy well, maintaining its status as America’s leading premium airline. As Fortune‘s Shawn Tully reported in March 2025, it has somehow managed the trick of being America’s most profitable airline, while giving billions back to employees in the form of profit sharing.
At the start of the year, CEO Ed Bastian kicked off a celebration of Delta’s centenary by announcing “a new era in premium travel” with the opening of Delta One lounges, a step above its usual Sky Clubs. The Delta One locations will offer “amenities for the premium traveler” ranging from fine dining to spa-like wellness treatments and valet services. Bastian clarified that Delta will continue to invest in its Delta Sky Clubs, with more openings planned to come.
But there is more to the story for Delta, America’s leading premier airline. The Sky Clubs are coming off years of turbulence, with significant customer backlash following several of Delta’s attempts to improve a lounge experience that has become overcrowded. These problems date back several years, to the beginning of the “revenge travel” boom that accompanied post-pandemic reopening. Bastian told Fortune in 2022 that even he was shocked by the level of demand: “People talk about revenge travel, or pent-up travel—this is beyond anything that people can classify as truly pent-up,” he said, adding that his team calculated a whopping $300 billion burst of travel thirst. “That gap is $300 billion—with a B,” Bastian emphasized.
America’s leading premium airline has long offered a standard lounge experience through its Sky Clubs, with free wi-fi, buffets of cold snacks and heated steam trays, and a range of complimentary drinks. The Sky Clubs were no match for the burst of revenge travelers. Bastian’s efforts to fix these problems in 2023—barring Basic Economy passengers and capping the number of visits allowed for credit card holders—sparked backlash on customers’ part and soul-searching for Bastian. “We are victims of our own success,” he told Fast Company‘s Stephanie Mehta in 2024, as he explained changes to benefits including access to Sky Club lounges. “It’s hard to tell someone who’s been at a certain status for many years that what they’ve earned is no longer as valuable.”
That’s why the declining pleasure of the airport lounge resonates for a deeper reason: it’s a metaphor for the declining prospects of the upper middle class in an age of “elite overproduction,” which argues that certain societies grow so rich and successful that they produce too many people of premium education for the number of premium jobs—or premium experiences—that the economy can actually support.
The elites have been so overproduced that you can literally see them—in lines stretching out of airport lounges.
The elite lounge overproduction theory
Several factors make Delta’s overcrowding issue particularly severe, and they have to do with how Delta is really trying—and, as Bastian says, succeeding—in offering a premium service to a large, affluent customer base. Delta offers more comprehensive food and beverage options than many competitors, so travelers linger longer, compounding capacity issues. Indeed, when reached for comment, Delta confirmed that its SkyMiles program has seen “unprecedented engagement,” and its member satisfaction is higher than ever. Delta said it’s committed to continuous investment to further please customers, which includes “modernizing and expanding our lounges.”
Generous lounge access deals with American Express (including non-Delta-branded Platinum Card holders) have greatly expanded eligibility, overwhelming facilities. As more travelers achieve status or purchasehigh-tier tickets, both due to credit card spending and business travel rebounds, demand for lounge space has increased beyond what legacy facilities can handle.
Delta isn’t alone in its lounge struggles, as shown by its partner, American Express, which has tried to physically expand many of its Centurion Lounges. Those have gone from the epitome of exclusivity and comfort to another kind of crowded waiting room—albeit with arguably better snacks and Wi-Fi.
The root of the problem is the same: too many people now have access. The proliferation of premium credit cards, airline status programs, and paid day passes has democratized lounge entry, eroding the exclusivity that made these spaces desirable in the first place.It is unclear if Delta expanded too far, too fast, or if it was surprised by the number of lounge lovers in its clientele.UBS Global Wealth Management has noted a surprising trend in the upper middle class: the rise of the “everyday millionaire,” or people whose assets fall between $1 million and $5 million. These are exactly the kind of people who would see themselves as lounge-worthy, and likely frustrated to find their small-M millionaire status doesn’t go so far.
The consequences for travelers are palpable. Social media and travel forums are rife with stories of travelers paying hundreds of dollars in annual fees only to find long lines clogging, say, New York’s JFK terminals on a daily basis. The proof is abundant on TikTok.On the other hand, expectations are heightened. Travel research firm Airport Dimensions has conducted an “airport experience report” for over a decade and found in 2024 that airport lounges are a contradiction: the definitive democratic travel luxury.
This widespread expectation—and dissatisfaction—is not just a matter of comfort. For many, the lounge was a symbol of having “made it”—a reward for loyalty, status, or financial success. Its decline has become a source of frustration and even embarrassment, especially for those who remember a more exclusive era. There’s an emotional trigger behind an unpleasant lounge experience.
The theory behind the malaise: elite overproduction
The overcrowding of airport lounges is more than a logistical headache—it’s a microcosm of a broader societal phenomenon. University of Connecticut professor emeritus Peter Turchin has developed a controversial theory of “elite overproduction” which posits that frustration and even instability result when a society produces more people aspiring to elite status than there are elite positions. It’s an unorthodox theory from an unorthodox academic: Turchin is an emeritus professor at UConn, research associate at the University of Oxford and project leader at the Complexity Science Hub-Vienna, leading research in a field of his own invention: Cliodynamics, a type of historical social science.
The catch with Turchin’s theory is that his own type of complexity science takes on a pseudo-prophetic quality, similar in some ways to William Strauss and Neil Howe’s “Fourth Turning.” And Turchin has foreseen that the United States has reached a stage repeated in civilizations throughout history, when it has produced too many products of elite education and social status for the realistic number of jobs it can generate. Decline and fall follows, Roman Empire-style. The Atlanticprofiled Turchin in 2020, warning “the next decade could be even worse.” Several writers have expanded on his ideas since then, approaching it from their distinctive and different sensibilities.
Ritholtz Wealth Management COO Nick Maggiulli posted to his “Of Dollars and Data” blog on the subject of airport lounges specifically, writing that the “death of the Amex lounge” simply shows that “the upper middle class isn’t special anymore,” although he did not specifically link this to the concept of elite overproduction. “There are too many people with lots of money,” he concluded.
In the context of airport lounges, the “elite” are not just the ultra-wealthy, but the vast upper middle class—armed with a combination of higher degrees, status, and premium credit cards—now jostling for the same perks. But what if much of society has been turning into some version of an overcrowded airport lounge?
In an interview with Fortune Intelligence, Turchin said this theory makes sense and fits with his thesis when presented with the similarities. “The benefits that you get with wealth are now being diluted because there are just too many wealth holders,” he said, citing data that the top 10% of American society has gotten much wealthier over the past 40 years. (Turchin sources this statement to this working paper from Edward Wolff.)
Turchin said lounges are not by definition restricted from expansion in the same way that political offices are, with a core element of his thesis being there are too many sociopolitical elites for the number of positions open to them, but “it’s the same thing” in light of the difficulties many providers have in expanding lounge access. “There is a limited amount of space, but many more elites now, so to speak … low-rank elites.” Turchin said these low-rank elites, or “ten-percenters,” don’t have the status typically associated with elite status. “The overproduction of lower-ranking elites results in decreased benefits for all.”
When asked where else he sees this manifesting in modern life, Turchin said “it’s actually everywhere you look. Look at the overproduction of university degrees,” he added, arguing that declining rates of college enrollment and high rates of recent graduate unemployment support the decreasing value of a college diploma. “There is overproduction of university degrees and the value of university degree actually declines. And so the it’s the same thing [with] the lounge.”
Noah Smith argues that elite overproduction manifests as a kind of status anxiety and malaise among the upper middle class. Many find themselves struggling to afford or access the very symbols of success they were promised—be it a prestigious job, a home in a desirable neighborhood, or, indeed, a peaceful airport lounge. He collects reams of employment data to show that Turchin’s theory has significant statistical support from the 21st century American economy.
Freddie DeBoer largely agrees, framing the issue as “why so many elites feel like losers.” He focuses more on the creator economy than Smith, but asserts that he sees “think many would agree with me about “a pervasive sense of discontent among people who have elite aspirations and who feel that their years toiling in our meritocratic systems entitles them to fulfill those aspirations.”
Delta’s plan to restore status
In its lounge strategy, Delta is trying to walk a fine line: Offering a premium service to a class of consumers that is becoming more and more mass-market. CEO Ed Bastian acknowledged as much on the company’s latest earnings call. While touting the fortunes of Delta’s target customers, households making $100,000 or more a year, Bastian noted the income cutoff “is not, by the way, an elite definition—that’s 40% of all U.S. households.”
Beginning February 2025, Delta implemented new caps on annual lounge visits for American Express cardholders, setting a maximum of 15 visits per year and requiring exceptionally high annual spending ($75,000+) to re-unlock unlimited access. Basic Economy passengers, meanwhile, are permanently excluded from lounge access, further tightening entry. Travelers can only enter lounges within three hours of their flight’s departure time, discouraging extended stays and unnecessary early arrivals.
Delta is opening and upgrading lounges in key markets: New Delta One Lounges in Seattle, New York-JFK, Boston, and Los Angeles feature larger spaces, exclusive amenities, and new design concepts for premium passengers. Major expansions are under way in hubs like Atlanta, Orlando, Salt Lake City, and Philadelphia, with multiple new or enlarged clubs opening between spring and late 2025—some over 30,000 square feet in size, making them among the largest in the network. Renovations to existing lounges (e.g., Atlanta’s Concourses A and C) are aimed at maximizing capacity and improving guest experiences. Delta is also exploring emergency overflow options and flexible staffing to address unpredictable surges, especially during weather and operational delays.
Delta executives are optimistic. They predict that by 2026, most crowding issues—aside from extreme disruptions—will be resolved on “almost all days.” Continued investments in larger, better-designed lounges, coupled with tighter access controls, are expected to restore the premium experience customers expect.
However, critics note that crowding still occurs at peak times, especially in flagship locations, and design/layout flaws occasionally undermine even the newest clubs. The success of Delta’s fix-it agenda is being closely watched by both rivals and loyal travelers.
But Delta may be overmatched in rehabilitating the overcrowded airport lounge as a potent symbol of this broader malaise. What was once a marker of distinction is now a crowded, noisy, and often disappointing experience. The democratization of luxury, while laudable in some respects, has left many feeling that the rewards of success are increasingly out of reach—or at least, not what they used to be.
As airlines grapple with how to restore the magic of the lounge, they are also confronting a deeper truth: in an age of elite overproduction, the promise of exclusivity is harder than ever to keep.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
President Trump has suggested that as part of his tariff policy, he would consider sending out rebate checks or tariff refund checks to Americans, funded by the revenue collected from the tariffs imposed on imported goods. “We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate for people of a certain income level,” Trump told reporters Friday outside the White House. “A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.”
The rebate would be drawn from the significant amount of tariff revenue collected by the U.S. government—over $100 billion in the first half of 2025 alone, according to Treasury data.
Trump’s remarks about these rebate checks perhaps being targeted to Americans “of a certain income level” suggest they would likely be means-tested, but Trump offered few details about the exact income thresholds or amount of the rebate.
The stated purposes of the rebate are to compensate Americans who may have faced higher prices as a result of the tariffs and to potentially provide a small economic stimulus, which gives new meaning to Trump’s remarks about businesses “eating the tariffs,” with much economic debate over who is really footing the bill for them.
Any such rebate policy would likely require congressional approval, and lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley have indicated support for legislation that would deliver rebate checks to working Americans, but no bill text or timetable has been specified. If enacted, the administration would need to establish eligibility rules, application or automatic distribution methods, and payment logistics. This could resemble past stimulus check programs, but that is just theoretical at this point.
The rebate concept is distinct from legal or administrative tariff refunds to importers, which have been considered or mandated following court rulings questioning the legality of some tariffs. In such cases, refunds would go to the companies that paid the import duties, not directly to end consumers.
Is this legal?
Trump’s proposed tariff refund checks—rebates funded by tariff revenue and distributed directly to American consumers—would almost certainly require explicit legislation from Congress to be legally valid, given that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to levy tariffs and appropriate federal funds.
The president can impose certain tariffs under delegated statutory authorities, but courts have repeatedly found that the sweeping use of these powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is not legal. Multiple recent court rulings (including a unanimous U.S. Court of International Trade decision) have blocked Trump’s broad tariffs for lacking legal basis under the IEEPA, yet the tariffs remain in place pending appeal and, theoretically, a Supreme Court ruling.
Trump’s busy July
The suggestion of tariff rebate checks or refund checks is another new policy suggestion from Trump in a July that has been full of them, as Washington, D.C., has been roiled by a metastasizing scandal involving disgraced deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism for its decision not to release the so-called Epstein files, which the Justice Department has said do not exist. The Wall Street Journal has published a series of scoops about Trump’s past closeness to Epstein, including Trump’s name being mentioned in the files.
In July, Trump said he had reached an agreement with Coca-Colato bring real sugar back into the Coke formula, which the company partially confirmed days later. He also demanded the Washington Commanders football team revert to their former “Redskins” name, threatening political obstruction for their stadium project if they did not comply. He announced the release of 230,000 files related to Martin Luther King Jr. And he escalated his feud with the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell, visiting the in-process office renovations in a hard hat and engaging in a bizarre, comedic argument with Powell about cost overruns on live television.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Headline U.S. inflation jumped to 2.7% in June, its steepest rise in five months, according to the latest consumer price data. UBS Global Wealth Management took a look under the hood, writing in its monthly letter that “it’s quiet … a little too quiet.”
Chief investment officer Mark Haefele appealed to the cinephiles in his audience: “Movie fans will know that feeling of tension when the hero steps into supposedly dangerous new territory only to find nothing there.” The TACO traders are waiting for the next shoe to drop, tariffs are at their highest since the 1930s, and the Federal Reserve’s independence is threatened, he writes. Yet global stocks are at record highs, rate volatility is down, and credit spreads are tightening.
Haefele looked under the hood of headline inflation to isolate the reading for “core goods” in June, arguing that this is where the tariff impact is being revealed, as its June increase showed a two-year high. Much of the recent acceleration reflects price hikes in goods most exposed to the new tariffs—household furnishings, appliances, electronics, apparel, and toys. There’s also a lag between when tariffs are announced, when importers stockpile goods, and when stores finally pass those costs on to shoppers, meaning this should increase in coming months.
The highest spike in core goods in two years.
UBS Global Wealth Management
All about the lag
UBS Global Wealth Management notes that data in the weeks and months ahead will be key to determining whether core goods truly are surging, reflecting the impact of tariffs. Indeed, industries that rely heavily on imports are feeling the pinch first. Retail sales in categories such as electronics and home furnishings have dropped by 2% and 1.1%, respectively, once adjusted for inflation, as households begin to curb spending in response to higher prices. Conversely, overall retail sales volumes are still up 0.4% month over month, and consumer spending remains relatively resilient.
Who bears the burden?
A central question remains on tariffs: Who pays for them—exporters, importers, or consumers? Haefele cautions that it’s unclear how exporters, importers, or consumers will divide the economic costs. The split will likely differ by industry, product, and market position.
Some companies, such as General Motors, have already reported a direct hit: GM’s second-quarter earnings took a $1.1 billion loss as a result of tariffs, leading to a 32% decline in core profit. The automaker is responding with a mix of price increases, cost-cutting, and supply-chain adjustments, but warns that a continued tariff environment could further squeeze margins or eventually force higher prices onto buyers. Across the wider business community, company executives are now addressing tariffs in earnings calls.
Haefele said UBS will closely watch retail sales, inflation, and consumer spending data, while listening for comments in the ongoing second-quarter earnings season about who will truly be “eating the tariffs,” to paraphrase President Donald Trump.
Policy offsets and Fed dilemmas
Some fiscal offsets may be on the way. The recent “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which contains extended and new tax cuts—partly funded with tariff revenue—could help stimulate the economy. But the amount of that revenue is unclear.
Risks tilt in both directions. If tariffs fuel a larger-than-expected inflation surge, consumer spending may slow and the Federal Reserve could be forced into a tough policy corner, balancing price stability against economic growth. Alternatively, if companies absorb more costs to maintain market share, profits could slump, further weighing on investment and labor markets.
For now, the lagged nature of tariffs means their full effect is only beginning to show up beneath the surface of headline inflation. Economists and policymakers will be closely monitoring core inflation, retail sales, and corporate margins in the months ahead. The only certainty, it seems, is that tariffs are no longer an abstract policy debate: They are beginning to hit home—one price tag at a time.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
President Donald Trump’s trade deals are illegal, Piper Sandler flatly declares in a new research note. The investment bank analyzed ongoing court battles and legislative authority, and concluded that Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose wide-ranging tariffs and cut bilateral deals far exceeds the powers granted by Congress.
It’s not a new opinion from Piper, necessarily—the bank laid out its reasoning in April, shortly after Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of universal tariffs under the IEEPA. Then, as now, it sees a 9–0 ruling in the Supreme Court against Trump as more likely than a Trump win.
The reason that the Piper Sandler team of Andy Laperriere, Don Schneider, and Melissa Turner is revisiting the subject is that oral arguments in these and similar cases are scheduled through September. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments on whether Trump truly has unlimited authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Thursday, July 31. Piper Sandler forecasts that appellate courts will issue rulings over the next several months.
“Trump will probably continue to lose in the lower courts, and we believe the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule in his favor,” the bank said. Here’s why.
Stiff resistance
Trump’s trade policy has encountered stiff resistance as lower courts push back against the administration’s sweeping claims of executive authority. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled unanimously against Trump’s use of the IEEPA for tariffs, calling the administration’s arguments unconvincing. The decision is now under appeal.
In a separate May 29 ruling, D.C. District Judge Rudolph Contreras found that the IEEPA does not enable the president to impose tariffs at all and ordered an immediate reversal of certain duties—though that order is currently stayed pending appeal.
According to Piper Sandler, the heart of the matter is congressional intent. As it did in April, the firm argues that the IEEPA, enacted in 1977, was designed to give the president certain emergency economic powers, but not blanket authority to set tariffs. Courts have consistently rejected the idea that the statute includes such sweeping power.
Even recent bilateral deals, such as Trump’s agreement with Japan, do not cure the underlying legal flaw. Congress, not the president, holds the ultimate authority to impose tariffs and approve international trade agreements. Piper Sandler stresses, “Making a deal with another country has no bearing on the legality of Trump’s tariffs,” highlighting that executive-led deals absent congressional approval lack legal standing. “If Trump does not have the authority to impose tariffs he is claiming, it doesn’t matter whether he makes a deal with Japan or anyone else.”
Billions and bilateral deals at stake
If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, all trade deals and announced tariff changes made under the IEEPA—including minimum 10% import rates and threatened reciprocal tariffs—would be declared instantly illegal. Refunds could flow to companies and individuals who have paid unlawfully imposed tariffs, if they file claims with the CIT.
The massive, headline-grabbing $550 billion Japanese investment pledge is cited by Piper Sandler as an example of economic promises lacking clarity, specifics, or legal durability.
“Our trading partners and major multinationals know Trump’s tariffs are on shaky ground,” the Piper team writes. “It’s notable the promise of $550 billion in Japanese investments in the U.S. is accompanied by no details. It’s not clear where the money will be coming from, who will decide how it is allocated, and over what period the $550 billion will be spent.”
Despite all these reasons the tariffs are clearly illegal, Piper insists that the tariffs are likely to go up from this point and “remain at record levels for the next many months.” Here’s why.
Will tariffs go away soon?
Piper Sandler’s analysts caution that tariffs are likely to remain in place in the near term, supported by administrative stays and the slow judicial process. Even if reciprocal tariffs are struck down, Trump could pivot to other statutes, such as Section 232 (covering steel, aluminum, and cars), though these have even stricter legal guardrails and could invite further litigation. Trump is on “strong legal ground” in using Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars, the bank says, but he may try to stretch that authority as he has done with other trade statutes. “The base case is there will be years of legal battles over tariffs.”
The research note details at least eight ongoing lawsuits from a diverse range of plaintiffs—including states, tribes, and small businesses—all challenging Trump’s use of the IEEPA. Court dockets now stretch across several federal circuits, signaling that “years of legal battles” may follow, even if Trump loses at the Supreme Court.
Piper Sandler emphasizes that major multinational corporations and foreign governments see U.S. trade policy as unstable. The result, the bank argues, is reluctance to invest heavily in the U.S. until the legal landscape becomes clearer—a situation that may persist for months, if not years, irrespective of any immediate court ruling.
Piper Sandler’s analysts express confidence that recent judicial skepticism of the executive branch’s unchecked statutory interpretations will carry over to the Supreme Court. The bank finds the conservatives on the court likely to vote just as they did in a series of recent cases, in which they “lined uniformly against the Executive Branch pulling out an old statute and asserting far-reaching, never-before-used authority nowhere found in the text of the statute.” The liberals are also not likely to grant unlimited authority to Trump.
Still, with Trump’s well-known litigious nature, and the legal calendar ahead, Piper concludes: “Instability surrounding trade is likely to last a lot longer.”
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order imposing tariffs on imported goods during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Red Lobster, the iconic seafood chain, is charting a new course under the leadership of CEO Damola Adamolekun after making its way out of bankruptcy. In an interview with Good Morning America on Thursday, the 36-year-old chief executive addressed two questions lingering on the minds of loyal guests and industry watchers alike: Will the beloved Endless Shrimp deal return, and how will looming U.S. tariffs on imported seafood impact diners? His answers signal a reset for the troubled restaurant brand, focused on financial stability, customer experience, and menu innovation.
Endless shrimp promotion: officially retired
For years, the Ultimate Endless Shrimp promotion was a staple at Red Lobster, drawing crowds with the promise of limitless seafood at a set price. But as the company navigated severe financial headwinds, it became clear the beloved deal was more curse than blessing. Adamolekun stated unequivocally, “We don’t have any plans to bring it back,” all but closing the door on an offer that, while popular, ultimately helped sink Red Lobster’s bottom line.
The all-you-can-eat shrimp program, initially launched as a limited-time offer, was made a permanent fixture in recent years. Far from boosting profits, the promotion instead triggered multimillion-dollar losses due to customers out-eating the chain’s margins. Bankruptcy filings revealed the deal alone was responsible for a loss of $11 million, accelerating Red Lobster’s financial unraveling in 2023 and 2024. “We listen intently to customer comments and try to react really quickly to deliver people what they want,” Adamolekun explained. “But you also have to make sure you’re running a profitable business.”
Red Lobster has shifted its strategy to focus on value in more sustainable forms: introducing appetizer deals, weekday happy hours, and a three-course “shrimp sensation” menu offered at select locations. While Adamolekun hasn’t completely ruled out creative promotions in the distant future, diners hoping for the Endless Shrimp’s return shouldn’t hold their breath.
Adamolekun has prioritized innovation and agility, though, including extensive outreach to customers via social media, and a notable responsiveness from the chain to their feedback. Since emerging from bankruptcy, the company has overhauled its menu—streamlining offerings by 20% while adding new items like Lobster Pappardelle Pasta, Bacon-Wrapped Sea Scallops, and revitalizing favorites including hush puppies and popcorn shrimp. Within days of receiving requests for bolder flavors, Red Lobster added new spicy, Old Bay Parmesan, and Cajun sausage options to the menu. “We want to be exciting, relevant and compelling for our guests,” Adamolekun said.
Red Lobster addresses new tariffs
This summer’s scheduled U.S. tariffs on imported seafood have sparked concern that seafood lovers could soon see restaurant bills soar. Adamolekun was quick to calm those fears in his GMA interview, stressing that almost 90% of Red Lobster’s key seafood—lobster and crab—comes from North America and Canada. These sources are largely exempt from new tariffs under agreements like USMCA.
While some shrimp and other products are still imported and thus subject to tariffs, Adamolekun underscored, “We do import products as well — so on those products we’ll pay a tariff like everybody else. That impacts our business, and our intention is not to pass that through. We’re not intending to do any more price increases for the rest of the year, regardless of what happens with tariffs”.
Adamolekun’s leadership approach
Red Lobster’s turnaround has not gone unnoticed, with improved customer feedback and returning foot traffic since the restructuring. The company’s multiyear plan includes further renovations of its restaurants to create a more vibrant, inviting atmosphere—an appeal especially aimed at younger diners looking for experience as much as a meal.
After turbulent years, Adamolekun’s approach reflects both hard business lessons and a renewed commitment to guest satisfaction. The days of bottomless shrimp may be over, but under new leadership, the seafood chain is betting that menu innovation, value deals, and responsive service can once again make Red Lobster a place to celebrate.
Microsoft, one of the world’s most valuable tech companies, is undergoing a sweeping internal transformation punctuated by mass layoffs, even as its financial performance soars and its ambitions in artificial intelligence reach unprecedented heights. In a memo sent to employees on July 24, CEO Satya Nadella outlined the paradox at the heart of Microsoft’s current moment: ongoing job cuts amid record profits, bold AI investment, and a corporate culture in flux.
The scope of Microsoft’s 2025 layoffs is considerable. More than 15,000 positions—about 7% of the company’s global workforce—have been eliminated since January, making this the company’s largest personnel reduction since the 2014 cuts following the Nokia acquisition. The latest and most significant wave came in July, when roughly 9,000 employees, or 4% of staff, were informed their roles were being eliminated. These latest reductions followed prior rounds in May and June, which saw thousands more let go as the company aggressively reshaped itself for the AI era.
The memo: Confronting the ‘enigma of success’
In his July memo, Nadella directly addressed the seeming contradiction at the heart of the layoffs. “By every objective measure, Microsoft is thriving—our market performance, strategic positioning, and growth all point up and to the right,” he wrote, noting the company’s capital expenditures, largely fueled by investments in AI and cloud infrastructure, are at historic highs. Despite these investments, he said headcount “is relatively unchanged,” given the simultaneous reduction of jobs.
Nadella called this tension the “enigma of success in an industry that has no franchise value,” arguing that success in tech is not permanent or evenly distributed. “Progress isn’t linear. It’s dynamic, sometimes dissonant, and always demanding. But it’s also a new opportunity for us to shape, lead through, and have greater impact than ever before.”
Expressing gratitude to those let go, Nadella acknowledged the human cost. “Their contributions have shaped who we are as a company, helping build the foundation we stand on today. And for that, I am deeply grateful.”
Resetting Microsoft’s mission
Nadella rooted Microsoft’s new direction in three core business priorities: security, quality, and AI transformation. He said in the era of AI, Microsoft’s mission must move from building static tools to empowering every person and organization to build their own. Nadella described a vision where “all 8 billion people could summon a researcher, an analyst, or a coding agent at their fingertips.” The company, he said, is pivoting from a “software factory” to an “intelligence engine”—an acknowledgment that AI is now the lens through which Microsoft will view every product, service, and business unit.
This transition comes with heavy investment: Microsoft is pouring $80 billion into AI infrastructure this fiscal year, redeploying capital and, crucially, shifting a portion of the workforce to make room for these new bets.
Nadella issued a call to action to stem anxieties around job security and morale, urging employees to maintain a “growth mindset” and approach the messiness of transformation with humility and resolve. “It might feel messy at times, but transformation always is. Teams are reorganizing. Scopes are expanding. New opportunities are everywhere,” he wrote, describing the current focus on AI as similar to the 1990s tech revolution in PCs and productivity software.
Microsoft’s sweeping job cuts echo a wider trend among tech giants in 2025, as companies recalibrate for a post-pandemic market increasingly defined by AI-driven automation. By one count, more than 80,000 jobs have been slashed in the tech industry this year. Nadella’s memo did not rule out further layoffs and also did not promise stability, seeking to unify staff around the mission to “empower others to build now.”
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio is known for his dire warnings about the economy and the national debt, but he just issued one of his starkest warnings to date, likening the United States’ mounting debt crisis to an impending “economic heart attack” and urging policymakers to revisit the fiscal discipline that characterized the 1990s boom years. Dalio’s alarm, sounded in a series of social media posts and interviews, including with Fortune’s Diane Brady, comes as the national debt nears $37 trillion and the federal deficit continues to swell, fueling bipartisan anxieties about the country’s financial health.
Dalio, founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, described America’s deficit spiral in dramatic—and visceral—terms. “We’re spending 40% more than we’re taking in, and this is a chronic problem,” he said in a recent appearance on Fox Business. “What you’re seeing is the debt service payments … well into squeezing away, so it’s like plaque in the arteries squeezing away buying power.”
The analogy underscores a grim reality: Debt service payments have ballooned as a share of government spending, increasingly crowding out funds for other priorities. Dalio warns the U.S. is near a tipping point where it must issue new debt merely to pay interest on existing obligations—a cycle that he says could trigger not just a financial shock but a systemic breakdown reminiscent of cardiac arrest. We’ve got to go back, he argues—back to the ’90s.
A blueprint for recovery
Dalio contends that there is still a way out—as long as the country acts with unity and resolve. He points to the ’90s as a model for bipartisan problem-solving, fiscal restraint, and balanced economic growth. “If we change spending and income (tax returns) by 4% while the economy is still good,” he wrote on Twitter, “the interest rate will go down as a result, and we’ll be in a much better situation.” He added that we know this kind of balance can happen because it happened before, from 1991 to 1998, referencing how both spending controls and targeted tax measures restored equilibrium in the 1990s.
Dalio suggests that by trimming the federal deficit to 3% of GDP—levels last sustained during the Clinton era—the U.S. could stabilize markets, tame interest payments, and avoid a crisis. In a CNBC appearance in early July, Dalio put the odds at over 50% that a financial “trauma” will result from the debt not being dealt with properly.
Past warnings
This is far from the first dire warning to come from Dalio on the state of the U.S. economy. In the past five years, he has voiced concerns about the debt created to fight the financial effects of the pandemic, both inflation and stagflation, and even a looming recession. Although a recession has not set in since the COVID-related crash of 2020, Dalio warned that rising asset prices weren’t creating real wealth, as inflation was eroding purchasing power.
A consistent theme of Dalio’s warnings is that the disease may be worse than the cure, criticizing policymakers likely to act only when inflation became critical and the dollar’s value had materially eroded. He has voiced variations of his “heart attack” and “plaque” critique since 2024.
Despite offering a clear prescription, Dalio expresses skepticism that current political dynamics will allow for compromise or the hard choices required. “My fear is that we will probably not make these needed cuts due to political reasons,” he wrote on Twitter, warning that absolutism in Washington could doom efforts to put the country’s fiscal house in order.
The consequences, Dalio argues, would be severe and far-reaching: sustained government overspending, rising debt service burdens, and a loss of confidence among buyers of U.S. Treasuries. This scenario, he says, could escalate into what he calls a “serious supply-demand problem,” where the market refuses to fund America’s borrowing habits at sustainable rates, catalyzing a financial crisis with global shock waves. The April fall in the 10-year Treasury bond market was a tremor of just such a refusal from foreign investors, who seemed to balk at President Donald Trump’s planned tariffs being much more aggressive than expected.
Dalio’s repeated invocations of the 1990s are more than nostalgia—they are a call to bipartisan pragmatism and shared sacrifice. He warns that failure to act now, with the economy still on stable footing, will only raise the costs (and pain) of inevitable reforms. Although Dalio did not comment on it, the debt situation has actually worsened throughout 2025, with legislation passing through Congress that is set to expand the debt for years to come. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Terry Bollea, better known to the world as professional wrestling icon Hulk Hogan, died Thursday at his home in Clearwater, Florida, at the age of 71, TMZ reported, a development that was soon confirmed by WWE. The cause of death was reported as cardiac arrest, with emergency services responding early in the morning after a call from his residence. Hogan is survived by his wife, Sky Daily, and two children, Brooke and Nick, from prior marriages.
Although he was one of professional wrestling’s iconic figures, Hogan may be remembered more for the chill he sent through journalism with an eventful lawsuit in the 2010s backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel.
Hogan’s passing closes the chapter on a larger-than-life figure whose impact on the industry and popular culture spanned more than four decades. After making his wrestling debut in 1979, Hogan quickly rose through regional territories before ascending to major wrestling stardom in the mid-1980s. His charisma and signature catchphrases—most notably, “Whatcha gonna do, brother, when Hulkamania runs wild on you?”—made him professional wrestling’s first true global superstar, and a notable crossover star into mainstream entertainment.
With his iconic red-and-yellow ring gear, his habit of shredding his shirt, and his trademark entrance to the song “Real American,” Hulk Hogan became synonymous with WWE’s transformation from a niche pastime into a billion-dollar entertainment juggernaut. He headlined the very first WrestleMania in 1985, helping WWE’s then-chairman Vince McMahon realize his vision of a nationwide phenomenon.
Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hogan was the face of the WWE, when he captured a run of world championships and led storylines in era-defining fashion. His character inspired generations of children—“Hulkamaniacs”—but his appeal reached far beyond wrestling. Hogan became a fixture of pop culture, making appearances in movies including Rocky III, Suburban Commando, Mr. Nanny, and TV shows such as Thunder in Paradise. After several years in Hollywood, Hogan returned to wrestling in the late 1990s, reinventing himself as a “heel,” named Hollywood Hogan, in WCW’s New World Order.
He was a two-time WWE Hall of Famer, first inducted individually in 2005 and then as a member of the nWo faction in 2020.
Despite the superhero persona, Hogan’s life was not without controversy and hardship. He endured high-profile personal and legal battles and shifts in public perception. He also played a major role in a lawsuit that changed digital journalism and signaled a new era in right-wing politics.
in 2012, Gawker Media published a brief excerpt from a sex tape featuring Hogan and Heather Clem, the wife of Hogan’s friend, a Floridian radio host with the stage name Bubba the Love Sponge. The video had been filmed secretly and then leaked to Gawker by an anonymous source. Hogan, shocked and outraged by the publication, filed a lawsuit charging Gawker with invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The trial took place in Florida in early 2016 and drew widespread attention to the rising tensions between individual privacy rights and freedom of the press in America. After only a few hours of deliberation, the jury ruled in Hogan’s favor, awarding him $115 million in compensatory damages and an additional $25 million in punitive damages, for a total of $140 million. A month after the verdict, Gawker founder Nick Denton told Fortune that he wished he’d “known how litigious Hulk Hogan was.”
The colossal judgment forced Gawker Media to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, even though the parties settled for $31 million. The aftermath included an unprecedented revelation: The lawsuit was financially backed by Peter Thiel, who had personal grievances against Gawker after being outed by the site in a previous article. Up to that point, Thiel was best known as a member of what Fortune dubbed the “PayPal Mafia,” but the Gawker lawsuit was part of his emergence as one of the faces of Silicon Valley’s rightward turn. Both Hogan and Thiel had supported Donald Trump in the recent 2016 presidential election.
Gawker’s bankruptcy marked the end of a prominent, controversial digital outlet known for unfiltered reporting, and Hulk Hogan v. Gawker Media remains one of the most consequential legal battles in recent American media history, fundamentally reshaping ideas around privacy, journalism, and power.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Hulk Hogan takes the stage during a campaign rally for Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden on October 27, 2024 in New York City.
AI’s rapid progress is a double-edged sword, the nature of work is being irreversibly changed, ethical alignment is urgent and unresolved, and the cultural response is divided but vital, Sam Altman told popular podcaster Theo Von. Their interview felt like staring into the void, at times, with human purpose in danger of being wiped out by the rapid advance of technology. Altman agreed with almost all the doubts that Von raised, but offered a hopeful vision. Still, he said, children’s and everyone’s digital well-being will require attention going forward.
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI and one of the most influential voices in artificial intelligence, sat down with comedian Theo Von for an expansive, in-depth conversation on a new episode of Von’s tremendously popular podcast, This Past Weekend. Their hour-and-a-half dialogue, recorded at OpenAI’s headquarters in San Francisco, traversed the urgent race to develop more powerful AI, the destabilizing impact of automation on the workforce, the hopes and fears animating Silicon Valley, and Altman’s personal anxieties about the tech shaping our world.
From the jump, Von pressed Altman on the breakneck pace of AI development. “Do you think there should be kind of like a slowing things down?” Von asked, adding, “That’s one of the reasons I get scared sometimes to use certain AI stuff, because I don’t know how much personal information I want to put in, because I don’t know who’s going to have it.”
Altman compared the current climate among leading AI companies to an intense “race”—not just for commercial dominance, but because the values guiding today’s development will echo for generations. He said if OpenAI does not move quickly, someone else will, and the fate of AI could slip out of the hands of those most mindful about its social consequences.
Altman acknowledged how uncertain the future feels, both for those building these systems and for the broader society swept up in their wake. “I think all of human history suggests we find a way to put ourselves at the center of the story and feel really good about it … Even in a world where AI is doing all of this stuff that humans used to do, we are going to find a way in our own telling of the story to feel like the main characters.”
Neither Altman nor Von addressed the fact that AI might relegate humans to supporting characters, as many thought leaders warn of AI’s ability to endanger human life. Still, Altman said he thinks humans will continue to be the main characters going forward, “in an important sense.”
The reinvention of work and value
Von also asked whether people should be worried their jobs could be rendered obsolete by AI. “How will people survive?” he asked.
Altman argued AI will create possibilities for individuals to pursue more creative, philosophical, or interpersonal goals, but Von pushed back: “One of the big fears is like purpose, right? Like human purpose. Like work gives us purpose … If AI is to really continue to advance so quickly, it feels like our sense of purpose would start to really disappear.”
Altman said when everyone has the kind of access to instant expertise that AI enables, humans can remake the idea of what it means to contribute to society, though he cautioned the transition will be deeply unsettling for those whose livelihoods are displaced in the near term.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
In a stark and urgent warning to the nation’s financial stewards, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman declared on Tuesday that artificial intelligence is now so adept at mimicking human voices it could spark a global “fraud crisis” in banking “very, very soon.” His remarks, delivered at a Federal Reserve conference in Washington, underscored how people will have to change fundamental things about the way they interact because of the relentless pace of advancements in this technology.
Altman addressed hundreds of regulators and banking executives while sitting down for an interview with Fed governor Michelle Bowman, the vice chair for supervision. Bowman, who has emerged as a contender to potentially succeed Fed chair Jerome Powell, prompted Altman to talk about the technology he helped pioneer and concerns about fraud.
Altman immediately brought up how powerful AI models are now capable of perfectly reproducing anyone’s voice based on just a few short audio samples and issued his warning: “A thing that terrifies me is apparently there are still some financial institutions that will accept the voiceprint as authentication for you to move a lot of money or do something else,” Altman told the audience. “That is a crazy thing to still be doing … AI has fully defeated that.”
The widespread adoption of voice authentication
To Altman’s point, banks have, for more than a decade, relied on voice authentication: Clients repeat a custom phrase, their “voiceprint,” to access accounts. But as generative AI has advanced, so have the tools available to would-be fraudsters. Altman described a near future where attackers will be able to call a bank, pass every test, and move money freely, all by simulating a customer’s voice.
“Just because we are not releasing the technology does not mean it does not exist,” Altman said of the pandora’s box that AI represents. “Some bad actor is going to release it—this is not a super difficult thing to do.”
The OpenAI chief described the scenario that keeps him up at night: a large-scale, coordinated attack where AI-generated voices rapidly defeat outdated security measures across the world’s biggest banks.
The threat isn’t limited to voice. Altman gave a glimpse into the next frontier: “video clones”—AI capable of mimicking an individual’s appearance and speech—heightening the stakes for personal security and institutional trust.
“Right now it is a voice call. Soon it is going to be a video FaceTime. It will be indistinguishable from reality,” he said.
A potential partner in Washington
Altman’s warning didn’t fall on deaf ears. Bowman agreed that collaboration between regulators and tech leaders going forward will be vital. “That might be something we can think about partnering on,” she said, signaling the central bank’s readiness to take action and eagerness to work with OpenAI.
OpenAI, for its part, is planning to expand its physical presence in Washington, D.C., aiming to facilitate more direct collaboration with regulators and policymakers, including the Federal Reserve. The company’s new D.C. office will host policy workshops and serve as a venue for hands-on collaboration and training related to AI deployments in government and regulated industries, a spokesperson for OpenAI told CNBC the day before Altman’s panel with Bowman.
The Fed frequently organizes similar roundtable discussions and panels with executives from tech, fintech, and financial institutions to explore the adoption and impact of AI, especially generative AI, in banking and broader economic sectors. The central bank also encourages partnerships between banks and fintechs, with the latter working to integrate advanced AI tools into regulated banking activity.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Sam Altman, chief executive officer of OpenAI Inc., speaks during the Federal Reserve Integrated Review of the Capital Framework for Large Banks Conference in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, July 22, 2025.
Tesla’s second quarter earnings signaled the company continues to go through a difficult patch, with both revenue and adjusted earnings per share missing the average Wall Street estimates. Revenue was $22.5 billion, down approximately 12% year over year, the sharpest decline in at least a decade. Adjusted earnings per share was 40 cents, down from 52 cents a year ago. Analysts, on average, had forecast revenue between $22.62 billion and $22.64 billion and adjusted EPS of $0.41 to $0.42 per share, with Tesla below the midpoint on each.
Tesla’s double-digit percentage revenue decline was primarily attributed to the ongoing slump in vehicle deliveries. Improved energy storage deployments and new service offerings provided minor offsets, but could not outweigh the hit from lagging car sales and persistent price competition across the electric vehicle industry.
Operating income also fell significantly, coming in at $923 million, which was below consensus estimates of $1.23 billion. Net income dropped year over year as margins continued to shrink, pressured by lower average selling prices, higher raw material costs, and global trade headwinds.
Tesla had previously reported deliveries of more than 384,000 vehicles in the quarter—a drop of more than 13% from the previous year—with production holding steady at just over 410,000 vehicles. This marks the second quarter in a row of reduced year-over-year deliveries.
Wall Street had entered the earnings week with tepid expectations, citing declining sales, compressed margins, and elevated spending on research and development as factors dampening short-term prospects. While Tesla’s results were slightly weaker than forecast, shares saw only a modest uptick in after-hours trading, as investors focused on the company’s long-term ambitions rather than current sales struggles.
Robotaxi, AI, and a new affordable model
Tesla’s leadership used the earnings release to reaffirm its pivot toward next-generation technologies. CEO Elon Musk highlighted the launch of Tesla’s first Robotaxi pilot service in Austin, along with vague remarks related to the ongoing development of a long-rumored “more affordable” Tesla model.
Musk signaled that, amid stiffer automotive competition, Tesla’s strategy increasingly centers on breakthroughs in autonomy, artificial intelligence, and energy solutions as pillars for future growth.
Multiple challenges continue to weigh on Tesla, including expiring U.S. electric vehicle tax credits in October 2025, ongoing trade disputes and tariffs affecting costs and global supply, and intensifying competition from established automakers and Chinese EV brands. More generally, the brand has growing reputational issues associated with Musk and his support of President Donald Trump, even after the two had a falling out that coincided with fierce criticism of each upon the other. During Musk’s brief role helping the administration, his sometimes successful attempts at slashing government spending provoked ire from much of Tesla’s traditional customer base, with environmentalist and left-leaning politics. Other investors said they wished the distraction would go away.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Millennials have officially overtaken Generation X as the largest cohort of managers in the American workforce in 2025. This generational handoff marks more than a demographic curiosity—it’s potentially a major shift in how organizations are led, as millennials have a different management style than their predecessors.
According to the semiannual Worklife Trends report by Glassdoor, millennials became the largest share of the managerial workforce in late June 2025, overtaking Gen Xers, who dominated leadership during the past two decades. At current aging trends, according to projections from Glassdoor lead economist Daniel Zhao, Gen Z will provide a greater share of managers than baby boomers in late 2025 or 2026. Already, Gen Z makes up one in 10 managers.
Millennials are officially the majority of managers.
Glassdoor
Since becoming the most populous generation in the labor force in the mid-2010s, millennials have steadily risen through the ranks, propelled by demographic inevitability, retirements among baby boomers, and new attitudes toward organizational leadership. This ascent caps years of warnings and speculation about how millennial values would shape the workplace.
In an interview with Fortune, Zhao said millennials are inheriting a tough situation, but it could be worse. Workers by and large “don’t feel like they’re in a great situation” right now, but Zhao noted things have not deteriorated for workers since the last edition of the report in January 2025.
Although Zhao didn’t use this particular Gen Z slang, the state of the workforce that is now majority managed by millennials is mid. “At the very least it doesn’t seem that workers are feeling worse,” Zhao said. “I don’t know if you can call that a silver lining.”
Millennials managing through the ongoing ‘burnout crisis’
Millennials are widely credited with pushing “empathy” and “well-being” to the forefront of management culture. They prioritize policies such as remote work, mental-health benefits, and boundary-setting—yet there’s a reason millennials stress mental health so much: They are experiencing record levels of burnout, stress, and job insecurity themselves, leading some workplace experts to warn of a looming “manager crash” in 2025. Zhao agreed this lines up with anecdotes in Glassdoor reviews, but not the data in his research.
Zhao, for his part, writes that the mental-health challenges facing the current workforce show “no signs of abating.” He writes of burnout as an “ongoing crisis,” with mentions in Glassdoor reviews spiking 73% year over year as of May 2025. “Reviews about burnout often refer to the cumulative effect of several years of layoffs and understaffing wearing on employees who remain.”
Of course, the term “burnout” became largely synonymous with the millennial generation in Anne Helen Petersen’s viral 2019 Buzzfeed article on the subject, which morphed into a book and a deep vein of reporting for years to come. Speaking to Petersen’s thesis, that millennials were born into a culture and climate of constant work from a young age, the average number of direct reports per manager has almost doubled in recent years, piling burnout levels of stress onto the burnout generation, just as they become the majority of managers.
Zhao declined to comment on Petersen’s thesis directly, but on the subject of burnout more generally noted that many millennial managers, especially those in their forties and late thirties, are aging into the “sandwich generation,” with responsibilities that have been typical for Gen X: “Millennials right now are in a place where their career pressures might be highest, but there are also these other personal pressures that are really stressing millennials out.” Zhao added that “in a sense, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.”
Despite their ambitions, many millennial managers report receiving little to no formal leadership training, often feeling unprepared for the complexities of managing teams across multiple generations and responding to rapid organizational change. This is bound to worsen with double the reports of the historical average. And while they stress empathy, millennials are the generation that invented the term “ghosting” for their avoidant behaviors on social media, and many struggle with assertiveness and managing workplace conflict head-on. Finally, millennials are the “participation trophy” generation, and some bruising TikTok videos have argued that millennial bosses have a toxic tendency to try to befriend all their direct reports. “Wolves in sheep’s clothing,” they were called. Ouch.
The flip side of emotional intelligence
Zhao told Fortune that the well-worn cliché about millennial managers being known for their focus on empathy has a flip side. Glassdoor has seen a change in how people talk about management over the past five years since the pandemic, he said: “Reviews that discuss management increasingly emphasize terms related to emotional intelligence, like ‘respecting boundaries,’ ‘being empathetic,’ ‘promoting employee well-being,’ and ‘addressing burnout.’” Zhao noted it shows that workers’ expectations have increased: “The bar on what constitutes a good manager has been raised.”
It doesn’t mean millennials are inherently gifted at emotional intelligence, Zhao said, just that it’s an expectation of their reports, be they fellow millennials, Gen Z, or perhaps even Gen X or boomers. Zhao referenced research that the phrase “emotional intelligence” really started picking up in the 21st century. How ironic, then, that the population that mainstreamed emotional intelligence when they entered the workforce is now responsible for managing it.
Although millennials generally seek to build trust and provide recognition, generational divides persist: A notable minority of employees, especially Gen Z, remain neutral or uncertain about the recognition they receive. According to a comprehensive Deloitte survey, millennials themselves want more feedback, mentorship, and growth opportunities, both for their teams and for their own careers.
This may be why millennials are getting saddled with a dreaded moniker: the so-called cool boss. Recent reporting and viral social-media content have fueled criticism of millennial managers for blurring the line between manager and friend—sometimes to detrimental effect. Sketches and first-person accounts highlight a stereotype of the millennial manager who is eager to be seen as hip, adopting a laid-back attitude, casual communication, and a friendly rapport with direct reports. Critics argue this style can be toxic in creating a “false sense of warmth” that masks underlying power dynamics. In terms of achieving results, the cool boss act leads to inconsistent or unclear expectations, fueling anxiety among staff. And when negative feedback is necessary, the cool boss dropping the mask can come as a shock to their subordinates.
Many millennial managers report difficulties in setting clear boundaries with their teams as they struggle to code-switch from friendly to authoritative as situations demand. Setting boundaries is further complicated by generational shifts: Younger employees, particularly Gen Z, also favor fluid boundaries and a flat hierarchy, sometimes intensifying the ambiguity around roles and expectations.
While Zhao did not comment directly on the so-called cool boss meme, he said millennial managers are walking an “extremely tough line right now.” Millennials are supposed to be at the peak of their career, but many are also taking care of kids, parents, even elder family members. “On the care aspect,” Zhao said, “there’s been a lot of discussion, especially since the pandemic, on the gaps … in the American economy today.”
Are you a millennial who’s a manager, or do you have a millennial for a manager? Fortune would love to hear from you: get in touch at [email protected].
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Many millennial managers report difficulties in setting clear boundaries with their teams as they struggle to code-switch from friendly to authoritative as situations demand.
Shares of ASML, the Dutch semiconductor equipment giant, tumbled 11% on Wednesday after the company announced it could no longer confirm that it will grow in 2026. The drop wiped out over $30 billion in market value and sent shockwaves through global tech markets, as investors digested the implications for the broader semiconductor and AI industries.
The selloff followed ASML’s second-quarter earnings report, which beat expectations on revenue and net profit, with robust bookings of $6.4 billion. However, CEO Christophe Fouquet’s comments overshadowed the strong results: “While we still prepare for growth in 2026, we cannot confirm it at this stage,” he said, citing escalating macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty, especially the threat of new tariffs on semiconductor equipment.
Smart money watches ASML for signals on the tech cycle’s health; a growth warning here may be the market’s early clue that the AI and semiconductor supercycle is reaching a plateau—or at least preparing for turbulence.
Why ASML’s outlook matters more than most
This isn’t just a company-specific event—it could be a canary in the coal mine for the global tech and AI ecosystem. Why? ASML is the world’s exclusive supplier of EUV lithography machines—the ultra-precise fabrication equipment that makes cutting-edge semiconductors possible. Every state-of-the-art AI accelerator, every data-center chip that powers generative AI, traces its technological lineage back to ASML’s tools.
So when ASML tells the market it “cannot confirm” growth for 2026—despite beating on current earnings—it’s signaling not just caution about its own pipeline, but a potential inflection point in the most future-critical segment of the electronics supply chain. In other words: if ASML’s order book slows, it means that downstream chipmakers may anticipate softer demand, have rising uncertainty about capex returns, or are bracing for policy headwinds.
The context matters: This is a moment when AI demand has been surging, but in 2025 it’s now colliding with macro uncertainty, particularly driven by U.S.-EU tariff threats, China export restrictions, and capex fatigue after a historic tech investment wave. ASML’s lead times are 12 to 18 months—with orders today reflecting confidence in global chip demand well into 2026. If that confidence is wavering, it ripples through the entire innovation economy.
ASML is not just another tech stock—it is the linchpin of the global semiconductor supply chain. The company is the world’s sole supplier of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines, the critical technology that enables the production of the most advanced chips used in everything from AI accelerators to smartphones and data centers.
What’s behind the growth warning?
Several factors converged to cloud ASML’s outlook. One was tariff uncertainty. President Trump’s threat of 30% tariffs on European imports, including semiconductor equipment, has rattled ASML’s customers. The company warned that tariffs on new systems and parts shipped to the U.S., as well as possible retaliatory measures, could directly hit its gross margins and delay customer investment decisions.
Ongoing trade disputes and export controls, especially involving China and the U.S., have made it harder for ASML to forecast demand. Clients are increasingly cautious, with some potentially postponing or scaling back orders. While Q2 bookings were strong, Barclays analysts noted ASML would need to double its current order pace to meet previous 2026 growth forecasts. The backlog coverage for 2026 is at its lowest in three years, raising doubts about near-term momentum.
Market reaction
The market’s response was swift and severe as ASML shares fell 11%, their steepest single-day drop since October 2024, when a disappointing third-quarter earnings report led to the stock price falling 16%. Wednesday’s selloff dragged down the broader European tech sector and hit U.S. semiconductor equipment peers such as Lam Research and Applied Materials.
In contrast, AI chipmakers such as Nvidia and AMD rose, buoyed by positive news on U.S. export policy to China, highlighting a divergence between chip designers and the equipment supply chain.
Coca-Cola will soon return to using real cane sugar in its U.S. products after decades of relying on high fructose corn syrup, according to none other than President Donald Trump, who claimed personal credit for brokering the shift.
In a social media post, the president called the move “just better” for American consumers, and also predicted “this will be a very good move by them,” referring to the Atlanta-based beverage giant.Trump revealed on social media that Coca-Cola has “agreed to use REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States” after discussions between himself and company leadership.
In a statement, a Coca-Cola company spokesperson said: “We appreciate President Trump’s enthusiasm for our iconic Coca‑Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon.”
The change is significant—since the mid-1980s, virtually all Coca-Cola sold in the U.S. has been sweetened not with sugar, but with high fructose corn syrup, a less expensive alternative, but a very politically potent one.
The commercial production of high fructose corn syrup takes place in Iowa, the top corn-producing state in the U.S. It’s been a major product for agribusiness since the 1970s, with companies such as Archer Daniels Midland having key plants in Iowa. They are a big player in Washington, D.C., as is the “farm lobby,” which refers to a number of institutions that lobby on behalf of farmers’ interests. U.S. farm policy—shaped by the farm lobby—subsidizes corn heavily and imposes tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, making high fructose corn syrup the default sweetener for many U.S. food producers. All of these dynamics are reinforced by Iowa’s role in presidential politics, with the state being the first presidential caucus in the electoral calendar.
When did Coke switch to corn syrup?
Coca-Cola’s original formula, dating back to its 19th-century origins, used cane sugar as the sweetener of choice. That changed during a period of economic and regulatory upheaval in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Faced with rising sugar prices, prompted in part by U.S. government quotas and tariffs on imported sugar alongside growing subsidies for domestic corn, Coca-Cola began blending corn syrup with sugar in its beverages. The transition was complete by 1984. Even after the “New Coke” formula controversy and the return of “Coca-Cola Classic,” the drink retained high fructose corn syrup as its sweetener, not sugar.
The cult of “Mexican Coke”
Coca-Cola in other countries—most famously in Mexico and across Europe—has continued to use cane sugar, spawning a cult following for “Mexican Coke” among U.S. consumers who preferred the original taste.
American soda fans have long claimed to notice a difference in beverages sweetened with cane sugar. Imports of “Mexican Coke,” made with real sugar, became a popular niche item, prompting limited edition “throwback” sodas using cane sugar to appear periodically.
It remains unclear how quickly Coca-Cola will phase in cane sugar nationwide, and it likewise remains unclear how this move fits within Trump’s broader use of tariffs, including the tariffs predating his tenure that make sugar imports more expensive than subsidized corn. But it’s a major change beyond just a beverage giant’s soda recipe.
Coca-Cola did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fortune has also sent requests for comment to the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Corn Promotion Board.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Login
