Connect with us

Economics

Federal job cuts disrupt retirement picture for workers, including Black Americans

Published

on

A person displays a sign as labor union activists rally in support of federal workers during a protest, with the U.S. Capitol in the background on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., Feb. 11, 2025. 

Craig Hudson | Reuters

The sudden cuts to the federal workforce under President Donald Trump will likely throw a curveball into the retirement plans of many Americans, including those from typically disadvantaged backgrounds like Black Americans.

The federal government is often seen as a stable employer with generous benefits, including a defined benefit retirement package that has become rare in corporate America.

But the recent cuts, such as the widespread culling of employees with probationary status, have made some job-seekers rethink their career paths, said Janine Wiggins, owner of Resumes by Neen, an Alabama-based job search coaching business focused on federal workers.

“They’re growing distrust toward federal jobs, just because of the mass layoffs and all of the different executive orders that have been going out. There’s a lot of volatility now. … Before, I would get a lot of clients that want to work for the government because they see it as somewhere where they can stay long-term and retire,” Wiggins said.

Black Heritage Month: Addressing the shortage of Black financial planners

The full impact of the jobs cuts is to be determined. However, there’s a chance that they could impact certain minority groups at a relatively high rate, given the demographics of the federal workforce.

According to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Black American workers made up just under 20% of the federal workforce in 2021. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the Black American share of the civilian workforce at roughly 13%. Other groups with relatively higher representation in the federal workforce include Native Americans and people with disabilities.

One of those current employees is Katrina Ayers, a 36-year old African American mother of three in Mobile, Alabama, who works as a technician for the National Guard.

“What attracted me to was of course job security and the health insurance. That was the biggest thing. It was something that was stable,” Ayers said. She has been a federal employee for nine years.

Ayers said that she has private retirement savings, including a Roth IRA, in addition to her federal benefits. Still, she says she knows some federal workers rely solely on the government plans.

Federal retirement benefits

The retirement package for most federal workers consists of three main programs: Social Security, a 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan, and an annuity program called the Basic Benefit Plan. The minimum retirement age for the annuity plan is 57 years old for workers born in 1970 or later. There are options of deferred or early retirements for workers who meet certain thresholds.

That basic annuity is calculated using years of service and the highest average pay during three consecutive years of service, so even employees who are eligible for the program could end up with a lower-than-expected benefit if they are pushed out. Employees who are separated from their federal jobs before they are eligible for retirement can receive a lump sum of their retirement contributions.

The 401(k)-style Thrift Savings Plan is better than the average 401(k) plan found in the private sector, said J. Mark Iwry, who is currently a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the Wharton School. He previously served as senior advisor to the secretary of the Treasury from 2009 to 2017.

The growth of black investors

The defined benefit pension plan for many federal workers provides a somewhat lower level of benefits than some of the comparable private sector plans that are still in operation, Iwry said. However, the federal plan does have the rare perk of being largely adjusted for inflation.

Of course, the impact on retirement savings can also depend on how long it takes for workers to find a new job, and if they need to liquidate some of their assets in the meantime.

“You may end up having a need to tap your retirement savings that you wouldn’t if you didn’t have to change jobs,” said Craig Copeland, director of wealth benefits research with the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Some workers in lower-income communities or with lower family wealth may also have more people to support, putting additional strain on their finances. This could be a reason that, at higher levels of income, there’s some evidence that Black workers save less than their white counterparts, Copeland said.

“The wealthier individuals that are Black or Hispanic felt that they had more of a responsibility to care for other loved ones than save for their retirement. So that limited somewhat of how much they saved,” Copeland said.

In general, the wealth gap between Black and white savers has been widening due to an array of factors, including Black households having less exposure to the stock market, existing barriers to Black homeownership and the undervaluation of homes in communities of color. This disparity in wealth also continues to grow as people age.

What’s next

The exact extent of the job cuts among federal workers is unclear. Several legal challenges have already been filed against Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, which has been pushing for some of the job cuts. Tech executive Musk took a similar cost-cutting approach when he bought the company formerly known as Twitter.

The government has also done some backtracking, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration re-hiring some of medical device division staff, suggesting that some of the eliminated roles may need to be filled again in the near future.

“People make the country run. So you need people in place, and to lay off all these federal workers, I’m just not understanding the rhyme and reason why, because I just feel like it’s going to be a domino effect,” Ayers said.

For her part, Ayers said that she has a backup plan if she needs to transition full-time into the private sector but isn’t ready to give up on her career with the federal government just yet.

“I’m going to still apply for jobs because I still believe in career progression, and I would like to stay on in the federal sector since I’ve invested so many years,” Ayers said.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending