Consumer News: How safe is America’s aging air traffic control system?

Any increase would be tied to mid-year inflation

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) projects a 2.8% Social Security COLA for 2027 unchanged from 2026 based on inflation data from July through September, not the full year.

• Concerns are growing about Social Securitys long-term solvency, with the trust fund projected to run out by 2032, potentially triggering a 24% benefit cut unless reforms are made.

• TSCL opposes proposed benefit caps like the Six-Figure Limit and instead supports eliminating the payroll tax cap, which could extend the programs solvency to at least 2090 without reducing benefits.

The recent uptick in inflation, caused by higher energy prices, has some retirees wondering if it will mean a bigger Social Security cost-of-living increase in 2027. After all, the increase is based on inflation.

However, the increase is not based on the annual inflation rate, but rather the Consumer Price Index for July, August, and September. A lot can happen between then and now.

Even so, The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) has issued its first prediction for the 2027 COLA, predicting it will be 2.8%, the same as for 2026. The average benefits check for retired workers would increase by $56.69, from $2,024.77 to $2,081.46.

Meanwhile, as the year 2032 draws closer, Social Security recipients have something else to worry about besides inflation. The Social Security trust fund is expected to run dry in that year, and if that happens, there is a law on the books that would be bad news for recipients.

'Six-Figure Limit'

If lawmakers cant agree on a way to shore up the system, benefits would be cut by an average of 24%.

To prevent that, some are suggesting capping payments to beneficiaries at $50,000 per person, or $100,000 per couple. Proposed by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and called the Six-Figure Limit, the policy would close about three-fifths of the programs projected shortfall over the next 75 years.

However, seniors are likely to resist this plan. This effectively amounts to a benefits cut for some Americans, and TSCLs research finds that 95% of seniors oppose benefits cuts for current retirees, while 66% oppose cuts for future retirees.

Key insights

TSCL argues that $100,000 doesnt go as far as it used to. One issue with the Six-Figure Limit plan, it says, is that it does not guarantee that its new cap on Social Security benefits would increase over time, as the economy grows or might freeze the cap for up to 30 years before allowing it to grow.

In major urban areas, such as New York, the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, and Boston, average rent already often exceeds $2,000 per month for a one-bedroom apartment.

TSCL has an alternate proposal: eliminating the current cap on Social Security taxes. Right now, high-earners stop making payments into Social Security in a calendar year once their income exceeds $184,500.

Buying time

About 77%of seniors support eliminating the limit, according to TSCL research, with majorities among both Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. According to the Social Security Administrations Office of the Chief Actuary, this would postpone Social Securitys insolvency through at least 2090 without any benefit cuts. Thats even longer than what the Six-Figure Limit proposal would accomplish.

Rather than taking away benefits from people who have paid into the system their entire working lives, we should focus on strengthening Americas pension system, saidTSCL Executive Director Shannon Benton.

Seniors tell us over and over that their benefits dont go as far as they used to, and many younger people worry if the program will have atrophied to a shadow of its former self by the time they reach retirement age, even as taxes on their wages cover todays benefits.

Benton said most senior households already get by on only about 58% as much income as their working-age counterparts.

Its like chatting with a barista

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Starbucks has launched a beta app inside ChatGPT that recommends drinks based on a users mood, preferences,or even photos.

• The feature allows users to customize drinks and complete purchases through Starbucks existing app or website.

• The initiative reflects a broader push into AI-driven agentic commerce, where recommendations and transactions happen in one place.

Starbucks is testing a new way for customers to choose their next beverage by asking artificial intelligence.

The company has launched a beta Starbucks app within ChatGPT that allows users to receive personalized drink recommendations through natural conversation. Instead of browsing a traditional menu, customers can describe what they are in the mood for such as something bright to start my morning or even upload a photo, like an outfit or a sunset, to inspire suggestions.

The AI then translates those prompts into tailored Starbucks drink options, including customizable features such as milk choice, sweetness level, or add-ons like cold foam. Once a selection is made, users can choose a store location and complete their order through Starbucks mobile app or website.

Starting with a feeling

Starbucks executives say the tool is designed to reflect how customers actually think about ordering. Customers arent always starting with a menu theyre starting with a feeling, said Paul Riedel, the companys senior vice president of digital and loyalty.

The beta launch positions Starbucks among the first major restaurant chains to embed generative AI directly into the discovery and ordering process. The approach aligns with a growing trend known as agentic commerce, in which AI tools not only suggest products but also help complete transactions seamlessly.

The ChatGPT integration builds on Starbucks growing investment in artificial intelligence, including earlier initiatives like its in-store Green Dot Assist tool for baristas. Together, these efforts signal the companys strategy to use AI to enhance both customer experience and operational efficiency.

For now, the ChatGPT-powered Starbucks experience remains in beta, with the company using the rollout to gather feedback and refine how conversational AI can shape everyday purchasing decisions.

Live Nation denies any wrongdoing and says it will appeal

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A federal jury found Live Nation and its Ticketmaster unit illegally monopolized the live events ticketing market.

• Jurors concluded the companies overcharged consumers by about $1.72 per ticket over several years.

• The ruling could lead to hundreds of millions in damages and potential structural remedies, including a breakup.

A federal court jury has delivered a major antitrust verdict against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster, concluding the companies maintained an illegal monopoly that led to higher ticket prices for millions of concertgoers.

After a multi-week trial in Manhattan and several days of deliberation, jurors sided with a coalition of more than 30 states that accused the entertainment giant of stifling competition across the live events industry.

The jury found that the companys dominance in ticketing, venue ownership, and concert promotion allowed it to inflate prices, with consumers overpaying by an average of about $1.72 per ticket between 2020 and 2024.

Live Nation issued a statement, saying i would appeal the verdict.

The jurys verdict is not the last word on this matter, the company said. Pending motions will determine whether the liability and damages rulings stand.

Monopoly power and pricing

Plaintiffs argued that Live Nation leveraged its control over major venues and artists to force venues into exclusive agreements with Ticketmaster and to block rival ticketing services.

Evidence presented at trial included internal communications and testimony suggesting the company used its market position to maintain pricing power and limit competition.

Live Nation, which merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, controls a large share of the ticketing market and operates or has stakes in hundreds of venues nationwide.

Financial and legal consequences

The verdict opens the door to significant financial penalties, with states seeking damages that could total hundreds of millions of dollars.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian will determine the final damages and any remedies, which could include structural changes such as divestitures or even breaking up the company.

The case is part of a broader antitrust effort launched in 2024 by the Justice Department and dozens of states, though federal officials previously reached a separate settlement that allowed the company to remain intact.

Americans are increasingly nervous about job security

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• More than one-third of U.S. workers are delaying or canceling major purchases due to job security concerns.

• Lower-income households and renters are disproportionately affected by economic uncertainty.

• Despite widespread anxiety, a majority of workers still report confidence in their job stability.

A recent report from the National Association of Realtors showed a big drop in Marchs existing home sales. A new report from real estate brokerage Redfin may explain why.

It found a growing share of American workers as many as one-third are postponing or abandoning major financial decisions as concerns about job security ripple through the labor force.

The trend shows how economic anxiety even in a relatively stable job market is reshaping consumer behavior.

The pullback is particularly pronounced among lower-income households. More than half of workers earning under $50,000 annually report delaying or canceling major purchases, compared with smaller shares among higher-income groups.

Renters are also feeling the strain, with nearly half putting off big-ticket spending almost double the rate of homeowners.

A cautious mindset

Overall, the findings point to a cautious mindset among consumers. Even though about two-thirds of workers say they are confident in their job security, roughly one-third remain concerned, highlighting a divide between perception and broader economic indicators.

The survey also reveals that economic uncertainty is influencing financial planning beyond delayed purchases. Roughly 36% of workers lack an emergency fund to cover housing costs in the event of a financial shock, suggesting many households are financially vulnerable.

Meanwhile, sentiment appears to be shifting over time. About 37% of workers say they are more concerned about job security than they were six months ago, compared with just 20% who feel more confident. Analysts say factors such as corporate restructuring, evolving economic conditions, and the growing role of artificial intelligence in the workplace are contributing to the unease.

The result is a more hesitant consumer, with many Americans opting to delay major financial commitments in favor of preserving flexibility and savings, an outlook that could have larger implications for housing and retail markets in the months ahead.

Americans are increasingly nervous about job security

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• More than one-third of U.S. workers are delaying or canceling major purchases due to job security concerns

• Lower-income households and renters are disproportionately affected by economic uncertainty

• Despite widespread anxiety, a majority of workers still report confidence in their job stability

A recent report from the National Association of Realtors showed a big drop in Marchs existing home sales. A new report from real estate brokerage Redfin may explain why.

It found a growing share of American workers as many as one-third are postponing or abandoning major financial decisions as concerns about job security ripple through the labor force.

The trend shows how economic anxietyeven in a relatively stable job marketis reshaping consumer behavior.

The pullback is particularly pronounced among lower-income households. More than half of workers earning under $50,000 annually report delaying or canceling major purchases, compared with smaller shares among higher-income groups.

Renters are also feeling the strain, with nearly half putting off big-ticket spendingalmost double the rate of homeowners.

A cautious mindset

Overall, the findings point to a cautious mindset among consumers. Even though about two-thirds of workers say they are confident in their job security, roughly one-third remain concerned, highlighting a divide between perception and broader economic indicators.

The survey also reveals that economic uncertainty is influencing financial planning beyond delayed purchases. Roughly 36% of workers lack an emergency fund to cover housing costs in the event of a financial shock, suggesting many households are financially vulnerable.

Meanwhile, sentiment appears to be shifting over time. About 37% of workers say they are more concerned about job security than they were six months ago, compared with just 20% who feel more confident. Analysts say factors such as corporate restructuring, evolving economic conditions, and the growing role of artificial intelligence in the workplace are contributing to the unease.

The result is a more hesitant consumer, with many Americans opting to delay major financial commitments in favor of preserving flexibility and savings, an outlook that could have larger implications for housing and retail markets in the months ahead.