
7 in 10 Americans are anxious about money—and earning more won't necessarily help, says therapist
Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) say financial uncertainty has led them to feelings of anxiety and depression, according to a recent survey from Northwest Mutual — an 8-percentage-point increase from 2023.
It's tempting to point to large-scale financial trends to help explain the uptick. Americans hold near-record levels of credit card debt, for instance, amounting to $1.18 trillion, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And consumers are still trying to gauge how shifting U.S. tariff policies could ultimately affect the rising cost of goods and services.
While those factors may explain why some people are feeling stressed about money, they don't get to the heart of financial anxiety, says Megan McCoy, a financial therapist and professor at Kansas State University.
Financial stress, she says, is a response to a concrete event. You need new tires and don't have enough money in your bank account to buy them, for example. Anxiety is harder to pin down.
"Financial anxiety doesn't have that external effect. It's just this looming feeling," McCoy says. "It's an ambiguous fear that something is going to go wrong or you're not doing good enough or you're not going to have enough in the future."
If those sorts of feelings have you tossing and turning at night, experts recommend taking the following steps.
While it's possible for people in any financial situation to experience anxiety about their money, having good financial health certainly helps, experts say. After all, someone with no debt and ample retirement savings has a much less uncertain future than someone with escalating credit card bills and no savings.
To alleviate financial stressors, the No. 1 thing to focus on is your emergency savings, says Niki Glen, a certified financial planner and wealth management advisor at Northwest Mutual.
"You should generally have three to six months' worth of expenses in cash or cash equivalents in an emergency fund, and I'm actually suggesting a little bit more these days," she says.
The more anxious you're feeling, the more you should prioritize building up a cash cushion that you can put to work in the event of an unforeseen expense.
"If you have any big expenses coming up — big vacations, a new car, major home projects — I would suggest delaying those. That money can be more valuable for you as a financial buffer," Glen says.
You may have much of your financial house in order, but still find yourself wringing your hands over money. Rather than feeling guilty about it, schedule weekly or even daily "worry time," where you spend 15 or 20 minutes focusing only on your financial concerns.
Write down everything you're anxious about, says McCoy. Divide your concerns into two camps: things you can change and things that are out of your control.
"This process helps transform vague, persistent worry into two buckets: action and acceptance," McCoy says.
Focus on making steady progress on the things you can control, like paying down debt or saving toward goals such as a home down payment or your kid's college fund. Rather than looking at these goals as a whole, think of them as small parts of your daily routine.
"For instance, instead of, 'I want to build a $10,000 emergency fund, try: 'After I make my coffee, I'll transfer $5 into savings,'" McCoy suggests.
Of course, some things in the world of finance will always be out of your control, like the direction of the stock market or U.S. trade policy.
"Finding a way to do these tangible things that you do have power over will alleviate some of the stress you have about the things you can't control," McCoy says.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
The Trump trade order comes into focus
We now have some semblance of clarity about what the Trump-era global trade system will look like. What we don't know is how durable this reset of global commerce will turn out to be. The big picture: After deals with Japan and the European Union in recent days — and likely more before a key deadline on Friday — the global trade playbook is reasonably clear. U.S. imports from major trade partners will face a 15% minimum tariff going forward, with carve-outs and surcharges for some specific goods. Allies will just live with it, rather than retaliate — even if that causes pain to their domestic industries. They'll throw in some showy promises of new investment dollars and/or future purchases of energy, aircraft, or other American products. It's unknown how real those commitments will turn out to be, given the absence of formal written agreements. State of play: It's worth taking a pause to reflect on how thoroughly this new framework amounts to a repudiation of the entire post-World War II project — led by the United States — of knitting together the planet's most important economies through trade. That project spanned multiple generations, with thousands of interested parties convening in places like Geneva, Doha, and Uruguay to try to hammer out deals, with varying success. The results of these trade deals were then debated at length in parliaments and Congress, generally passing with bipartisan majorities. Zoom out: President Trump has ripped that order apart in just a few months, with agreements sketched out after comparatively short, high-level meetings with little paperwork and endless ambiguity about how details will be resolved. He is enacting the highest tariffs seen in decades, using an emergency legal authority that the courts have still not blessed (a key appeals court hearing is scheduled for Thursday), and without congressional involvement. Zoom in: On the one hand, a 15% tax on imports from Europe and Japan — and likely other countries as dealmaking continues before Friday's deadline — is the highest seen in most Americans' lifetimes. It sets up a period of jockeying over what share of the cost is borne by foreign exporters, U.S. importers, and U.S. consumers. At the same time, markets have broadly rallied in the last week as investors take solace in the idea that this new trade regime is at least coming into focus. Yes, but: It remains to be seen how durable a trade landscape handed down by fiat by the U.S. president will turn out to be. The old trade regime may have been slow-moving and bureaucratic, but that meant it had broad buy-in — from countries around the world, from varying business interests and political parties and force of law. Moreover, it's hard to know how long national leaders abroad can resist the domestic political pressure for retaliation. What they're saying: "The global economy is being redrawn in real time," wrote Nigel Green, CEO of financial advisory firm deVere Group, in a note. "It's a new era of trade-by-force and the old assumptions no longer apply."


Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
SNAP Changes: Trump Bill Adds New Burdens for Millions of Women, Study Says
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) has introduced sweeping changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, imposing new work and reporting requirements that may add significant burdens for millions of working women, according to a new study. These changes mark the most substantial SNAP cuts in the program's history and affect both federal funding and eligibility rules for vital social safety net programs, according to the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality analysis. Why It Matters The OBBA extends and toughens work requirements for low-income Americans, making it particularly challenging for women, especially mothers, single mothers, older women, and women of color, to maintain access to government support for food and healthcare. Women are already overrepresented among SNAP recipients and are disproportionately affected by unstable jobs, limited benefits, and caregiving demands. Some experts warn that shifting fiscal responsibility to states could deepen disparities, as some state budgets may be unable to absorb the increased costs, potentially resulting in benefit reductions or program curtailments. People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025, in New York City. People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025, in New York To Know The new law targets a broad swath of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries. SNAP, which aids roughly 42 million Americans, relies on federal support to provide food assistance to low-income households. Women make up about 55 percent of the non-elderly adults receiving SNAP, and single mothers lead nearly two-thirds of SNAP households with children, according to Georgetown. Among the 12 million women aged 18 to 64 who participated in SNAP in 2023, the majority worked at some point during the year. "Many of the women impacted by these SNAP changes are already working. The issue is that working more reduces their benefits. The system is set up backwards: 'you work more, you get less.' Who would sign up for that?" Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "That's the choice many women are now faced with—work more and lose support, or be pushed off the program entirely, and as always, people will find workarounds. But that's not policy success—that's survival." Prior to OBBA, SNAP required able-bodied adults aged 18 to 54 without dependents to work at least 80 hours per month to maintain benefits. OBBA expands this requirement to include adults up to age 64 and, critically, to parents or guardians of children aged 14 to 17. Approximately 2 million more women will be newly subject to these requirements, many living in households with children. Medicaid work requirements have also been expanded to nondisabled adults up to age 64, with phased implementation expected starting in 2026-2027, according to the AARP. Many recipients risk losing benefits, not due to non-compliance with work rules, but because of paperwork and frequent eligibility verifications. The new policy not only reduces federal SNAP funding by nearly $300 billion over the next decade but also shifts greater administrative and benefit costs to states. States' share of SNAP administrative costs will rise from 50 percent to 75 percent, and their required contributions to benefits could reach up to 25 percent based on performance. For many states, this could necessitate cutting enrollment, reducing benefits, or limiting other safety-net services. Experts estimate 22 million households could lose all or part of their SNAP benefits, with the risk especially acute for women in low-wage, unstable jobs and older women who may struggle to meet reporting and documentation rules. The combined effects are likely to push more women, children, and families into food insecurity and poverty, undoing much of the progress made during past policy expansions. "Many women and children that encounter these challenges need SNAP to cover crucial nutrition costs, and if these added rules end their participation, it's going to become vastly more difficult for them to financially survive," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. SNAP is a proven tool in reducing food insecurity and stimulating economic activity. Benefit cuts could also ripple through local economies, affecting grocery stores and associated jobs, while simultaneously increasing demand at already taxed food pantries. What People Are Saying Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "What most people don't realize is the true cost to low-income individuals. If healthcare weren't as expensive as it is, people might be able to work more hours and earn more money. But instead, many choose to work less in order to bring home more—because working more could mean losing access to Medicaid." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The potential impacts of recent changes to SNAP for women and children are concerning, especially when you consider how many qualify for these benefits prior to the introduction of additional requirements. Women face many income challenges: careers more heavily pursued by women can generate smaller wages than their male counterparts in other professions, some of those professions are getting more competition and subsequent layoffs due to AI and budget cuts, and childcare costs, particularly for single mothers, make economic progress a constant uphill battle" What Happens Next The rollout of new work and documentation rules will begin for Medicaid in 2026 and for expanded SNAP requirements soon after, though some states may institute changes sooner with waivers. States are already calculating the financial and administrative impacts, with some policymakers warning of potential safety net reductions or exits from SNAP. "Americans should be concerned—because the system is fundamentally broken," Thompson said. "People love to act like this is about personal responsibility or work ethic. But it's not. It's a math problem. If these individuals were a corporation making these same decisions, cutting costs, maximizing take-home, they'd be applauded by Wall Street. Instead, they're demonized by lawmakers."
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs cause Ireland's economy to shrink for first time in two years
Ireland's economy has shrunk for the first time in almost two years after Donald Trump's tariff blitz sparked a sharp drop in corporate activity. New trade figures show that Irish gross domestic product (GDP) shrank 1pc in the three months to June 30. This was a marked slowdown from the previous quarter between January and March, when growth hit 7.4pc as companies accelerated exports to get ahead of the US president's 'liberation day' tariffs announcement on April 2. After pausing his initial wave of tariffs, Mr Trump on Monday agreed a deal with Brussels that will slap a 15pc tax on EU exports to the US, threatening to deepen Ireland's economic slowdown further. Simon Harris, Ireland's deputy prime minister, acknowledged that the 15pc tariff was 'regrettable', saying the government would have to assess its 'implications'. Almost one third of Irish exports are shipped to the US, accounting for 12pc of GDP. Pharmaceuticals, one of the most powerful engines of the Irish economy, account for more than 60pc of this, last year totalling €44bn (£39bn). The deal's impact on the sector remains unclear. Mr Harris said the Irish government's understanding was that European drug makers would face a tariff of no more than 15pc, even if Mr Trump follows through on his threat of introducing higher worldwide pharma tariffs. 'The EU will continue to work with the US to underline the closely integrated nature of the EU and US pharmaceutical sector,' he said. Mr Harris said the EU had also secured a 'zero for zero' tariff rate for the aviation industry and some agricultural products and chemicals. But Irish business groups branded the US-EU trade deal a 'capitulation'. 'It's quite tragic that we are in this situation,' Danny McCoy, the chief executive of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (Ibec), told Irish television. 'If Europe had equal strength, it could have confronted the United States. 'US businesses are now favoured coming into Europe without tariffs, and our European businesses are facing 15pc.' Micheál Martin, the Taoiseach, sought to defend the deal, saying it had ensured that businesses had clarity and certainty, and would protect Irish jobs. But former taoiseach and Brexit critic Leo Varadkar attacked the agreement, and questioned whether Mr Trump would stick with it. 'This will mean fewer EU exports to the US and higher prices for Americans,' he said on social media. 'The only thing it's better than is no deal at all and that's only if it sticks.' Mr McCoy agreed with Mr Martin that businesses at least now knew where they stood. 'The good news, if there is good news on this, is that uncertainty may be dissipating and that's going to be important for people in business to make decisions,' he said. But 'in time, this will lead to a lot of changes in terms of businesses having to look at different markets than the United States or suffer significant losses trading with the United States'. Ibec urged the Irish government to support businesses that have to adjust to the new conditions. Mr Martin said the government, which has been building up a pool of public funds to support industries through crises, would take time to weigh up the tariffs' impact. 'We will now study the detail of what has been agreed, including its implications for businesses exporting from Ireland to the US, and for different sectors operating here,' he said. 'The agreement is a framework and there will be more detail to be fleshed out in the weeks and months ahead.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.