Business

High interest rates are hurting people. Here's why it's worse for Californians

Published

2 years ago

June 28, 2024

High interest rates are hurting people. Here's why it's worse for Californians

By the numbers, the overall U.S. economy may look good, but down at the street level the view is a lot grimmer and grittier.

The surge in interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve to slow inflation has closed like an acrid cloud over would-be homeowners, car buyers, growing families, and businesses new and old, large and small. It has meant missing opportunities, settling for less — and waiting and waiting and waiting.

It’s not that the average American is underwater. It’s that many feel that they’re struggling more than they anticipated and feel more constricted. In the American Dream, if you work hard, things are supposed to get better. Fairly or not, that may be a big part of why so many voters have expressed unhappiness with President Biden’s handling of the economy.

The cost of borrowing, whether for mortgages, credit cards or car loans, is the highest in more than two decades. And that is weighing especially hard on people in California, where housing, gas and many other things are more expensive than in most other states.

California’s economy also relies more on interest rate-sensitive sectors such as real estate and high tech, which helps explain why the state has been lagging in job growth and its unemployment rate is the highest in the nation.

Harder to budget

When interest rates rise, savers can earn more on their deposits. But in America’s consumer society, for most people higher rates mean that a lot of things cost a little (or a lot) more. That makes it harder to stretch an individual or family budget. It may mean giving up on the nicer car you had your heart set on, or settling for a smaller house, or a shorter, less glamorous vacation.

And with every uptick in interest rates, which is almost inevitably passed on to customers, some have had to give up on a purchase entirely.

Geovanny Panchame, a creative director at an advertising agency, knows these feelings all too well: He thinks often about what could have been if he and his wife had bought the starter home they were planning for in 2020.

Back then, they had been pre-approved at an interest rate of 3.1% — right around the national average — but were outbid several times. They figured they’d wait a few years to save more money for a nicer place.

Four years later, the couple are still renting an apartment in Culver City — and now they’re expecting their first child.

Pushing to buy a house and get settled before their son is born in December, they recently made an $885,000 offer for a three-bedroom, 1.5-bath home in Inglewood. They plan to put down 10%. At the current average mortgage interest rate of 7%, that would mean a monthly payment of about $5,300 — $1,900 more than if they had an interest rate of 3.1%.

The source of that increase is the Federal Reserve’s power to set basic interest rates, which determines the interest rates for almost everything else in the economy. The Fed’s benchmark rate went up rapidly, from near zero in early 2022 to a generational high of about 5.5%, where it has been for almost a year. The rate has been higher in the past, but after two decades in which it was mostly at rock bottom, most people had gotten used to both very low inflation and low interest rates.

“Clearly, we look back and we probably should have kept going and hopped into something,” Panchame, 39, said. “I’ve been really sacrificing a lot to get to this point to purchase a home and now I just feel like I got here but I didn’t work quick enough because interest rates have gotten the better of me.”

Add property taxes and home insurance, and it’s even more painful for home buyers because those costs have also risen sharply since the COVID-19 pandemic, along with housing prices themselves.

A typical buyer of a mid-tier home in California, priced at about $785,000 in the spring, was looking at a total housing payment of about $5,900 a month. That’s up from $3,250 in March of 2020 and almost $4,600 in March of 2022, when the Fed began raising interest rates, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.

It wasn’t supposed to work like that: Lifting interest rates as fast and as high as the Fed did, in its effort to curb inflation, should have led to falling home prices.

But that didn’t happen, mainly because relatively few homes came on the market. Most existing homeowners had locked in lower mortgage rates before the surge; selling those houses once interest rates took off would have meant paying higher prices and interest rates on other homes, or bloated rents for apartments.

For most homeowners sitting on the low rates of the past, their financial well-being was further supported by low unemployment and incomes that generally remained on par with inflation or grew a little faster. And many had cushions of savings built up in early phases of the pandemic, thanks partly to government support.

All of which has kept the U.S. economy as a whole humming along, blunting the full effects of higher interest rates.

“Consumers are doing their job,” said Claire Li, senior analyst at Moody’s Investors Service, though she added that there are now signs of slower spending, evidenced by consumers cutting back on credit card purchases.

Unlike most home loans, credit card interest rates aren’t fixed. And today the average rate has bounced up to almost 22% from 14.6% in 2021, according to Fed data. That’s starting to squeeze more borrowers, adding to their unease.

Rising credit card debt

In California, the 30-day delinquency rate on credit cards is nearing 5% — something not seen since late 2009 around the end of the Great Recession, according to the California Policy Lab at UC Berkeley.

Lower-income and younger borrowers are more prone to falling behind on credit card, auto and other consumer loan payments than those with higher incomes. And it’s these groups that are feeling the effects of higher interest rates the most.

Christian Shorter, a self-employed tech serviceman who lives in Chino, just bought a used Volkswagen Jetta for $21,000. He put down $3,500 and financed the rest over 69 months at an annual interest rate of 24%. His monthly payment is more than $480, and by the end of the loan he will have paid about $15,000 in interest.

Shorter, 45, said he doesn’t have good credit. He plans to take out a personal loan when interest rates drop and pay off the car debt. “Definitely, definitely, they should lower interest rates,” he said of the Fed.

Between the jump in interest rates and prices of new vehicles, some auto buyers have downgraded to cheaper models. The biggest shift, though, especially in California, has been a move by more buyers to turn to electric vehicles to save on fuel costs, says Joseph Yoon, a consumer analyst at Edmunds, the car research and information firm in Santa Monica.

In May, he said, buyers on average financed about $41,000 on a new vehicle purchase at an interest rate of 7.3% (compared with 4.1% in December 2021). Over 69 months, that translates to a monthly payment of $745.

“For a big part of the population, they’re looking at this car market and saying, ‘I got to wait for something to break,’ like interest rates or dealer incentives,” Yoon said.

For a lot of small-business owners, who drive much of the economy in Los Angeles, they don’t have the luxury of waiting it out. They need funds to survive, or to expand when things are going well.

But many can’t qualify with traditional commercial lenders, and when they can they’re typically looking at interest rates of 9%; that’s more than double what they were before the Fed’s rate hikes, according to surveys by the National Federation of Independent Business.

One result: More and more people in Southern California are looking for help from lenders such as Brea-based Lendistry, one of the nation’s largest minority-led community development financial institutions.

From January to May, applications were up 21% and the dollar volume of loans rose 33% compared with a year earlier, said Everett Sands, Lendistry’s chief executive. Interest rates on his loans range from 7.5% to 14.5%.

“Business owners, they’re resilient, entrepreneurial, scrappy — they’ll figure out a way,” he said, adding that he sees many doing side jobs like driving for Uber or making Instacart deliveries at night.

Even so, Sands said, the higher borrowing costs inevitably mean less money spent on things like investing in new technology and software and bringing on additional staff, as well as delays in owners growing their businesses.

“Some of them lose out in progressing forward.”

‘When you put everything on the line, you get desperate.’

— Jurni Rayne, Gritz N Wafflez

Jurni Rayne, 42, started her brunch business, Gritz N Wafflez, as a ghost kitchen in February 2022, preparing food orders for delivery services. She financed that by maxing out her credit cards and getting a merchant cash advance, which is like a payday loan with super high interest rates. Her debts reached $70,000.

“When you put everything on the line, you get desperate,” said Rayne, a Dallas native who moved to Los Angeles a decade ago and has worked as a manager at California Pizza Kitchen and the Cheesecake Factory. “You don’t care about the interest rate, because it’s something like between passion and insanity.”

She has since paid off all the merchant loans. And her business has seen such strong growth that last year Rayne got out of the ghost kitchen and into a small spot in Pico-Union, starting with just three tables. She now has 17 tables and a staff of 14.

This fall she’ll be moving to a bigger location in Koreatown and has her sights on a second restaurant in South Los Angeles. But she frets that she could have expanded sooner if interest rates had been lower and she’d had more access to financing.

Economists call that an opportunity cost. For Rayne, it’s personal.

“Absolutely, lower interest rates would have helped me,” she said.

For many others, the wait for lower rates continues without the balm of intermediate success.

Lynn Miller, 60, began looking to buy a home in Orange County about a year ago, hoping to upgrade from her current 1,600-square-foot apartment.

“It’s not bad, it’s just not mine — the dishwasher is crappy, the washing machine is old,” she said of her rental in Corona del Mar. “I’m obviously not going to invest in these appliances. It’s just different not owning your own home.”

It’s been a discouraging process, she said, especially when she inputs her numbers into the mortgage calculators on Zillow and Realtor.com, which churn out estimates based on current interest rates.

“If you look at those monthly payment numbers, it’s shocking,” Miller, a marketing consultant, said. “It’ll get better, but it’s just not better right now.”

She’s continuing her house search — she’d love to buy a single-family, three-bedroom home with a backyard for a dog — but is holding off for now.

“I’m still waiting because I do think that interest rates are going to go down,” Miller said, although she knows it’s a guessing game. “I could end up waiting a long time.”

Business

What soaring gas prices mean for California’s EV market

Published

6 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

What soaring gas prices mean for California’s EV market

It has been a bumpy road for the electric vehicle market as declining federal support and plateauing public interest have eaten away at sales.

But EV sellers could soon receive a boost from an unexpected source: The war in Iran is pushing up gas prices.

As Americans look to save money at the pump, more will consider switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle. Average gas prices in the U.S. have risen nearly 17% since Feb. 28 to reach $3.48 per gallon. In California, the average is $5.20 per gallon.

Electric vehicles are pricier than gasoline-powered cars and charging them isn’t cheap with current electricity prices, but sky-high gas prices can tip the scales for consumers deciding which kind of vehicle to buy next.

“We probably will see an uptick in EV adoption and particularly hybrid adoption” if gas prices stay high, said Sam Abuelsamid, an auto analyst at Telemetry Agency. “The last time we had oil prices top $100 per barrel was early 2022 and that’s when we saw EV sales really start to pick up in the U.S.”

In a 2022 AAA survey, 77% of respondents said saving money on gas was their primary motivator for purchasing an electric vehicle. That year, 25% of survey respondents said they were likely or very likely to purchase an EV.

As oil prices cooled, the number fell to16% in 2025.

In California, annual sales of new light-duty zero-emission vehicles jumped 43% in 2022, according to the state’s Energy Commission. The market share of zero-emission vehicles among all light-duty vehicles sold rose from 12% in 2021 to 19% in 2022.

“Prior to 2022, we didn’t really have EVs available when we had oil price shocks,” Abuelsamid said. “But every time we did, it coincided with a move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.”

Dealers are anticipating a windfall.

Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn., predicted enthusiasm for EVs will rebound across California if oil prices don’t come down.

“If prior gasoline price spikes are any indication, you tend to see interest in more fuel-efficient vehicles,” he said.

Rising gas prices could be a lifeline for EV makers at a time when federal support for green cars has been declining.

Under President Trump, a federal $7,500 tax incentive for new electric vehicles was eliminated in September, along with a $4,000 incentive for used electric vehicles.

In California, the zero-emission vehicle share of the total new-vehicle market was 22% through the first 10 months of 2025, then dropped sharply to 12% in the last two months of the year, according to the California Auto Outlook.

Meanwhile Tesla, the most popular EV brand in the country, has grappled with an implosion of its reputation with some consumers after its chief executive, Elon Musk, became one of Trump’s most vocal supporters and helped run the controversial Department of Government Efficiency.

Over the last several months, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis have pared back EV ambitions.

Other automakers, including Nissan, announced plans to stop producing their more affordable electric models.

The Trump administration has moved to roll back federal fuel economy standards and revoked California’s permission to implement a ban on new gas-powered car sales by 2035.

David Reichmuth, a researcher with the Clean Transportation program in the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the shift in production plans will affect EV availability, even if demand surges.

That could keep people from switching to cleaner vehicles regardless of higher gas prices.

“This is a transition that we need to make for both public health and to try to slow the damage from global warming, whether or not the price of gasoline is $3 or $5 or $6 a gallon,” he said.

According to Cox Automotive, new EV sales nationally were down 41% in November from a year earlier. Used EV sales were down 14% year over year that month.

To be sure, oil prices can fluctuate wildly in times of uncertainty. It will take time for consumers to decide on new purchases.

Brian Kim, who manages used car sales at Ford of Downtown LA, said he has yet to see a jump in the number of people interested in EVs, hybrids or more fuel-efficient gas-powered engines.

Still, if the price at the pump stays stuck above its current level, it could happen soon.

“Once the gas prices hit six [dollars per gallon] or more and people feel it in their pocket, maybe things will start to change,” he said.

Business

Nearly 60 gigawatts of U.S. clean power stalled, trade group finds

Published

18 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Nearly 60 gigawatts of U.S. clean power stalled, trade group finds

A total of 59 gigawatts of U.S. clean energy projects are facing delays at a time when demand for power from AI data centers is surging, according to a trade group study.

Developers are seeing an average delay of 19 months over issues such as long interconnection times, supply constraints and regulatory barriers, the American Clean Power Assn. said in a quarterly market report.

The backlog is happening despite the growing need for power on grids that are being taxed by energy-hungry data centers and increased manufacturing. The Trump administration has implemented a slew of policies to slow the build-out of solar and wind projects, including delaying approvals on federal lands.

The potential energy generation facing delays is the equivalent of 59 traditional nuclear reactors, enough to power more than 44 million homes simultaneously.

“Current policy instability is beginning to impact investor confidence and negatively impact project timelines at a time when demand is surging,” American Clean Power Chief Policy Officer JC Sandberg said in a statement.

Despite the hurdles, developers were able to bring more than 50 gigawatts of wind, solar and batteries online in 2025, accounting for more than 90% of all new power capacity in the U.S., the report found. Clean power purchase agreements declined 36% in 2025 compared with 2024, signaling that the build-out of clean power in the U.S. could be lower in the 2028 to 2030 time period, according to the report.

Chediak writes for Bloomberg.

Business

Feud between Vegas gambler and Paramount exec sparks $150-million fraud lawsuit

Published

1 day ago

March 9, 2026

Press Room

Feud between Vegas gambler and Paramount exec sparks 0-million fraud lawsuit

The high-stakes feud between Paramount Skydance President Jeff Shell and Las Vegas gambler and self-professed “fixer” Robert James “R.J.” Cipriani spilled into court on Monday.

Cipriani filed a lawsuit against Shell on claims of fraud and eight other counts, alleging that he reneged on an oral agreement to develop an English-language version of a Spanish music show that streams on Roku TV.

He is seeking $150 million in damages.

In the 67-page lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Cipriani claims that in exchange for providing “sophisticated, high-value crisis communications services, entirely without compensation” over 18 months, Shell had agreed to develop the show “Serenata De Las Estrellas,” (Star Serenade), but failed to do so. Cipriani and his wife were to be named as co-executive producers.

“This case arises from the oldest form of fraud: a powerful man took everything a less powerful man had to offer, promised to repay him, lied to him when he asked about it, and then refused to compensate him at all,” states the complaint.

Cipriani — who has producer credits on a 2020 documentary about Vegas, “Money Machine: Behind the Lies,” and the 2015 movie “Wild Card” — intended to make “Serenata” as a “lasting legacy for his mother,” Regina, saying the effort “has been the driving force and the most important thing consuming [Cipriani’s] entire life of almost sixty-five years,” according to the suit.

The show was inspired by a song that the Philadelphia-born Cipriani used to sing to his late mother when he was growing up.

The litigation is the latest twist in a simmering behind-the-scenes scandal that has left much of Hollywood slack-jawed.

For weeks, Cipriani had threatened to file a lawsuit against Shell, with the potential to derail his comeback at Paramount, three years after he lost his job as NBCUniversal’s chief executive over an inappropriate relationship with an underling.

Cipriani’s suit alleges Shell wasdesperate for help in quelling negative stories about him.

It also portrays him as someone who was indiscreet, allegedly sharing sensitive information during the period when the Ellison family, through Skydance Media, was preparing to close its deal to acquire Paramount and then was actively pursuing Warner Bros. Discovery to add to its growing entertainment and media empire.

The eventual rift between the unlikely pair began in August 2024. Patty Glaser, the high-powered entertainment litigator, convened a meeting between the two men.

During the meeting with Shell, the executive expressed to Cipriani his concern that emails and texts between him and Hadley Gamble, the CNBC anchor Shell had been involved with, would come out, saying “that would absolutely destroy me,” according to the suit.

Cipriani claims in his lawsuit Shell was facing “catastrophic personal exposure arising from his conduct toward yet another woman in the media industry,” similar to what had prompted his ouster from NBCUniversal and that he “solicited” his “crisis communications services.”

According to the suit, Cipriani was in a position to help him, having engaged in a “longstanding practice of exposing misconduct in the entertainment and media industries.”

Robert James “R.J.” Cipriani in Amazon Prime Video’s 2025 series “Cocaine Quarterback.”

(Courtesy of Prime)

A high-rolling blackjack player, Cipriani’s colorful résumé includes aiding the FBI in the arrest and conviction of USC athlete-turned global drug kingpin Owen Hanson, who was sentenced to 21 years in federal prison, and filing a RICO suit against Resorts World Las Vegas.

Leveraging his “unique media relationships and industry influence,” Cipriani said in his complaint that he provided Shell with “ongoing threat-monitoring and intelligence services,” and “took proactive steps to suppress, redirect, or neutralize” negative coverage against Shell before publication.

Cipriani said Shell expressed “effusive gratitude” to him after he planted a story about another entertainment industry figure “in order to divert media attention” away from Shell. “Thank you thank you thank you,” Shell wrote in a text to Cipriani, according to the lawsuit, which included a copy of the text.

During tense negotiations over Paramount’s streaming rights for the highly successful “South Park” franchise last summer, Shell allegedly asked to talk to Cipriani about the matter. Cipriani then “orchestrat[ed] the placement of a highly favorable news article,” that was “devastating to Shell’s and Paramount’s adversaries in the dispute,” the suit states.

After a story published in a Hollywood trade, Cipriani wrote to Shell on WhatsApp, “I’m the one that put the article out for you!!!” and “I didn’t want to tell you till it hit so you have plausible deniability.”

According to a message cited in the lawsuit, Shell responded, “I love you!!!! …Thank you Rj,” adding “I owe you dinner at least!”

Despite those boasts, Paramount ultimately paid “South Park” creators millions more than Skydance had intended. To remove obstacles from Skydance’s path to buy Paramount, the media company agreed to two blockbuster deals that include paying the “South Park” production company more than $1.25 billion to continue the cartoon — making it one of the richest deals in television history.

During the course of their relationship, Cipriani further alleges that Shell alerted him to a then-pending $7.7-billion Paramount deal for the rights to UFC fights, while Netflix “believed” it had a “handshake deal” for the same rights, according to the suit.

Cipriani disclosed in his lawsuit that he filed a whistleblower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the disclosure of material information, claiming that Shell told him that not even UFC President Dana White knew of the transaction. In a WhatsApp message cited in the lawsuit, Shell told Cipriani that the deal was “very hush, hush until we sign.”

While the gambler continued to provide his services to Shell gratis, their relationship began to sour.

Cipriani became enraged that Shell did not uphold his end of the alleged deal to help him with the TV show, viewing it as a slap to him and his mother.

In February, the pair met to resolve their growing dispute. According to the lawsuit, also in attendance was an unidentified entertainment attorney who had represented both men in separate matters.

Patty Glaser has been widely reported as having represented Shell and Cipriani. She introduced them in summer 2024, as The Times reported Saturday.

“We were presented with a draft complaint riddled with clear errors of fact and law,” Glaser said in a statement last week. “We will strongly respond.”

The February meeting did not go well.

Shell not only “refused to compensate” Cipriani, but also told him that he could not “assist” him “in obtaining a television show or other entertainment industry opportunity.”

Cipriani further alleged in his lawsuit that during their “failed summit,” Shell revealed his “disdain” for David Zaslav, the Warner Bros. Discovery CEO, and disclosed that Paramount intended to “sweeten” its pending hostile offer for the studio to fend off Netflix prior to announcing its intention to do so publicly.

After the meeting, Cipriani stated in his complaint that Shell’s attorney privately offered Cipriani a “$150,000 personal loan” to resolve the dispute.