The holiday season is on a budget this year. American households are entering the next festive few weeks with constrained spending power, a result of weak real income growth and a softened labor market that is disproportionately affecting younger and lower-income workers, according to a comprehensive financial health report from the JPMorgan Chase Institute.
The analysis, which leverages deidentified financial data from Chase customers, suggests that the period of relying on pandemic-era excess cash liquidity is now “in the rearview mirror,” and many consumers are facing a spending season where budgets are “tempered by tepid income growth.” For consumers who are “relatively disadvantaged by high housing costs and hold less stock market wealth”—a group that disproportionately includes younger and lower-income individuals—they may have “justenough to spend, but not enough to splurge” this year.
These findings come at the end of a year when voter anger about the cost of living unseated Democrats from the White House and installed President Donald Trump for a second, non-consecutive term, only to see voters back Democrats across the board in offyear elections. Many of the benefactors, including New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, stressed the “affordability” problem that many are facing, while Trump’s approval ratings on the economy have plummeted.
Gen Z has born the brunt of what Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell memorably called a “low-hire, low-fire” labor market, where it’s looking pretty frozen. “Kids coming out of college and younger people, minorities, are having a hard time finding jobs,” Powell told reporters in September. Several weeks later, Goldman Sachs economists warned that “jobless growth” might become a permanent feature of the economy. Many economists have embraced a term from the Biden years that aligns with what JPMorgan is finding: “the K-shaped economy,” with diverging paths for wealthier and lower-income Americans.
To be sure, while JPMorgan’s report does not touch on the political scene and the affordability politics of 2025, it paints a picture of a tenuously balanced economic environment, full of friction with low real income and insufficient wealth accumulation among key demographics.
Real income stagnation mirrors recessionary period
Median real income growth has sustained a weak trend for several months, with the October 2025 reading for prime-age individuals (aged 25–54) settling at only 1.6% in real terms. This low sustained pace is near the range observed during the weak labor market of the early 2010s, a period when the unemployment rate averaged 7%. This was, as the institute says, “when the unemployment rate was still elevated from the Great Recession,” although the current unemployment rate sits notably lower than that period, at 4.3%.
While nominal income growth remains roughly consistent with pre-pandemic levels, the higher pace of consumer price increases means real purchasing power gains are low.
This general stagnation is proving particularly challenging across demographics. Young people “continue to underperform the typical early career growth pattern” as income growth for individuals aged 25–29 is currently below historic trends for younger workers. Younger workers typically rely on job switching to rapidly advance their careers. However, the current slowdown in hiring is hindering this typical rapid pace of income advancement.
The downturn in overall income growth is also impacting older demographics. Workers aged 50-54 are now experiencing negative real year-over-year income growth. And since older workers generally face slower annual gains, a combination of weakening in the labor market and an uptick in inflation can more easily send their purchasing power into negative territory. Negative real growth for older workers can lead to challenging adjustments, particularly for lower-wealth individuals who have not benefited from years of strong gains in housing and stock prices.
Flat balances offer little cushion
Households’ median real cash balances have remained flat since early 2024, holding steady throughout most of 2025. This stability marks a deviation from pre-pandemic trends, where real balances typically grew steadily at an annual rate of just over 6% as households aged. If balances had grown at that historical rate since 2020, they would be up 40% in October relative to 2019; instead, they are only up 23%.
This flat growth indicates that households are not accumulating additional cash reserves in their checking and savings accounts.
Although high-income households have continued to see slight declines in their bank balances (only 2% negative in October 2025), potentially due to transfers to higher yield accounts or investment brokerage accounts, low-income households returned to positive year-over-year bank balance growth in September 2024. Despite these shifts in savings strategy, the approximation of total cash reserves—including investment transfers—shows that growth has been positive for all income groups for at least the last year.
Going into the end of the year, consumers with constrained budgets may look to stock market gains to augment spending. However, the report cautions that these stock market gains are “highly unequally distributed,” leaving younger and lower-income groups with less financial cushion as they navigate stagnant real purchasing power.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at a valuation higher than OpenAI’s record-setting $500 billion, people familiar with the matter said.
One of the people briefed on the deal said that the share price under discussion is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion, though the details could change.
The company’s latest tender offer was discussed by its board of directors on Thursday at SpaceX’s Starbase hub in Texas. If confirmed, it would make SpaceX once again the world’s most valuable closely held company, vaulting past the previous record of $500 billion that ChatGPT owner OpenAI set in October. Play Video
Preliminary scenarios included per-share prices that would have pushed SpaceX’s value at roughly $560 billion or higher, the people said. The details of the deal could change before it closes, a third person said.
A representative for SpaceX didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The latest figure would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion.
The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, earlier reported that a deal would value SpaceX at $800 billion.
News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, Echostar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.
The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that launches satellites and people to orbit.
SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.
SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020.
However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”
The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it is aiming for an initial public offering for the entire company in the second half of next year.
A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.
SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.
Financially strained and cautious customers leaned heavily on buy now, pay later (BNPL) services over the holiday weekend.
Cyber Monday alone generated $1.03 billion (a 4.2% increase YoY) in online BNPL sales with most transactions happening on mobile devices, per Adobe Analytics. Overall, consumers spent $14.25 billion online on Cyber Monday. To put that into perspective, BNPL made up for more than 7.2% of total online sales on that day.
As for Black Friday, eMarketer reported $747.5 million in online sales using BNPL services with platforms like PayPal finding a 23% uptick in BNPL transactions.
Likewise, digital financial services company Zip reported 1.6 million transactions throughout 280,000 of its locations over the Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend. Millennials (51%) accounted for a chunk of the sizable BNPL purchases, followed by Gen Z, Gen X, and baby boomers, per Zip.
The Adobe data showed that people using BNPL were most likely to spend on categories such as electronics, apparel, toys, and furniture, which is consistent with previous years. This trend also tracks with Zip’s findings that shoppers were primarily investing in tech, electronics, and fashion when using its services.
And while some may be surprised that shoppers are taking on more debt via BNPL (in this economy?!), analysts had already projected a strong shopping weekend. A Deloitte survey forecast that consumers would spend about $650 million over the Black Friday–Cyber Monday stretch—a 15% jump from 2023.
“US retailers leaned heavily on discounts this holiday season to drive online demand,” Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights, said in a statement. “Competitive and persistent deals throughout Cyber Week pushed consumers to shop earlier, creating an environment where Black Friday now challenges the dominance of Cyber Monday.”
A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.
The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.
Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.
“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.
The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.
Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.
Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.
“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.
In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.
“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.
The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.
Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.
“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”
“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”