Latest news with #TheEconomist
Newsweek
19 hours ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Plunges with America's Richest
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 is experiencing a sharp decline in support among high-income Americans, according to new polling. New polling from The Economist/YouGov shows a drop in the president's approval among those earning over $100,000 — a shift that appears tied to economic unease and growing dissatisfaction with his policy agenda. Why It Matters Wealthier voters have long been a core part of the Republican base, drawn to the party's promises of tax cuts and deregulation. But economic anxiety from Trump's sweeping tariff expansion and accelerating inflation— appears to be contributing to the decline in support among wealthier voters. Economic Anxiety is Undercutting Trump's Base In May, Trump's approval among six-figure earners was nearly evenly split, with 47 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving. By June, that margin had widened to -5 net approval. The latest July data shows the gap has grown even further: just 44 percent approve of Trump's performance, while 54 percent disapprove — a net -10 rating. The erosion in support comes as voters face higher costs and market volatility stemming from Trump's tariff expansions. High profile billionaires spoke out against Trump's tariffs when they were first announced in April. Hedge fund managers such as Bill Ackman and Dan Loeb vocally criticized the tariffs, while Republican billionaires like Ken Langone, the founder of Home Depot, and Ken Griffin, the found of Citadel, spoke out and called them a "huge policy mistake". Prices remained relatively stable in the spring as many of Trump's tariffs were paused, but inflation started increasing in may and has accelerated in June. Annual inflation rose 2.7 percent in June, up from 2.4 percent in May, according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Americans now face an average tariff rate of 18.7 percent, the highest since 1933, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Approval of his handling of Trump's handling of the economy has declined, with net approval on jobs and the economy falling from -3 in May to -9 in July among those earning over $100,000. Approval of Trump's handling of inflation has also slipped, from 43 percent in May to 41 percent in July — while disapproval has risen to 58 percent. That reflects growing frustration, even as perceptions of the broader economy remain relatively flat: 43 percent now say the economy is getting worse, compared to 45 percent in May. Personal financial sentiment remains muted. Only 25 percent of wealthier voters say their finances have improved since May — a modest rise from 21 percent — while nearly half (47 percent) report no change, and 26 percent say they're worse off. President Donald Trump speaks during a ceremony to sign the "Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act," in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, July 16, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks during a ceremony to sign the "Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act," in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, July 16, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP Trump's approval has also continued to fall among the richest despite the signing of his "Big Beautiful Bill", which comes with sweeping tax cuts for many of America's highest earners. 70 percent of the value of the tax cuts will be given to the top 20 percent of earners, according to analysis by non-partisan think tank the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Despite this, the bill is underwater with upper-income voters: 41 percent approve, while 53 percent disapprove. Epstein Backlash Impacts High-Income Voters as Well Optimism about the country's direction continues to fade. In July, only 41 percent of wealthy voters said the U.S. is on the right track — down from 44 percent in May — while 48 percent say it's headed in the wrong direction. Other actions by the Trump administration also seem to be eroding his standing with high-income voters. 66 percent of high-income voters believe the government has not disclosed all evidence in the Epstein case, though it is unclear how this sentiment affects views on Trump specifically. It comes as polls have shown Trump's approval ratings at an all time low following the fallout from the Epstein case. That includes Newsweek's tracker, which shows Trump's approval rating at an all time low, with 43 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. The Wall Street Journal, reported this week that Trump sent Epstein a birthday card in 2003 with a drawing of a naked woman with the words "we have certain things in common" and wishing him "may every day be another wonderful secret." Trump denied writing the note and claimed the story was "false, malicious and defamatory." Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice put out a memo last week confirming earlier findings that Epstein was not murdered and died by suicide in 2019 in his Manhattan jail cell. It also said the government was not in possession of a client list. Last week's memo threw a wrench into years of conspiracy theories spread by Trump's MAGA base—and amplified by some administration officials—alleging that Epstein was murdered and that his death was covered up by the government. The uproar from MAGA infuriated the president, who called his supporters "weaklings" who got "duped" by the Epstein "hoax," which he falsely claimed was started by Democrats. He later softened his tone and said he would be in favor of the DOJ releasing "credible" evidence related to Epstein but urged his base to move on from the controversy.
HKFP
a day ago
- Politics
- HKFP
Acclimatising ourselves to less air-conditioning could save the planet
Air conditioning has become (excuse me) a hot topic. Is it necessary, is it nice, is it the solution to global warming? A French politician suggested that, in light of increasingly frequent heatwaves, the government should try to ensure that all citizens had access to air conditioning. The government rejected this, deeming it inappropriate and bad for the environment. No doubt, the fact that the proposer was from a far-right party did not help. A writer in The Economist (who must remain anonymous because The Economist does not do bylines) criticised the British government for having a deluded notion of what their nation's climate is now like. Summers in the UK are now tropical, not the grey and wet affairs that people my age remember. Accordingly, the official lack of encouragement for air conditioning is asking for future trouble. Many serious environmentalists have doubts about air conditioning. After all the heat extracted from the air-conditioned space has to go somewhere. Also, there is a considerable cost in materials and power. 'Passive' methods using shade and natural ventilation can do the job. Less often mentioned is the question of addiction. Long ago, I had a colleague at the South China Morning Post called Ian, who had dabbled extensively in the wars of independence that afflicted southern parts of Africa in the 1970s… mostly, I fear, on the wrong side. Ian was fiercely opposed to using an air conditioner at night. He maintained that if you spent eight hours a day in an air-conditioned office and eight hours a day in an air-conditioned bedroom, your body would never adapt to the local climate. This is a relevant topic for military purposes because military activities are conducted mostly outdoors. Some disappointing performances in Malaya and Hong Kong during World War II are attributed to the difficulty in adaptation experienced by troops landed in a strange climate only weeks before they were expected to perform. Anyway, there may be something in this addiction fear. The more air-conditioning you get, the more you want; what starts as an occasional luxury ends as a necessity. At this point, it becomes quite expensive. I have been conducting an experiment with all this in recent months, since it became necessary in the normal course of events to replace the aircon in my bedroom. While this was in progress, I had to sleep with the window wide open, but no aircon. This was surprisingly (to me) successful. As the weather got warmer, I added a fan, which sits at the end of the bed and wafts a gentle breeze over my hopefully sleeping form. It is now July, and I am reasonably hopeful that I shall get through the summer without resorting to overnight aircon use. As I do not use an aircon routinely during the day, this should mean I am acclimatising in a manner which Ian would approve of. The aircon is still deployed for visitors (downstairs), exercise sessions (in the bedroom), and in the car. This is not for everyone, I concede. Our bedroom has a balcony, so the windows are big. It also has a bug screen, which you may need if the local mosquitoes can reach your altitude. On the other hand, if you live on a high floor, you will benefit from peace and quiet denied to residents in houses. In the early days, I was often disturbed in the morning by noisy traffic and even, on occasion, particularly raucous birdcalls. I seem to have got used to this. Still, I am left feeling a little guilty about my copious use of air-conditioning in the past. It seems I can get by with about 20 or 30 minutes a day, depending on visitors and car use. If you work in an office, the architect has probably already made cooling a necessity, but it is still perhaps worthwhile for environment-conscious consumers to consider whether they may be using more air conditioning than they really need. This is unlikely to save the planet, which seems doomed. As the temperature climbs, we will all fry together, but owners of air-conditioners will fry later than most. In the meantime, think of the savings on your electricity bills.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Israel says it regrets Gaza strike on Catholic Church
Israel has said it deeply regrets a military strike on Gaza's sole Catholic Church. Meanwhile, the US has criticised Israel's air strikes on Syria. Gregg Carlstrom, Middle East Correspondent for The Economist, brings us up to date with the latest developments in the Middle East.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Five years after the pandemic, is remote working still viable?
Remote working, which became a necessity during the Covid-19 pandemic, still continutes to prevail in many companies even five years later, while some have switched to a hybrid model, and others have done away with it altogether. Working - or not working - from home has become a hot topic in the corporate world. According to a report in The Economist, bosses, by and large, claim that having people in the office is a cultural boon. The spontaneity that often leads to new ideas is lost when staff work from home. Collaboration suffers, too. A study of 61,000 Microsoft employees back in 2021 found that remote working in the first half of 2020 made the tech giant more 'siloed' and less 'dynamic'. It is also harder to integrate new staff. Yet virtually all employees say they would prefer to do at least some work at home and companies need to remain flexible to these needs. Whether remote working is feasible depends on many things, such as corporate culture - which varies from country to country depending upon native laws, traditions, respect for privacy, personal accommodation, merit and above all structured promotion and award mechanism. In the case of Pakistan, many firms maintain a traditionalist approach, not allowing their employees to work from home even in their difficult times thus adding to their stress and productivity. Economic strategist and regional expert Dr Mehmoodul Hassan Khan told Business Recorder 'corporate companies need swiftness, efficiency, joint work and timely execution of a certain assignment or project because every individual and section is equally interrelated and interdependent.' Remote working only works if discipline, team-work, information sharing and the nature of work is not compromised. He also believes the Pakistani banking industry's HR policies, in particular, need a major overhaul. Industry bosses rarely allow work from home even if the need is genuine, he said. Bosses in banking and other sectors are treated as supreme leaders who have their own criteria of transfers/postings, promotion, rewards and sanctions of leaves which often leads to a downfall in productivity and morale, he added. In some cases, companies are more accomodating towards women's request to work from home, given the societal assumption that they have to juggle home life with work. But firms must judge the discipline, punctuality, productivity and participation of all employees equally. Another model is the 4-day work week. In 2022, Belgium passed a law allowing workers to compress their full work hours into four longer weekdays with full pay. Employers can still refuse but must do so in writing with justification Germany conducted a six‑month pilot in 2023–2024 involving around 41–45 companies exploring shorter weeks with full pay; with 73% saying they planned to continue the model. Many other European countries, as well as South Africa, Brazil, the UK and the US have had similar trials with positive outcomes which brings one to the conclusion that employee wellbeing should be prioritised, and productivity will follow.
National Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- National Post
Chris Selley: Canada's refugee system — and the world's — is overdue for an overhaul
Article content The simple fact is, Canada is not equipped to handle as many refugee claims as we currently accept. If we were, there wouldn't be African migrants sleeping on Toronto sidewalks. There wouldn't have been 281,000 pending asylum cases as of March 31. Article content Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government is certainly aware of the issue. Bill C-2 proposes a one-year deadline after arriving in Canada for claiming asylum — so people with expired or revoked visas couldn't apply, for example — and to eliminate a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement that allows illegal border-crossers who evade capture for two weeks to apply for asylum nevertheless. Article content Both are entirely reasonable. But the current issue of The Economist, cover headline 'Scrap the refugee system,' suggests the sort of wholesale changes to the global refugee system that I have been arguing for forever. It's interesting not so much as a piece of journalism as it is to know that liberal (and Liberal) policymakers very much tend to read The Economist. Article content Article content 'About 123 million people have been displaced by conflict, disaster or persecution. … All these people have a right to seek safety,' the magazine's editorial observes. 'But 'safety' does not mean access to a rich country's labour market. Indeed, resettlement in rich countries will never be more than a tiny part of the solution.' Article content The goal, the august organ argues, should be for refugees to receive asylum closer to home — ideally in culturally and linguistically similar countries whose population will tend to be more sympathetic. For the money that rich countries spend processing everyone who manages to make it to their shores — who are generally by definition not the world's most imperilled or downtrodden, else they wouldn't be able to get here — they could help vastly more people to safety, even if not First World prosperity. (The latter was never the goal of the current system.) Article content This is an idea that would require multilateral co-operation to achieve full bloom, of course. But many First World countries are far more hostile to asylum-seekers, if not immigrants in general, than Canada is. If Canada significantly restricted refugee claims made on Canadian soil, and instead refocused its efforts on helping people find refuge closer to home, it would set a useful example — not least because we have been so welcoming, to a fault, in the past. Article content
