If I had to name my Mount Rushmore of brands seen as quintessentially American around the globe, it would probably be Levi’s, Harley-Davidson, McDonald’s, and Budweiser. 

A recent Washington Post investigation described something called “degree hacking” — students racing through accredited online bachelor’s and master’s programs in weeks rather than years. One woman earned both degrees in 2024 for a combined cost of just over $4,000. Another completed 16 college courses in 22 days. A cottage industry of YouTube coaches and $1,500 consulting packages has sprung up to help people game the system.

Electric bills are rising in Ann Arbor, Michigan, just like in other cities. But a new city program is starting to install city-owned solar panels and batteries at homes, a move that could save some residents hundreds a year. The first projects are underway now.

The soccer coach had blocked himself from sportsbooks by the time he found prediction markets.

The tax accountant said he “got the same high” on those platforms that he got from gambling. “That was how I relapsed — with Kalshi and Polymarket. I lost a bunch of money.”

The rapid growth of prediction markets has sparked a high-stakes debate that is playing out in courts and legislatures all over the country. Operators of those companies believe they should be regulated like the stock exchange because of federal law and their customer-to-customer structure, while sportsbooks and state officials think they should be supervised the same way as sports gambling platforms.

While that argument continues with no sign of resolution, the clinicians who treat gambling disorders are more concerned about what they are seeing with their patients. In their spaces, when it comes to sports gambling and prediction markets, the end result is virtually the same.

Two gambling addicts who spoke to The Associated Press — the soccer coach and tax accountant — say they had relapses on prediction markets after they took legal action to protect themselves from the allure of sports betting. They are being identified by their occupations because of the sensitivity of their situations.

Their stories reflect what experts say they see with some of their clients.
“There may be real differences in how these products are defined or regulated, but in the therapy room, we are often seeing the same cycle of anticipation, action and reaction play out again and again,” said Dr. Cynthia Grant, the vice president of clinical for Birches Health, which operates a national network of providers for treating gambling addiction.

“I sometimes think of it like different doors into the same room. The label on the door may change, but once someone’s inside, the experience can feel very familiar.”

In this political climate, corporate sustainability initiatives are not always a popular topic of conversation. But even though they are less visible, with companies greenhushing, sustainability commitments and actions are continuing—and in some cases growing. We asked our Fast Company Impact Council members how their approaches to sustainability have changed in the last year. Six leaders shared positive changes and thoughtful tactics their companies were taking. Some efforts are internal, some are external. But all are intentional.

It’s not just you. Workplace stress is at a breaking point and starting to manifest in some alarming ways. Overstressed workers are now crying, having panic attacks, and even using substances to cope with work stress while on the job in strikingly high numbers.

In the basement of an Emack & Bolio’s ice cream shop in Midtown Manhattan, six batteries—each about the size of a toaster oven stood on its side—are plugged into the wall, connected right to the breaker box. 

A new analysis suggests Americans are being overcharged by $150 billion annually to insure their homes, autos and businesses — and it proposes federal guardrails so that a public beset by affordability pressures could see savings.

The analysis by the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator obtained exclusively by The Associated Press details how insurers are paying out less on claims after an accident, natural disaster or other misfortune than they did decades ago. For every $1 collected in premiums, insurers reimbursed 62 cents for claims in 2024, down from an average loss ratio of 80 cents in the 1980s and 1990s.

The analysis wades into a thorny set of economic and political questions as insurance companies are managing the potential risks of climate change when the cost of groceries, gasoline and housing are a frustration for many voters. Insurance companies say they have hiked premiums because of rising prices for homes and autos and the expenses of fixing them.

“The fact that the loss ratios are so low means that the insurance industry is charging too much,” said Brian Shearer, director of competition and regulatory policy at the Vanderbilt University think tank and a former senior adviser at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The insurance industry said its current loss ratio reflects the costs for insurers in recent years and the steps deemed necessary for ensuring that insurance funding is stable and solvent.

“Current loss ratios reflect the impact of enormous financial losses over the last several years and the steps insurers have taken (to) maintain and restore financial strength so funds are available to pay future claims,” Don Griffin, vice president for policy and research at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said in an emailed statement. “Loss ratios in the 1990s were driven to nearly unsustainable levels by Hurricane Andrew in particular.”

While President Donald Trump won a second term on the promise to contain inflation, he has also gutted institutions such as the CFPB that sought to find potential savings. Housing costs have been particularly acute. Average mortgage rates remain above 6%, and an executive order by Trump to increase construction of new homes would still take years to bend the curve on housing prices.

When Trump, a Republican, signed the order on housing regulations in March, he emphasized that he was eliminating the heightened standards to protect homes against damage from natural disasters and improving energy efficiency because he said they were increasing construction costs.

“We will slash many of these pointless regulations that do nothing for safety and add lots of costs,” he said at the signing.

Research by the economists Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder found that average premiums for home insurance climbed an inflation-adjusted 28% between 2017 and 2024 to an annual cost of $2,750. Their research found reasons for the increases: Roughly a third came from higher construction costs, and another 20% came from greater disaster risks. But it also noted the higher costs for financial instruments such as reinsurance, which insurers purchase to protect them from catastrophic financial losses.

The Vanderbilt analysis by contrast looks at the gap between what insurers charge and what they pay out to customers. By returning to the loss ratio of 80 cents paid out for each $1 collected, it estimates that households and businesses could have saved roughly $150 billion from the $1 trillion-plus paid in premiums in 2024.

The analysis includes proposed legislative language for the federal government to set a higher loss ratio for insurers. Currently, state governments primarily regulate insurance, but a federal mandate would be harder for companies to challenge.

The analysis further argues that insurers are using the premiums “to pay for corporate perks, corporate jets, stock-buy backs, excessive executive compensation, excessive dividends, excessive advertising, and excessive agent commissions.”

“Companies are competing against each other, not based on price but just based on brand awareness,” said Shearer, the author of the analysis, arguing that too much money is spent on marketing.

If you’re self-employed and spend any time on social media, you’ve seen the debate. One person swears you need a professional website from day one. Another says a logo is the first thing to invest in. Someone else is selling a $500 course that promises to “elevate your brand’s presence.” 

The next time you open Netflix’s app, it may look a lot more like YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok. That’s no accident: On April 29, the streaming service begins rolling out its biggest mobile redesign in years, with a major focus on vertical video.

Jerome Powell said Wednesday he plans to remain on the board of the Federal Reserve after his term as chair ends next month “for a period of time, to be determined,” saying the “unprecedented” legal attacks by the Trump administration have put the independence of the nation’s central bank at risk.

“I worry these attacks are battering this institution and putting at risk the things that really matter to the public,” Powell said in remarks at a press conference after the Fed announced its decision to keep its benchmark interest rate unchanged.

Powell’s decision to stay — the first time a Fed chair will remain on the board as a governor since 1948 — denies President Donald Trump a chance to fill a seat on the central bank’s seven-member governing board with his own appointee. The Senate Banking Committee earlier approved Powell’s successor as chair, Trump appointee Kevin Warsh, on a party-line vote. Powell will continue as a Fed governor, possibly until January 2028. Warsh, if confirmed, will take a seat currently held by Stephen Miran, a previous Trump appointee, whose term ended in January.

Powell’s move could make it a bit harder for Warsh to engineer the rate cuts that Trump has demanded, and Warsh advocated for last year, economists say.

“It probably means it will take Warsh a little bit longer to build the consensus he is trying to build,” said David Seif, chief economist for developed markets at Nomura, an investment bank.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said on X Friday that her office was ending its probe into the Fed’s extensive building renovations because the Fed’s inspector general would scrutinize them instead. But she added that her office could reopen the investigation if “the facts warrant doing so.” And Pirro had said previously that she would appeal a court ruling that threw out subpoenas her office had issued.

Powell said Wednesday he had been assured by the Justice Department that the appeal wouldn’t result in a reopening of the probe unless a separate investigation by the Fed’s inspector general finds evidence of criminal activity.

Apparently, that didn’t bring Powell the closure he felt is needed.

“I’m waiting for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency,” he said. “I’m waiting for that and I will leave when I think it appropriate to do so.”

The Fed Wednesday left its benchmark interest rate unchanged for the third straight meeting but signaled it could still cut rates in the coming months, moves that attracted the most dissents since October 1992. Three officials dissented in favor of removing the reference to a future cut, while a fourth, Miran, dissented in favor of an immediate rate cut.

The dissents underscore the level of division on the Fed’s 12-member rate-setting committee ahead of the end of Powell’s term as chair on May 15.

“Developments in the Middle East are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook,” the Fed said in a statement after its two-day meeting. “Inflation is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices.”

Trump responded to Powell’s decision late Wednesday on his social media website: “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell wants to stay at the Fed because he can’t get a job anywhere else — Nobody wants him,” Trump posted, using his nickname for the Fed chair.

Warsh has promised “regime change” at the central bank and may make sweeping changes to its economic models, communications strategies, and balance sheet. He has argued in favor of rate cuts, as Trump has demanded, but he will likely find it harder to implement them with inflation topping 3%, above the Fed’s target of 2%.

When asked if he believed Warsh would stand up to political pressure from Trump, Powell answered, “He testified very strongly at his hearing, and I take him at his word.”

The three officials who dissented against hinting that the Fed may reduce borrowing costs were Beth Hammack, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Fed; and Lorie Logan, president of the Dallas Fed. The regional Fed bank presidents have historically been more likely to dissent, while the Washington-based governors more often support the chair.

The dissents could renew tension between the Trump administration and the bank presidents, who White House officials have previously criticized.

Beth Ann Bovino, chief economist at US Bank, said the dissents demonstrated that Fed policymakers are “very independent” and will likely be on hold for months longer. She has forecast a rate cut in December but now isn’t sure. Wall Street investors on average don’t expect a reduction until well into next year, according to futures pricing.

Powell’s decision to stay on could worsen tensions with the Trump administration and would create what some analysts refer to as a “two Popes” scenario, with a chair and former chair both on the Fed’s board. In that case, divisions among policymakers could increase, if some decided to follow Powell’s lead rather than Warsh’s.

Powell dismissed the notion that his staying on could cause dissension, saying, “My intention is not to interfere,” later adding that, “I’m not looking to be a high profile dissident or anything like that.”

Still, Powell said he remained concerned about the Fed’s independence from the White House, which he said is essential to its ability to set rates to benefit the public, rather than in response to political pressure. When the Fed raises or cuts its short-term rate, over time it affects the cost of mortgages, auto loans, and business borrowing.

Fed independence remains “at risk,” he said. “We’re having to resort to the courts to enforce our … ability to make monetary policy without political considerations. We’ve had to do that and we’ve been successful so far, but that’s not over, none of that has concluded yet.”

The unusual situation comes while the economic picture remains unusually murky, putting the Fed in a difficult spot. Inflation has jumped to 3.3%, a two-year high, as the war has sharply raised gas prices. That makes it harder for the central bank to reduce rates. The Fed typically leaves rates unchanged, or even raises them, if inflation is worsening.

At the same time, hiring has ground almost to a halt, leaving those without jobs frustrated by the difficulty of finding new ones. Typically, the Fed cuts rates when the job market is weak, to spur more spending and job gains.

But layoffs also remain low, as employers appear to be following a ” low-hire, low-fire ” strategy. Many Fed officials have suggested that as long as the unemployment rate is low, the central bank doesn’t need to cut rates to spur more spending and hiring. Unemployment declined to 4.3% in March, from 4.4%.

Yesterday, two of the biggest tech giants in the AI boom reported their latest earnings.

Plenty of brands use AI to talk to consumers. In other words, they’re tapping AI to generate customer service responses, automate interactions, and speed up outreach. But what they’re not doing is investing in the listening side of AI or leveraging into its vast capabilities here—i.e., using AI to better understand customer friction, synthesize feedback, spot patterns, or act on what people are saying.

If you haven’t been living under a rock, you’ve probably seen the marketing for The Devil Wears Prada 2, whether it’s a glamorous outfit from Anne Hathaway or Meryl Streep all over social media or a Diet Coke can plastered with the signature double-spiked red heel. 

When a former Nike employee joined the company a few years ago, she felt like she was in exactly the right place to work on diversity, equity, and inclusion. She believed in the sportswear giant’s DEI leadership and was moved by how John Donahoe, then the CEO, had spoken about corporate responsibility in public appearances.

One of the hardest parts of being a homeowner is knowing whom to call when something goes wrong with your house—a process that starts with figuring out what’s actually wrong in the first place. 

In the music video for “Runway,” Lady Gaga’s collaboration with Doechii for The Devil Wears Prada 2 soundtrack, the wardrobes are high fashion and the musicians and their dancers serve, pose, and vogue. Colorful and camp, it’s everything you’d expect considering the subject matter of the song is about turning dance floors into runways.

Executive leaders today face mounting pressure to boost productivity and innovation with AI. Employees—on the other hand—report low trust in organizational change and limited information about how AI will impact their work (or whether it’s going to replace the jobs that the company hired them to do).

When the New York Red Bulls professional soccer team heads to practice at its new state-of-the-art training facility in Morris Township, New Jersey, the players will be doing so alongside a bunch of 9-year-olds.

We are living through the most rapid and sweeping digitalization in history. The average adult touches their phone hundreds if not thousands of times a day. And yet, at this moment of peak digital saturation, a countermovement is taking shape in schools, governments, and research institutions. More and more people have reached the conclusion that for human beings to think well, learn deeply, and stay mentally healthy, we may need significantly less technology.