Economy
US Consumer Confidence Fell Sharply in January: What the Latest Conference Board Data Signals
In January 2026, U.S. consumer confidence plummeted to its lowest level since 2014, as the Consumer Confidence Index fell by 9.7 points to 84.5. Concerns about inflation, employment, and economic stability led to decreased optimism across all demographics and a cautious approach to major purchases, signaling potential recession ahead.
US consumers started 2026 on a noticeably more cautious note. New data from The Conference Board shows its Consumer Confidence Index® fell sharply in January, wiping out a brief December rebound and pushing overall sentiment to its weakest level in more than a decade.
Confidence drops to the lowest level since 2014
The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® fell 9.7 points in January to 84.5 (1985=100), down from an upwardly revised 94.2 in December. The organization noted that December’s figure was revised up by 5.1 points, meaning what initially looked like a decline last month was actually a small uptick—before January’s slide reasserted the broader downward trend.
The cutoff for the preliminary January results was January 16, 2026.
Both “right now” and “what’s next” got worse
The decline wasn’t isolated to one part of the survey. Both consumers’ views of current conditions and their expectations for the months ahead weakened.
- Present Situation Index: down 9.9 points to 113.7
- Expectations Index: down 9.5 points to 65.1
That Expectations reading matters because it’s well below 80, a level The Conference Board says “usually signals a recession ahead.”
Dana M. Peterson, Chief Economist at The Conference Board, summed it up bluntly: confidence “collapsed” in January, with all five components deteriorating. The overall Index hit its lowest level since May 2014.
What consumers are worried about (and what’s showing up in write-ins)
The Conference Board said consumers’ write-in responses continued to skew pessimistic. The biggest themes weren’t hard to guess:
- Prices and inflation
- Oil and gas prices
- Food and grocery prices
Mentions of tariffs and trade, politics, and the labor market also rose in January. References to health/insuranceand war edged higher.
In other words: consumers aren’t just feeling uneasy—they’re pointing to specific pressure points that affect day-to-day costs and long-term stability.
Labor market perceptions softened
Consumers’ views of employment conditions weakened, with fewer respondents saying jobs are plentiful and more saying jobs are hard to get.
- 23.9% said jobs were “plentiful,” down from 27.5% in December
- 20.8% said jobs were “hard to get,” up from 19.1%
That shift matters because consumer confidence often follows the labor market. When people feel less secure about job availability, they tend to pull back on big purchases and discretionary spending.
Expectations for business conditions and jobs turned more negative
Looking six months out, pessimism increased:
- 15.6% expected business conditions to improve (down from 18.7%)
- 22.9% expected business conditions to worsen (up from 21.3%)
On jobs:
- 13.9% expected more jobs to be available (down from 17.4%)
- 28.5% anticipated fewer jobs (up from 26.0%)
Income expectations cooled too:
- 15.7% expected incomes to increase (down from 18.8%)
- 12.6% expected incomes to decline (down slightly from 13.0%)
So while fewer people expected their income to fall, the bigger story is that optimism about income growth faded.
Who’s feeling it most: age, income, and politics
On a six-month moving average basis, confidence dipped across:
- All age groups (though under 35 remained more confident than older consumers)
- All generations (with Gen Z still the most optimistic)
- All income brackets (with those earning under $15K the least optimistic)
- All political affiliations (with the sharpest decline among Independents)
This broad-based decline suggests the shift isn’t confined to one demographic pocket—it’s spreading.
Big-ticket buying plans: more “maybe,” less “yes”
The survey also pointed to increased caution around major purchases.
Consumers saying “yes” to buying big-ticket items declined in January, while “maybe” responses rose and “no” edged higher.
- Auto buying plans were flat overall, though expectations for new cars continued to falter and plans to buy used cars climbed.
- Homebuying expectations continued to retreat.
- Plans to purchase appliances, furniture, and TVs decreased.
- Electronics purchase intentions dipped in most categories—except smartphones, which continued trending upward on a six-month moving average basis.
Services spending softened—but restaurants and travel stayed interesting
Planned spending on services over the next six months weakened in January, with fewer consumers saying “yes” and more shifting into “maybe.”
Still, a few categories stood out:
- Restaurants, bars, and take-out remained the top planned services spending category and continued to rise.
- Consumers also intended to spend more on hotels/motels for personal travel, airfare/trains, and motor vehicle services.
The Conference Board noted this was surprising given the plunge in vacation plans—especially for domestic travel—also recorded in the survey.
What to watch next
January’s report paints a clear picture: consumers are feeling squeezed by costs, less confident about the labor market, and more hesitant about major purchases. The Expectations Index dropping deeper below the “recession signal” threshold will likely keep economists, businesses, and policymakers watching the next few releases closely.
The Conference Board publishes the Consumer Confidence Index® at 10 a.m. ET on the last Tuesday of every month.
Source: The Conference Board, January 2026 Consumer Confidence Survey® (PRNewswire release, Jan. 27, 2026).
News
FAA Certifies Boeing 737-7: What It Means for Airlines and the 737 MAX Program
The FAA has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, clearing the smallest 737 MAX variant for service as Boeing and Southwest prepare for first deliveries.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, granting the company an amended type certificate that clears the smallest member of the 737 MAX family for commercial service. The milestone closes a multi-year certification effort and puts the focus on execution: Boeing and launch customer Southwest Airlines say preparations are underway to support first deliveries.
For STM Daily News readers, the headline isn’t just “another plane gets approved.” It’s a signal that Boeing has now cleared a key MAX variant designed for long-range flexibility in a smaller footprint—an aircraft type airlines can use to open or defend routes where demand is strong, but not strong enough to justify a larger narrowbody.
What FAA certification means
An amended type certificate means the FAA has approved the 737-7’s design as compliant with commercial aviation regulations. In practical terms, certification allows airlines to place the aircraft into revenue service once deliveries begin and operator-specific steps—training, manuals, maintenance programs, and entry-into-service planning—are completed.
Boeing also said the FAA updated Boeing Production Certificate No. 700 (PC 700) to include the 737-7, supporting production and delivery activities.
Why the 737-7 matters in the MAX lineup
Boeing positions the 737-7 as the smallest and longest-range member of the 737 MAX family. The company says it typically seats 135 to 160 passengers in a two-class configuration and offers a range of up to 3,800 nautical miles (7,040 km). That combination matters because it gives airlines more options to fly longer “thin” routes—markets where frequency and reach matter more than packing in additional seats.
Boeing also highlights performance for operations out of high-altitude airports and in hot climates, where takeoff performance and payload-range tradeoffs can shape fleet decisions.
Efficiency claims: fuel, emissions, and noise
Boeing says the 737-7, like other 737 MAX jets, reduces fuel use and CO2 emissions by 20% and cuts the noise footprint by 50% compared to the airplanes it typically replaces. For airlines, those improvements typically show up in two ways:
- Route economics: lower fuel burn can improve margins on longer sectors and reduce exposure to fuel-price swings.
- Operational constraints: quieter aircraft can help with airport noise requirements and community pressure, while lower emissions support sustainability targets.
Inside the certification effort
Boeing said the certification program began in 2018 and included more than 1,000 hours of flight and ground testing, extensive system safety analysis, and human factors reviews. The company also noted an updated engine anti-ice system to address a potential condition discovered during flight testing.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Stephanie Pope called the certification “important” validation of the airplane’s design and the work of the MAX development team. Mike Sinnett, senior vice president of Product Strategy, Product Development and Development Programs, said Boeing held regular discussions with the FAA and that the process has sharpened the company’s understanding of current regulatory requirements—knowledge Boeing expects will accelerate future development with a renewed emphasis on human factors, safety, and quality.
What to watch next
With certification complete, the next phase is about delivery timing and real-world deployment.
- First deliveries to Southwest: Boeing and Southwest are preparing for delivery of the first airplane, including updates to final configuration.
- Production stability: certification removes a major hurdle, but supply chain health and production cadence will determine how quickly the 737-7 shows up in airline schedules.
- The 737-10 timeline: Boeing reiterated it is working to certify the 737-10 this year, keeping attention on how quickly the final MAX variant clears regulatory review.
The bigger MAX picture
Boeing said the 737 MAX family order book stands at more than 7,200 airplanes, with more than 2,300 delivered through the end of June 2026. The 737-7’s certification adds another deliverable product to that portfolio—one aimed at airlines that want long range without stepping up to a larger gauge.
Bottom line
FAA certification of the 737-7 is a meaningful milestone for Boeing and for airlines looking for a smaller narrowbody with long-range capability. The real test now is operational: turning certification into on-time deliveries and reliable entry into service—while the industry watches Boeing’s push to certify the 737-10.
Related Links
- Boeing 737 MAX family overview (manufacturer background/specs): https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/
- FAA Aircraft Certification (how type certification works): https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/
- FAA Airworthiness Directives (regulatory actions database): https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives
- Southwest Airlines newsroom (launch customer context / fleet updates): https://www.swamedia.com/
- Boeing Commercial Airplanes newsroom (for follow-ups and official updates): https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases?item=130821
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
Source:
Boeing (PRNewswire), Aug. 3, 2026 — “U.S. FAA certifies new Boeing 737-7 airplane.”
Economy
Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?
Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.
Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.
But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.
That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.
What Is a Donor State?
Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.
Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.
A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.
These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.
Only Three Donor States in 2023?
According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.
Those states were:
New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.
Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.
Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.
At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.
The reality is considerably more complicated.
COVID Changed the Numbers
Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.
The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.
Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.
Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.
That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.
California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor
California provides perhaps the best example.
In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.
But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.
Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.
In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.
Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.
New York Tells a Similar Story
New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.
Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.
Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.
As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.
Arizona Is a Net Recipient
Arizona presents a different picture.
Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.
Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.
That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.
But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”
Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.
Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.
All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.
Texas Receives More Than It Sends
Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.
Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.
Again, the number needs context.
Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.
The Surprising Leader: Virginia
If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.
Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.
Why?
Location.
Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.
Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.
The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.
A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.
Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?
Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:
- Social Security
- Medicare and Medicaid
- Military bases and personnel
- Defense contracts
- Federal employee salaries
- Highway and transit funding
- Scientific and university research
- Agricultural programs
- Veterans benefits
- Disaster assistance
- Federal grants
- Infrastructure projects
- Federal agency operations
A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.
Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors
Federal income taxes are progressive.
People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.
States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.
That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.
The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.
The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.
In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.
So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?
In a broad accounting sense, yes.
Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.
But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.
Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.
A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.
Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.
The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.
The Bigger Picture
The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.
The numbers are real, but they require context.
A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.
Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:
Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.
They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.
And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.
Related External Links
- Rockefeller Institute of Government – 2025 Balance of Payments Report
- USAspending.gov – Explore Federal Government Spending
- USAspending.gov – Federal Spending Guide
- IRS – Individual Income Tax Data by State
- IRS – Federal Taxes Collected by State
🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.
jobs help wanted
Ghost Jobs: The Hidden Hiring Trend Affecting Millions of Job Seekers
Ghost jobs are becoming a growing concern for job seekers. Learn what they are, why companies post them, and how they affect hiring, the economy, and your job search.
Why You Keep Applying—But Never Hear Back
If you’ve ever spent hours tailoring your résumé for a position only to hear nothing in return, you may have encountered what’s known as a ghost job.
A ghost job is a job posting that appears active but isn’t currently being filled. While not every old or inactive listing is intentionally misleading, many remain online long after hiring has paused—or even after the position has already been filled.
The result is growing frustration among job seekers and increasing questions about the accuracy of employment data.
What Exactly Is a Ghost Job?
A ghost job is an advertised position where an employer has little or no immediate intention of hiring someone.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the company is acting maliciously. There are several reasons these listings exist.
Companies may:
- Build a database of future candidates
- Test salary expectations and available talent
- Comply with internal hiring policies
- Maintain the appearance of growth
- Delay removing listings after a hiring freeze or filled position
For applicants, however, the experience is often the same: applications disappear into a black hole.
Why Companies Post Ghost Jobs
Some employers say maintaining job listings helps them prepare for future growth.
Others keep positions open because budgets haven’t been finalized or executive approval hasn’t been granted.
Recruiters may also continue collecting résumés so they’re ready when a position eventually opens.
While these reasons may make business sense, they can create unrealistic expectations for applicants actively searching for work.
The Impact on Job Seekers
Ghost jobs can have real consequences.
Many applicants spend dozens of hours:
- Researching companies
- Customizing résumés
- Writing cover letters
- Completing assessments
- Participating in interviews that never lead anywhere
The emotional toll can be significant.
Repeated silence often leaves qualified workers questioning their experience or abilities when the issue may simply be that the position was never actively available.
How Ghost Jobs Affect the Economy
The effects extend beyond individual applicants.
Employment Data Can Be Misleading
Job openings are often viewed as a sign of economic strength.
If a significant share of posted openings aren’t being actively filled, the labor market may appear stronger than it actually is.
That can influence:
- Business confidence
- Consumer confidence
- Economic forecasts
- Public policy discussions
Productivity Suffers
Job seekers spend valuable time applying for positions that may never result in interviews.
Recruiters also spend time managing applications for jobs that aren’t immediately available.
Those inefficiencies create costs for both workers and employers.
Hiring Becomes Less Efficient
When applicants lose trust in job boards, they’re less likely to apply broadly.
Companies with legitimate openings may receive fewer qualified applicants because candidates become skeptical of online listings.
Are Ghost Jobs Illegal?
Generally, no.
In most cases, employers are legally allowed to advertise positions even if they’re not hiring immediately.
However, critics argue that intentionally leaving inactive jobs online without updating their status reduces transparency and wastes applicants’ time.
Some employment experts have called for greater accountability and clearer labeling of inactive or future hiring opportunities.
How to Spot a Ghost Job
While there’s no foolproof method, these warning signs may indicate a listing isn’t actively being filled:
- The same position has been reposted for months.
- The posting never disappears.
- Employees report hiring freezes.
- The company rarely responds to applicants.
- The job description is vague or unusually generic.
Tips for Job Seekers
Instead of applying blindly:
- Focus on recently posted openings.
- Connect with recruiters or current employees.
- Research whether the company is actually expanding.
- Use networking alongside online applications.
- Follow up professionally when possible.
Quality applications often produce better results than sending hundreds of résumés.
Looking Ahead
Artificial intelligence has made it easier than ever for applicants to submit hundreds of applications—and for employers to post and manage thousands of job listings.
As hiring becomes increasingly automated, transparency may become one of the most valuable qualities in the recruiting process.
For both employers and job seekers, trust remains the foundation of a healthy labor market.
Related Links
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
- Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)
- Indeed Career Guide
- LinkedIn Talent Blog
- CareerBuilder Advice & Resources
- Monster Career Advice
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
