Business
Why stubborn inflation is especially painful for California consumers
A small uptick in the nationwide inflation rate last month was an unwelcome glitch for many consumers and for Washington policymakers, but it may be a more serious development for most of California.
The December increase, at 3.4% over the price level a year earlier, could make it harder for the Federal Reserve to begin cutting interest rates in spring, as many analysts have predicted. It was also bad political news for President Biden, who has presided over a sharp drop in inflation but has yet to get credit for it among voters.
But even the small uptick in inflation will have more notable consequences in California because price levels for goods and services, including energy and housing, are already so much higher than almost anywhere else in the country.
Apart from Hawaii, many studies rank California as first or second among the states with the highest cost of living, between 35% and 45% above the national average.
What that means as a practical matter is that a household in Los Angeles with $100,000 income could maintain the same standard of living while earning $69,000 in Dallas and $65,000 in Las Vegas, according to Bankrate.com.
The high cost of living is a prime factor in the ongoing exodus of many Californians, and also may help explain the relatively lackluster mood of people in the state. Consumer confidence in the U.S. has picked up, but California remains below the national average and significantly trails other big states including Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, according to the Conference Board.
Excluding the 2020 pandemic year, Californians’ consumer sentiment hadn’t been so down for a December since 2014. The Conference Board surveys both people’s current condition and their expectations, and California consumers have a very low appraisal of what the next six months will bring, just as the country as a whole.
“They feel quite beaten up. Part of it is inflation,” said David Tinsley, a senior economist at the Bank of America Institute.
Thursday’s inflation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the consumer price index in December increased 0.3% from November, higher than analysts had expected. The increase damped some investors’ hopes for an imminent interest rate cut, which would ease borrowing costs for businesses and households, potentially strengthening the overall economic outlook.
BLS data showed consumer prices in the Los Angeles area in December rose 3.5% from a year earlier, a bit higher than the national average for all urban consumers. The year-over-year inflation rate for the Bay Area in December was 2.6%.
Inflation in the U.S. had been coming down fairly quickly since peaking at 9.1% in June 2022 as key pandemic-induced effects that contributed to the price surge abated. Those included supply chain disruptions and a jump in stay-at-home-spending that outran inventory.
Inflation for staple goods such as groceries and clothing is now running below the Fed’s preferred overall inflation target of 2% — and some things including appliances and electronics are seeing outright declines in prices. Eggs, for example, cost 23% less than a year ago, but prices are still higher than in 2019 and could rise again.
A new bout of avian flu has hurt California poultry farms and is “just adding to the uncertainty about supply and therefore prices,” said Ricky Volpe, an agribusiness professor at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
In recent months airline fares and prices for hotel rooms and rental cars also have come down, signs that consumers may be pulling back after a flurry of catch-up travel and other spending as the economy reopened from COVID. Flagging demand may also have prompted some big companies to back off price hikes that originated with attempts to recoup profits lost during the pandemic.
Still, economists said services inflation may remain stubborn. The cost of shelter was up 6.2% in December from a year ago. Hospital services increased 5.5%. And transportation services rose 7.1%, thanks to soaring auto insurance premiums, which analysts say is due partly to more vehicles on the road and increased car thefts.
California consumers may be feeling relatively less relief because prices for housing, energy and services such as entertainment, dining out and personal care tend to be so much higher than in most other places.
Gasoline prices, for example, have fallen by about $2 a gallon on average across the country as well as in California since their peak in June 2022, according to the American Automobile Assn., but the disparity remains painfully obvious for consumers.
As of Thursday, regular gas cost $3.08 a gallon nationally but $4.62 in California.
High as gas prices are, the single biggest factor in the widening gap in cost of living between California and most other states is housing. Whereas consumers’ costs for food and health services in California are just slightly more than in most other states, housing costs were about double the national average, based on data from the Council for Community & Economic Research.
According to Zillow, the median rent for housing of all kinds in California was $2,750, about 38%, or $1,700, more than for the nation. The median sale price for an existing single-family house in the U.S. in November was $392,100, according to the National Assn. of Realtors. For California: $822,000.
Average rents and home purchase prices across the country have been trending slightly down in recent months, but the difference in what one can buy or rent in California versus elsewhere has been hard for many people to ignore.
Those feelings can also drive movement. Studies by the Census Bureau show that by far the No. 1 reason people move is related to housing, with many wanting a better or cheaper place, or their own home.
“They’re not buying those consumer goods where there is deflation. They’re seeing the increase in the cost of rents and that’s what they’re feeling,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US, the accounting firm.
Most economists expect inflation to head downward this year closer to 2.5%, albeit with bumps along the way. Whether people will feel commensurately better about the economy is another matter.
“Consumers tend to anchor their view on the economy around a select number of prices,” Brusuelas said, noting that in Southern California that’s gasoline and housing. “In an area where real estate development is badly constrained, you’re going to have a very different perception of the economy and relative standards of living.”
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana4 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making