Connect with us

Economy

Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

US retires the penny? The US stopped minting pennies in November 2025. Learn who benefits and who loses as this change impacts small businesses, cash-dependent consumers, and the digital payment landscape.

Published

on

Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

One cent coins money (USD), currency of United States

Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

Nancy Forster-Holt, University of Rhode Island

By now, Americans know the strange math of minting: Each penny costs about 4 cents to make. Chances are you have some in a jar, or scattered among pockets, purses and car ashtrays.

As small as it is, the penny punches above its weight culturally. If it ever disappeared, so too might the simple kindness of “take a penny, leave a penny,” alongside timeless classics like penny loafers and the tradition of tossing a penny in a fountain.

But the penny’s days are indeed numbered. The U.S. Mint pressed the last 1-cent coin on Nov. 12, 2025, following a directive from the White House. While pennies will remain legal tender, old ones will gradually be taken out of circulation.

The impact of this change will reach beyond coin jars. Its ripples will be felt as small, cash-reliant Main Street merchants face another test of adaptability in a system that increasingly favors scale, technology and plastic. It will also be felt by people who rely on cash – often people without bank accounts who have the least room to absorb even tiny shifts in price.

My interest comes from my former lives as the chief financial officer of a large credit union and as a small-business owner. Now, I bridge theory and practice as a professor – or “prac-ademic,” as I like to say – studying the challenges facing Main Street businesses.

When the penny goes away, some will win, some will lose – and for some, it’ll be a coin toss.

Heads, they win

The first and most obvious winner is the U.S. government, which will save tens of millions of dollars each year by no longer minting a coin that costs more to make than it’s worth. Ending production seems like an easy call for efficiency’s sake.

Banks and credit unions will likely benefit too. Pennies are disproportionately expensive to handle: Every bag of pennies gets counted, sorted, rolled, verified and shipped back to the Federal Reserve, generating labor and equipment costs that far exceed the coin’s value. Removing the smallest denomination strips out an entire layer of cost and friction from bank operations – savings that scale immediately across thousands of branches.

Another beneficiary, this one hiding in plain sight, is who transports the cash: the armored-carrier industry. For companies such as Loomis and Brink’s, pennies are heavy, low-value cargo, and a logistical money-loser. Removing penny pickups eliminates one of their most inefficient services, reducing fuel use, labor hours and truck wear.

Large retailers will likely also win. Size and scale make it easier to undertake preparations both big and small, such as reprogramming cash registers and stockpiling pennies to hedge against shortages. Larger companies also have the talent and bandwidth to figure out the true costs and benefits of accepting cash or noncash payments. If most of their transactions are already digital, they could be relatively indifferent to the end of the penny.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Large retailers also negotiate lower card processing rates, which are the fees merchants must pay to the card companies every time a customer uses a credit or debit card. These rates aren’t uniform: Large chains get discounted pricing based on sales volume, while small businesses face higher costs for identical transactions. It follows that any policy change leading to more people paying with plastic will disproportionately benefit larger retailers.

To be sure, some banks, credit unions and large retailers have expressed concern and surprise at the pace of the change and the lack of guidance from the federal government. But for most, the penny’s end is a minor operational footnote. Online-only businesses operate in this frictionless world as well – no coins, no counting, no issue.

Tails, they lose

For small, Main Street businesses, the penny’s disappearance highlights the structural disadvantages they already face – and I think it will force a reckoning about what types of payments benefit their bottom lines.

As pennies phase out, local businesses are likely to round cash transactions to the nearest 5 cents, resulting in what economists call a “rounding tax.” Rounding to the nearest nickel could cost businesses and consumers about $6 million annually, according to researchers with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

And it wouldn’t offer much relief if more shoppers turn to plastic and other noncash payments. That’s because most small merchants lack the negotiating power to lower their card-processing fees.

Card acceptance comes with a layered stack of costs for merchants: interchange fees, network assessments, processor markups, gateway fees, chargeback penalties, terminal rentals and more. Together, these average 2.5% to 3.5% per sale for many small businesses. Also, there are expenses related to adopting the latest, greatest payment methods, and then keeping them updated.

Consider a quick-service restaurant where a typical customer spends $14. If that customer pays with a credit card and the business pays an average processing fee of 2.2% plus 10 cents per transaction, each sale incurs about 41 cents in fees. Even low-cost debit cards include fixed per-transaction charges that disproportionately affect businesses when the per-sale average is small. When the average sale is $10 or less, it barely covers the cost to process it as a card transaction.

That said, handling cash also comes at a cost, and it’s not always easy to know what’s best for business. One analysis found that accepting cash costs 53 cents per $100 of sales, compared with $1.12 for accepting debit payments using a signature and 81 cents for PIN-based debit. Of course, businesses also should keep in mind that different customers will have different payment preferences.

And speaking of customers, those who are most likely to feel the pinch from the end of the penny are people who still rely on cash: older adults, lower-income households, people without credit cards or bank accounts – either unbanked or under-banked – and people who budget in cash because it provides firmer spending discipline.

A few cents added to a grocery total or a convenience store purchase may not matter to someone tapping a rewards credit card, but cash-dependent consumers experience those small increases directly, with no offsetting points, perks or end-of-month cash back. And yes, prices often end in 99 cents, which get rounded up, not down. So the burden falls disproportionately on those least equipped to absorb even small, cumulative increases.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

For some, it’s a coin toss

Digital-first consumers may barely notice the penny’s disappearance. They tap phones, scan QR codes and use payment apps that will still settle to the exact amount.

While businesses haven’t received final guidance on how to handle payments in the post-penny era, one option is to price electronic transactions to the cent and round cash transactions to the nearest nickel. If that were widely adopted, digital payments alone would remain precise.

Consumers who use cashless payments may believe their choice doesn’t affect how they shop, but behavioral research says otherwise. Credit cards reduce the “pain of paying,” leading people to spend more – often 10% to 20% more than with cash. Credit card rewards programs further incentivize card use. In one last nod to the cost of noncash payments, those rewards are funded by higher merchant fees that ultimately translate into higher retail prices.

Killing the penny makes economic sense for the government and some businesses, yet it also highlights a deeper truth: Efficiency tends to reward the already efficient. For many, however, even when the change is small, every cent still counts.

Nancy Forster-Holt, Clinical Associate Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, University of Rhode Island

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Sports Research
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

How Bird Flu Upended the U.S. Egg Market — and Why Prices Are Finally Beginning to Stabilize

Egg Market: Egg prices surged during the U.S. bird flu outbreak as laying hen inventories collapsed. Here’s how flock recovery is helping stabilize egg prices today.

Published

on

The US Egg Market: A row of egg cartons on a grocery store shelf with price tags showing stabilized prices following the U.S. bird flu outbreak.

How Bird Flu Upended the U.S. Egg Market — and Why Prices Are Finally Beginning to Stabilize

Few grocery items frustrated American consumers over the past two years quite like eggs. Once an inexpensive staple, egg prices surged to historic highs following a prolonged outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), commonly known as bird flu. Today, however, prices appear to be stabilizing. Here’s how the crisis unfolded — and why relief is finally showing up at the checkout line.

The Bird Flu Crisis and Its Impact on Egg Supply

Beginning in 2022, the United States experienced one of the most severe bird flu outbreaks in modern history. The virus spread rapidly through poultry farms, forcing producers to cull millions of birds to prevent further transmission. Egg-laying hens were hit especially hard, leading to a sharp drop in egg production nationwide. By 2024 and into early 2025, the cumulative losses totaled well over one hundred million birds. With fewer hens producing eggs, supply tightened dramatically, and prices soared. At the peak of the crisis, consumers in some regions saw egg prices climb above six dollars per dozen.

Why Egg Prices Stayed High for So Long

Unlike other agricultural products, egg production cannot rebound quickly after a disruption. When laying hens are lost, they must be replaced with young birds known as pullets. These pullets require approximately four to six months to mature before they begin producing eggs. Even after farms were cleared to restock, producers faced additional challenges. Strict biosecurity measures, concerns about reinfection, and the logistical complexity of rebuilding flocks slowed the recovery process. As a result, egg supplies remained tight long after the initial outbreaks subsided.

Laying Hen Inventory Recovery Takes Shape

By mid to late 2025, signs of recovery became more apparent. Producers gradually increased pullet placements, and national laying hen inventories began to grow. While the total number of hens had not yet returned to pre-outbreak levels, the upward trend marked an important turning point. This steady rebuilding of flocks meant more eggs entering the supply chain. Wholesale markets responded first, with prices easing as inventories improved. Retail prices soon followed, signaling that the worst of the supply shock was beginning to fade.

Egg Prices Begin to Stabilize

As laying hen inventories recovered, egg prices moved away from their record highs. By late 2025 and into early 2026, prices at many grocery stores had fallen noticeably compared to peak levels. While costs remain somewhat higher than pre-pandemic norms, the extreme volatility seen during the height of the bird flu crisis has largely subsided. Additional factors also helped stabilize the market. Federal and state efforts to strengthen biosecurity, limited egg imports to supplement domestic supply, and improved disease monitoring all contributed to a more balanced egg market.

What This Means for Consumers

For consumers, the stabilization of egg prices offers a welcome sense of normalcy. Shoppers are less likely to encounter sudden price spikes, and eggs are once again becoming a predictable part of grocery budgets. While prices may not return to the ultra-low levels seen years ago, the recovery of laying hen inventories suggests that the egg market is on firmer footing. Continued vigilance against future outbreaks will be critical, but for now, the outlook is far more stable than it was during the height of the bird flu crisis.

Looking Ahead

The bird flu outbreak served as a reminder of how vulnerable food systems can be to disease disruptions. Thanks to gradual flock rebuilding and improved supply conditions, egg prices are stabilizing — a sign that recovery, while slow, is real. If current trends continue, consumers and producers alike may finally be moving past one of the most turbulent chapters in the modern egg market.

Further Reading & Sources

 

Author

  • Rod Washington

    Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.

    View all posts

HUNGRY FOR MORE?

Discover a feast for your senses with our Food & Drink Blog, a tantalizing part of STM Daily News. Get the latest articles, recipes, and foodie news delivered straight to your inbox. Satisfaction guaranteed!

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE THE LATEST RECIPES & FOODIE NEWS, PLUS SOME EXCLUSIVE GOODIES!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Food and Drink

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

News

Educators Are Being Priced Out of Their Communities—These Cities Are Building Subsidized Teacher Housing to Bring Them Back

Teacher Housing: As housing costs rise and teacher pay stagnates, cities and school districts are building education workforce housing to attract and retain educators—cutting commutes and strengthening community ties.

Published

on

As housing costs rise and teacher pay stagnates, cities and school districts are building education workforce housing to attract and retain educators—cutting commutes and strengthening community ties.
Developers of Wendy’s Village, an affordable housing complex planned for teachers in Colorado Springs, Colo., completed their first homes in July 2025. WeFortify

America’s educators are being priced out of their communities − these cities are building subsidized teacher housing to lure them back

Jeff Kruth, Miami University and Tammy Schwartz, Miami University For much of the 20th century, teaching was a stable, middle-class job in the U.S. Now it’s becoming a lot harder to survive on a teacher’s salary: Wages have been stagnant for decades, according to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, and teachers earn 5% less than they did a decade ago when adjusting for inflation. That’s one reason why there’s a widespread teacher shortage, with tens of thousands of positions going unfilled. At the same time, according to a 2022 report from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, there are more than 160,000 underqualified teachers in the classroom, meaning they don’t meet full certification or credentialing standards. This issue has become particularly acute as housing costs have risen sharply across the country over the past decade. Why become a teacher if it means you’ll struggle to put a roof over your head? In response, many states and cities, from California to Cincinnati, are exploring ways to attract and retain teachers by developing education workforce housing – affordable housing built specifically for public school teachers and staff to make it easier for them to live near where they work. In doing so, they seek to address aspects of both the teacher shortage and housing crisis.

Fertile land for housing

As professors of architecture and education and as directors of an urban teaching program at Miami University in Ohio, we work to make it easier for students to pursue teaching careers – and that includes addressing affordable housing issues in communities where they work. A key element of this work involves collaborating with local education agencies to either build, subsidize or find housing for teachers. Local education agencies are tasked with the administrative functions of a school district, and they often own large tracts of land. This land can be used to build new school buildings or community health clinics. But it can also be used to build housing – a particularly attractive option in cities where land can be scarce and expensive. California has been at the forefront of these efforts. The state’s school districts own more than 75,000 acres of potentially developable land. Meanwhile, more than one-third of the state’s public school employees are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. California’s Teacher Housing Act of 2016 set up a framework for local education agencies to build and develop housing on their land. Since then, education workforce housing complexes have been developed across the state, ranging from San Francisco’s Shirley Chisolm Village to 705 Serramonte in Daly City, California.
The San Francisco Unified School District celebrated the opening of Shirley Chisolm Village, the city’s first educator housing development, in September 2025.
The nuts and bolts of education workforce housing vary. It can be financed by traditional sources, such as private philanthropy and government funds. But it can also be funded through financial tools such as certificates of participation, which allow outside investors to provide funding up front and later receive a return on their investment through rental income. In some cases, teachers are offered reduced rents for just a few years as they start their careers. In others, they’re given the opportunity to purchase their home. Third party management companies often oversee the projects, since local education agencies usually aren’t interested in property management. This also reduces the potential for any direct disputes between employer and employee. Many programs require only that residents be employees of the school district when they enter the program, meaning if someone leaves their job, they will not be displaced. In April 2025, UCLA’s CITYLab and the Center for Cities and Schools published a study highlighting some of the benefits and challenges of nine educator workforce housing projects built in California. The complexes ranged in size, from 18 to 141 dwelling units, with heights that ranged from two to six stories. The researchers found that tenants were largely satisfied with their living situations: They paid rents at far below market rate, and they praised the apartment design. They also highlighted their shorter commutes.

From tiny homes to factory conversions

Since 2020, educator housing has been proposed or developed in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and South Carolina. In Fort Stockton, a small, rural town in West Texas, the school district bought a motel in 2022 and converted it into teacher housing. In Arizona, the Chino Valley Unified School District built tiny homes for its teachers in 2023, renting them at US$550 per month.
The Chino Valley Unified School District built tiny homes for its workers in 2023.
In Baltimore, more than 775 teachers have recently been housed thanks to initiatives such as the Union Mill project, an 86,000-square-foot historic building converted into teacher apartments that range in price from $700 to $1200 per month. Teacher housing does more than give educators an affordable place to live. It can forge lasting relationships. A recent assessment of teacher housing in Los Angeles found that the community spaces and programs offered on site strengthened bonds among the residents, leading to friendships and working relationships that lasted for years.
A spacious living space featuring a billiards table, chairs, tables and a large, built-in bookcase filled with books.
A community room in Norwood Learning Village, a 29-unit affordable housing development for Los Angeles Unified School District employees. © Alexander Vertikoff for Thomas Saffron and Associates and Norwood Learning Village

Building community in and out of the classroom

Here in Cincinnati, our own graduates now working in schools also benefit from affordable housing options. Through a partnership between Miami University and St. Francis Seraph, early career teachers from our TEACh and Urban Cohort programs have access to affordable housing. In 2024, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati converted an old church property in Cincinnati’s Over-the-Rhine neighborhood into teacher apartments, which recent graduates can rent at a reduced rate. Most young teachers otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford living in this area.
A group of people smile as two women cut a red ribbon.
In 2024, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati collaborated with Miami University to convert the St. Francis Seraph Church building in the city’s Over-the-Rhine neighborhood into affordable housing for recent teaching graduates. Photo: Je’Von Calhoun, CC BY-SA
“I wouldn’t be able to spend my beginning years as an educator in the community without access to affordable housing,” Nicholas Detzel, a graduate teacher now living in the converted space, told us in an interview. “Living in the community has been an amazing experience and helps you know your students on a completely different level,” he added. “It has also helped me relate to students about knowing what is going on in our community.” Teachers like Detzel who live in Over-the-Rhine can walk or take public transportation to the local schools where they work. Perhaps more importantly, they can better understand the world of their students. They can learn the streets that students avoid, the parks and community spaces that become popular after-school hangouts, and what community organizations offer summer programming. Ultimately, teachers grounded in the life of the community can build relationships outside of the walls of school that contribute to more trust in the classroom. Providing affordable housing for teachers and staff also helps retention rates, particularly as many younger teachers leave the profession due to low pay and burnout. Teacher housing programs are still in their infancy. There are roughly 3.2 million public school teachers nationwide, and there are probably fewer than 100 of these developments completed or in progress. Yet more and more districts are expressing interest, because they help alleviate two major concerns affecting so many American communities: affordable housing and a quality education. While the need for affordable housing spans both lower- and middle-class families, teachers or not, forging alliances between schools and affordable housing providers can serve as one path forward – and possibly serve as a model for other trades and professions.The Conversation Jeff Kruth, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Miami University and Tammy Schwartz, Director of the Urban Cohort, Miami University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Economy

Tariffs 101: What they are, who pays them, and why they matter now

Learn what tariffs are, who pays them, and why they matter for the U.S. economy. Explore how import taxes impact prices, trade policy, and everyday consumers as the Supreme Court reviews Trump’s global tariffs.

Published

on

Last Updated on December 13, 2025 by Daily News Staff

Cargo containers and U.S. Customs officers at a busy port, illustrating the impact of tariffs and trade policy on imported goods.

Tariffs 101: What they are, who pays them, and why they matter now

Kent Jones, Babson College The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case to determine whether President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are legal. Until recently, tariffs rarely made headlines. Yet today, they play a major role in U.S. economic policy, affecting the prices of everything from groceries to autos to holiday gifts, as well as the outlook for unemployment, inflation and even recession. I’m an economist who studies trade policy, and I’ve found that many people have questions about tariffs. This primer explains what they are, what effects they have, and why governments impose them.

What are tariffs, and who pays them?

Tariffs are taxes on imports of goods, usually for purposes of protecting particular domestic industries from import competition. When an American business imports goods, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sends it a tariff bill that the company must pay before the merchandise can enter the country. Because tariffs raise costs for U.S. importers, those companies usually pass the expense on to their customers by raising prices. Sometimes, importers choose to absorb part of the tariff’s cost so consumers don’t switch to more affordable competing products. However, firms with low profit margins may risk going out of business if they do that for very long. In general, the longer tariffs are in place, the more likely companies are to pass the costs on to customers. Importers can also ask foreign suppliers to absorb some of the tariff cost by lowering their export price. But exporters don’t have an incentive to do that if they can sell to other countries at a higher price. Studies of Trump’s 2025 tariffs suggest that U.S. consumers and importers are already paying the price, with little evidence that foreign suppliers have borne any of the burden. After six months of the tariffs, importers are absorbing as much as 80% of the cost, which suggests that they believe the tariffs will be temporary. If the Supreme Court allows the Trump tariffs to continue, the burden on consumers will likely increase. While tariffs apply only to imports, they tend to indirectly boost the prices of domestically produced goods, too. That’s because tariffs reduce demand for imports, which in turn increases the demand for substitutes. This allows domestic producers to raise their prices as well.

A brief history of tariffs

The U.S. Constitution assigns all tariff- and tax-making power to Congress. Early in U.S. history, tariffs were used to finance the federal government. Especially after the Civil War, when U.S. manufacturing was growing rapidly, tariffs were used to shield U.S. industries from foreign competition. The introduction of the individual income tax in 1913 displaced tariffs as the main source of U.S. tax revenue. The last major U.S. tariff law was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which established an average tariff rate of 20% on all imports by 1933. Those tariffs sparked foreign retaliation and a global trade war during the Great Depression. After World War II, the U.S. led the formation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, which promoted tariff reduction policies as the key to economic stability and growth. As a result, global average tariff rates dropped from around 40% in 1947 to 3.5% in 2024. The U.S. average tariff rate fell to 2.5% that year, while about 60% of all U.S. imports entered duty-free. While Congress is officially responsible for tariffs, it can delegate emergency tariff power to the president for quick action as long as constitutional boundaries are followed. The current Supreme Court case involves Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to unilaterally change all U.S. general tariff rates and duration, country by country, by executive order. The controversy stems from the claim that Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority granted by that act, which does not mention tariffs or specifically authorize the president to impose them.

The pros and cons of tariffs

In my view, though, the bigger question is whether tariffs are good or bad policy. The disastrous experience of the tariff war during the Great Depression led to a broad global consensus favoring freer trade and lower tariffs. Research in economics and political science tends to back up this view, although tariffs have never disappeared as a policy tool, particularly for developing countries with limited sources of tax revenue and the desire to protect their fledgling industries from imports. Yet Trump has resurrected tariffs not only as a protectionist device, but also as a source of government revenue for the world’s largest economy. In fact, Trump insists that tariffs can replace individual income taxes, a view contested by most economists. Most of Trump’s tariffs have a protectionist purpose: to favor domestic industries by raising import prices and shifting demand to domestically produced goods. The aim is to increase domestic output and employment in tariff-protected industries, whose success is presumably more valuable to the economy than the open market allows. The success of this approach depends on labor, capital and long-term investment flowing into protected sectors in ways that improve their efficiency, growth and employment. Critics argue that tariffs come with trade-offs: Favoring one set of industries necessarily disfavors others, and it raises prices for consumers. Manipulating prices and demand results in market inefficiency, as the U.S. economy produces more goods that are less efficiently made and fewer that are more efficiently made. In addition, U.S. tariffs have already resulted in foreign retaliatory trade actions, damaging U.S. exporters. Trump’s tariffs also carry an uncertainty cost because he is constantly threatening, changing, canceling and reinstating them. Companies and financiers tend to invest in protected industries only if tariff levels are predictable. But Trump’s negotiating strategy has involved numerous reversals and new threats, making it difficult for investors to calculate the value of those commitments. One study estimates that such uncertainty has actually reduced U.S. investment by 4.4% in 2025. A major, if underappreciated, cost of Trump’s tariffs is that they have violated U.S. global trade agreements and GATT rules on nondiscrimination and tariff-binding. This has made the U.S. a less reliable trading partner. The U.S. had previously championed this system, which brought stability and cooperation to global trade relations. Now that the U.S. is conducting trade policy through unilateral tariff hikes and antagonistic rhetoric, its trading partners are already beginning to look for new, more stable and growing trade relationships. So what’s next? Trump has vowed to use other emergency tariff measures if the Supreme Court strikes down his IEEPA tariffs. So as long as Congress is unwilling to step in, it’s likely that an aggressive U.S. tariff regime will continue, regardless of the court’s judgment. That means public awareness of tariffs ⁠– and of who pays them and what they change ⁠– will remain crucial for understanding the direction of the U.S. economy. Kent Jones, Professor Emeritus, Economics, Babson College This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

https://stmdailynews.com/


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending