Fast Company

Ý tưởng kinh doanh mới từ Fast Company

• Robinhood knows you want to trade on everything 

  Robinhood is betting that its customers want to trade on absolutely everything. 

  On Tuesday, the popular stock-trading app unveiled a slate of updates to its prediction markets business, aggressively expanding into sports. Now, Robinhood users can trade contracts tied to specific professional football players’ performances, as well as prepackaged combos for individual games. 

  Early next year, customers will be able to combine up to 10 outcomes—such as winners, spreads, and totals—into a single, custom-built contract. Robinhood’s news site, Sherwood, is also launching a new sports newsletter, Scoreboard. Eventually, Robinhood plans to launch contracts that span not just multiple games, but multiple categories—from sports to climate to politics.

  “If customers say they’re looking to trade a specific category or specific event, we’re all ears,” Adam Hickerson, Robinhood’s senior director of futures and prediction markets, tells Fast Company.

  Robinhood’s entrance into prediction markets can be seen as a natural culmination of the trajectory it set into motion years ago. For the uninitiated, prediction markets allow people to trade on real-world events by buying and selling contracts. These events can range from sports matches to political elections to who Time magazine will name as its Person of the Year. 

  Since Robinhood launched prediction markets in late 2024, they’ve become the company’s fastest-growing line of business. In the third quarter this year, it reported that users traded 2.3 billion prediction-markets contracts. Then, in October alone, that figure reached 2.5 billion. 

  The most popular contracts have been in sports. Robinhood maintains that users are not gambling, as trading on the market sets the odds, not the platform itself. Still, the sports contracts tap into an enthusiasm for sports speculation. According to the Pew Research Center, 22% of adults in the U.S. have bet money on sports in the past year. Among men younger than 30, that figure rises to 36%. Robinhood isn’t the only app getting in the game: Fanatics, a global sports platform, just launched a prediction-market app, becoming the first sportsbook to do so.
  
  Some regulators believe decision markets cross the line into gambling. Numerous states have sent Robinhood cease-and-desist letters, demanding prediction markets stop offering sports contracts. In response, Robinhood sued New Jersey and Nevada earlier this year, maintaining that its markets are completely legal. 

  There is no sign of regulatory turmoil dampening Robinhood’s ambition. In November, the company announced plans to start its own prediction market, launching an exchange with Susquehanna International Group. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Hickerson says. 

  From meme stocks to prediction markets   

  In 2013, Vlad Tenev and Baiju Bhatt founded Robinhood as an easy, commission-free way for users to trade on their phones. Business boomed during the COVID-19 pandemic as bored Americans, flush with stimulus checks, flocked to the app. The online brokerage became known for its popularity among young adrenaline junkies who treated investing less like retirement planning and more like a mobile game. 

  Robinhood’s supporters applauded the company for democratizing finance. Critics, meanwhile, slammed it for encouraging users to trade stocks like gamblers betting on sports. In 2021, legendary investor Charlie Munger told CNBC that Robinhood was “a gambling parlor masquerading as a respectable business,” calling it a “sleazy, disreputable operation.” 

  The anti-Robinhood backlash boiled over during the GameStop saga, when users fueled a trading frenzy that drove meme stocks to absurd highs. In the aftermath, Robinhood dialed back on its so-called gamified elements, removing a confetti animationthat accompanied certain achievements. In a February 2021 hearing before Congress, Tenev testified that the “vast majority” of Robinhood’s customers were long-term investors, not day traders buying meme stocks. 

  Eventually, however, Robinhood acknowledged the importance of its active day traders—users less interested in traditional stocks and far more interested in riskier products like cryptocurrencies. “These are our most engaged customers that generate the lion’s share of our revenue,” Tenev told The Wall Street Journalin November. “We put our best people on active traders.”

  Robinhood keeps these valuable customers happy by letting them invest in whatever their hearts desire. Increasingly, that means prediction markets. 

  Betting on predictions

  Prediction markets have been around for more than a century. They have primarily existed as a niche curiosity, not a major focus for investors, amateur or professional. Then came last year’s election. 

  More than $3.3 billion was traded in 2024 presidential election contracts, mostly on prediction market Polymarket. Robinhood launched its own contracts a month before the election, its first foray into the prediction markets. By the time Trump won—as forecast by the markets—the concept of prediction markets had cemented itself in the American mainstream. 
  
  At the time, it was not legal for Americans to use Polymarket. As a result, it operated offshore, although Americans likely still used it via VPNs and thanks to Polymarket’s reliance on cryptocurrency. Reports alleged that much of the election-trading volume came from “wash trading,” which inflates market activity and is a form of market manipulation.   
  
  In January, Kalshi launched “100% legal” sports trading in all 50 states, regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The next month, Robinhood announced a partnership with Kalshi for Super Bowl contracts. But mere hours after the announcement, Robinhood canceled the contracts at the request of the CFTC. The agency had “serious concerns” that the contracts “may not be permissible under the law,” a CFTC representative said at the time. 

  Robinhood was undeterred. In March, just ahead of the NCAA basketball tournament, the company launched its prediction markets hub, still in partnership with Kalshi. A CFTC official told Sportico that the agency had “no legal justification to prevent Robinhood from offering access to these contracts.”
  
  Robinhood is competing not only with Polymarket and Kalshi but also with Coinbase, which is reportedly planning to introduce prediction markets, thanks to its own partnership with Kalshi.

  Defining “gambling”

  Laws on gambling—and how regulators interpret those laws—are set to be one of Robinhood’s biggest obstacles when it comes to decision markets. 

  Kalshi and Robinhood maintain that their users are trading, not gambling. Kalshi and Robinhood do not make money based on outcomes, but instead earn revenue via transaction fees. They emphasize that, unlike sportsbooks, prediction markets do not take bets or set odds. 

  For example, if the New England Patriots are playing the Tennessee Titans, a user who thinks the Titans will win could buy shares on the “yes” position. Shares will be less expensive if Tennessee is the underdog, but the price is set by the markets’ perceived probability. If the Titans win, each winning share pays out $1, while those who picked the Patriots are left empty-handed. 

  If regulators agree with decision markets’ line of reasoning, companies like Robinhood and Kalshi should be able to offer sports contracts online in all 50 states, including states where sports betting is illegal or restricted. Gambling is banned for people under 21, but 18-year-olds are typically allowed to trade event contracts. Many sports-betting regulations—such as safeguards to prevent game fixing—do not currently apply to prediction markets. 

  Not every regulator is convinced by decision markets’ arguments. In addition to New Jersey and Nevada, Connecticut, Ohio, Maryland, Illinois, and Arizona have sent Robinhood and other decision markets cease-and-desist letters. 

  Nonetheless, the decision markets have amassed some powerful allies. 

  In January, Donald Trump Jr. joined Kalshi as a strategic adviser. Donald Trump Jr. serves as an advisor for both Kalshi and Polymarket. (In fact, Polymarket’s return to the U.S. and its legalization came shortly after the president’s son became an investor.) 
  
  In September, President Trump nominated Kalshi board member Brian Quintenz to chair the CFTC. A month later, Trump Media announced a prediction market partnership involving Crypto.com and Truth Social. 

  Everything, everywhere, all at once

  Folding sports contracts, stock trades, online banking, and crypto into a single app will inevitably upset traditionalists. Old-school investors might also be skeptical of Robinhood’s other announcements on Tuesday, focused on artificial intelligence: upgrades to its AI-powered investing assistant and the launch of personalized daily Digests that analyze users’ portfolios. 

  For Robinhood, the grab bag of choices is the point. “Everything comes down to: What does the customer want?” Hickerson says. Robinhood takes feedback seriously, he said, and executives have heard “loud and clear that these are some features that they really want to trade on.” 

  Scrolling through the contracts on any prediction market reveals just how many topics inspire speculation. As of Monday, more than $17,000 in contracts had been traded on Kalshi related to the topic: “What will Vlad Tenev say during the Robinhood keynote?” (Trading activity indicates a 72% chance that Tenev says “sport.”)

  “Ultimately,” says Oren Naim, Robinhood’s vice president of platforms, “our long-term vision for the company is to become your one-stop shop for anything—any financial need—across the board.”

• More than 60,000 pounds of cooked chicken recalled over allergen risk

  Suzanna’s Kitchen, a Georgia-based food production company, has issued a recall of 62,550 pounds of fully cooked, bone-in breaded chicken products. 

  The chicken, which was distributed nationwide, was recalled over mislabeling. While the product was labeled with a product code that classifies it as non-allergen-containing, the product contains soy. 

  According to the recall notice, which was issued on December 12, the affected product is the eight-piece cut, bone-in breaded chicken portions that were produced on October 16, 2025. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mark of inspection and establishment number printed on the side of the package is “P-1380.”

  According to the USDA, soy is one of the “big nine” allergens and could result in serious allergic reactions. “Symptoms of food allergies typically appear within minutes or up to two hours after a person has eaten or has come into contact with the food to which they are allergic,” the department’s website explains. It also notes that common signs of an allergic reaction include hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of the tongue, lips, face, throat, and vocal chords; a drop in blood pressure, and more.

  It’s unlikely that the products will be found in home refrigerators, as it was distributed to restaurants across the country. However, restaurant-goers with soy allergies should be aware of the heightened concern. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) says restaurants should carefully check their stock. “FSIS is concerned that some products may be in restaurant refrigerators or freezers. Restaurants are urged not to serve this product; these items should be thrown away,” the recall notice states. 

  The notice also said there have been no confirmed illnesses due to the affected products, but that consumers concerned about a potential illness should contact their healthcare provider immediately. 

  Otherwise, questions about the recall can be directed to Dawn Duncan, Customer Service Director, Suzanna’s Kitchen, at dduncan@suzannaskitchen.com, the notice states. The USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline is also available for questions at 888-674-6854.

• The data’s in: And it says the job market is still rough

  The latest employment numbers have dropped—and the job market still looks tough for workers. 

  Today’s jobs report shares data from November, which was delayed due to the government shutdown that lifted last month. As jobs growth has slowed in recent months, the unemployment rate has climbed to 4.6%, up from 4.4% in September and the highest it has been in four years. Employers added only 64,000 jobs in November, and the market also shed 105,000 jobs the month prior. Wage growth has stagnated to a degree that hasn’t been seen since 2021.

  The jobs report seems to confirm what many workers are likely encountering as they try to navigate the current job market: Employers are simply not hiring at the same rate, due to economic uncertainty and the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration. The current climate has been described by experts as “low hire, low fire”—which means the workers who do lose their jobs are struggling to find new employment. The share of Americans who have been out of work for more than six months has jumped to 1.9 million, compared with 1.7 million a year ago. That’s not great news for people affected by the layoffs sweeping through companies like UPS and Amazon, which had raised alarm bells about the broader labor market. 

  On the whole, however, the jobs report indicates employers are not cutting jobs at a concerning rate: Initial claims for unemployment insurance are still relatively low, which is usually a measure of whether layoffs are roiling the economy. (The job losses from October also reflect the exit of over 150,000 federal workers who had accepted deferred resignation offers and are no longer on the payroll.) The rising unemployment rate seems to be fueled by the hiring slowdown—which has left workers who are laid off with fewer job opportunities. 

  At the same time, however, economists say that a decline in immigration has kept the unemployment rate lower than it should be, since there are fewer people entering the labor force. That might explain why the unemployment rate isn’t higher, given the hiring outlook, although Black workers are also seeing a significant spike in unemployment—a sign that the labor market might be weakening. 

  It’s a confusing picture for people who are seeking new jobs or entering the workforce. The jobs report tells us that the labor market has, in fact, cooled, but perhaps not to the extent that you might expect amid recurring reports of layoffs. There are a number of other factors that workers are up against: Artificial intelligence is fueling fluctuations in the workforce, with some employers citing the technology as they issue layoffs, But this might not be the true reason for shedding workers. 

  Still, there doesn’t seem to be clear recession indicators—at least for now. There might even be a glimmer of hope for workers in the job growth figures from November. While the gains were modest, it looks like private employers may be slowly starting to hire more, particularly in the healthcare sector.

• FIFA lowers some World Cup ticket prices to $60 after fan backlash

  FIFA slashed the price of some World Cup tickets for teams’ most loyal fans following a global backlash and some will get $60 seats for the final instead of being asked to pay $4,185.

  FIFA said Tuesday that $60 tickets will be made available for every game at the tournament in North America, going to the national federations whose teams are playing. Those federations decide how to distribute them to loyal fans who have attended previous games at home and on the road.

  The number of $60 tickets for each game is likely to be in the hundreds, rather than thousands, in what FIFA is now calling a “Supporter Entry Tier” price category.

  FIFA did not specify exactly why it so dramatically changed strategy, but said the lower prices are “designed to further support travelling fans following their national teams across the tournament.”

  The World Cup in North America will be the first edition that features 48 teams—up from 32—and is expected to earn FIFA at least $10 billion in revenue. But fans worldwide reacted with shock and anger last week on seeing FIFA’s ticketing plans that gave participating teams no tickets in the lowest-priced category.

  The cheapest prices ranged from $120 to $265 for group-stage games that did not involve co-hosts the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

  FIFA had set those prices despite the co-hosts having pledged eight years ago—when they were bidding for the tournament—that hundreds of thousands of $21 tickets would be made available.

  Criticism from fans, especially in Europe, had been increasing for several months over plans for “dynamic pricing” plus extra fees on a FIFA-run resale platform—both features which are common in the U.S. entertainment industry but not to soccer fans worldwide.

  Fan anger intensified last week when it became clear loyal supporters would have no access to the cheapest category tickets and that fans who wanted to reserve a ticket for all of their team’s potential games—through the final—would not get refunded until after the tournament.

  In another climbdown Tuesday, FIFA said it would waive its administrative fees when refunds are made after the July 19 final.

• Kraft Heinz gets a new CEO ahead of company split: Can Steve Cahillane turn around the ailing food giant?

  Kraft Heinz announced on Tuesday that new CEO Steve Cahillane will join the food giant to help steer its split into two companies. The former head of Kellanova joins the ailing food giant after years of declining sales and slow growth, and as shares are down 75% since 2017.

  In 2026, the company will split into two independent, publicly traded companies—Global Taste Elevation Co. and North American Grocery Co.—with the first one focused on condiments and the Heinz ketchup brand, and the second on Oscar Mayer, Kraft Singles, and Lunchables brands.

  Cahillane comes on board January 1 and will serve as chief executive officer of Global Taste Elevation Co., which will continue to house the Philadelphia and Kraft Mac & Cheese brands, along with Heinz.

  “I’m confident the planned separation will accelerate the Company’s ability to compete and win in today’s environment,” Cahillane said in a statement.

  Cahillane brings a wealth of industry experience to Kraft Heinz, having most recently served as chief executive of Kellanova, where he oversaw the recent acquisition by Mars and the expansion of household brands including Pringles, Cheez-It, Pop-Tarts, and Kellogg’s.

  More notably, he led the Kellogg Co. through the successful separation of its North American cereal business and the launch of Kellanova, a global snacking powerhouse. That experience should come in handy in the coming months.

  “Steve is uniquely qualified to lead this organization into the future, and we are delighted he will be taking on the role of CEO,” Kraft Heinz’s chair Miguel Patricio said in a statement.

  Kraft Heinz financials

  In its third-quarter earnings, the food giant reported adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of $0.61, beating analyst estimates. However, revenue fell short of expectations, with the company reporting a year-over-year net sales decline of 2.3%.

• Ford is canceling the F-150 Lightning in a major EV pullback, but don’t count U.S. electric vehicles out yet

  The country’s automotive future doesn’t look as electric as carmakers had once hoped. But it doesn’t mean the EV industry is entirely dead.

  On Monday, Ford Motor Co. announced that it’s taking major steps to pull back on its EV-focused business road map. The automaker is scrapping plans to produce a new electric truck, repurposing an EV battery plant to produce storage for the grid, and converting its fully electric F-150 Lightning into a hybrid.

  It’s also planning to expand its gas and hybrid options. The strategy shift away from fully electric vehicles will cost the automaker $19.5 billion. 

  Ford’s stock has been mostly flat since the news was announced, with shares trading down roughly 0.11% as of late Tuesday afternoon.

  The move may seem like an indictment against electric vehicles at large. It may also seem counterintuitive given that EV sales in the U.S. hit record highs this year. 

  But experts say it illustrates the specific headwinds that EV makers have faced in the U.S. this year, and the challenges of scaling an emerging technology.

  Tax credits and tariffs 

  Manufacturing vehicles in the U.S. has become increasingly expensive, due in part to higher labor costs, stricter environmental regulations, and supply-chain issues. And a more expensive manufacturing environment means more investment risk. 

  In 2025, it became even more challenging. “A lot of things designed to mitigate that risk have been unwound,” says Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emissions Transportation Association (ZETA), a coalition advocating for EV advancement.

  President Trump scrapped federal tax credits for EVs and enacted sweeping (and at times unpredictable) tariffs. He also rolled back fuel economy standards and generally added immense uncertainty to every investment decision in U.S. manufacturing.

  “The cost of doing business in the U.S. has gone up significantly,” Gore says. 

  Ford’s announcement even speaks to this, noting that “regulatory changes” have affected its EV plans.

  Profitability concerns 

  Ford’s situation in this landscape is unique in part because of the specific type of EV it offers. Ford’s flagship EV was its F-150 Lightning, a full-size pickup that came with a steep price. 

  Though the F-150 Lightning was announced in 2021 with a price of $40,000, once production began, that cost increased. The 2025 F-150 started at around $55,000, though other versions came in even higher; the F-150 Lightning Platinum, for example, starts at around $85,000.

  Ford had been struggling with its EV profitability for a while; it was losing money on every EV it sold, even at the start of 2024. 

  And though EV demand has been strong—Gore says that for the past 15 years, EV demand has “far exceeded industry estimates”—price is an important component of that demand. 

  In general, the U.S. auto market focuses on SUVs and trucks, which have higher average transaction prices than sedans. That impacts U.S. consumers, who have been facing increasing costs in multiple sectors, including groceries and electricity. 

  It also makes it more challenging for U.S. companies to compete internationally. In 1960, about 52% of global automotive sales were U.S.-made vehicles. Today, it’s around 11%, and falling. 

  Some of that is just because the rest of the world is growing its manufacturing, Gore notes. But “some of it is the way that cars made here for this market have changed in a way that places them somewhat out of step with the rest of the world.”

  Ford isn’t totally giving up on EVs, though. The automaker’s changing strategy is specifically about no longer producing “select larger electric vehicles where the business case has eroded due to lower-than-expected demand, high costs, and regulatory changes,” the company has said.

  So while it has scrapped the F-150 Lightning, it still has plans to make smaller, affordable models, as well as expand its hybrid and extended-range EVs. 

  EVs need scale—and China is dominating 

  In order for EVs to be profitable, production needs to reach a certain scale. But these factors—vehicle type, as well as shifting trade and tax policies—hinder automakers’ abilities to do so. 

  And EVs are still somewhat nascent, at least compared to internal combustion vehicles. 

  “Manufacturing new power train vehicles is hard,” Gore says, “and particularly takes economies of scale that have been achieved over a century with internal combustion vehicles, but are just now starting to be achieved in the U.S. with electric vehicles, within the last seven years or so.” 

  About 1 out of every 4 vehicles sold around the world in 2025 will be an EV. But right now the market is dominated by China, which accounts for about 70% of global EV production.

  China has come to own the global EV industry in part because of its technological advancements, specifically around battery innovation—and its ability to make ultra-affordable EVs. 

  Some Chinese EVs start as low as $10,000; Ford CEO Jim Farley himself test-drove (and loved) a Xiaomi SU7, which retails for around $30,000. 

  China’s EV success reveals just how far behind the U.S. is when it comes to EV advancements. And though China’s dominance isn’t quite affecting the U.S. car market—former President Biden imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs as a way to protect American auto manufacturing—it is having global impacts. 

  The European Union is abandoning a ban on combustion vehicles after automaker pressure, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, giving more time for automakers to go electric. The move comes as European carmakers face increased competition from China, as well as steep tariffs from the U.S. 

  EV consumer sentiment is hit—but there’s hope

  Another factor playing into the complicated EV landscape, particularly in the U.S., is the changing consumer sentiment around the technology. EV sales did hit a record high in the U.S. this year, but that was likely influenced by consumers racing to qualify for the federal tax credits before they expired at the end of September. 

  A recent study by CDK Global found that EV interest among gas car drivers dropped 20%. When asked if they will buy an EV in the future, 31% of gas drivers said yes in 2024, compared with 11% in 2025. 

  Interest even dropped among hybrid drivers, 54% of whom said in 2024 that they would switch to an EV in the future, compared with 35% in 2025.

  Gore wasn’t involved in that survey, but he points out that the conversation around EV’s has become increasingly politicized. “The rhetoric is, by its nature, extremely negative, and it’s loud,” he says.

  That can affect EV adoption, particularly for a technology that needs to vie for mainstream appeal. Early adopters drove EV’s initial surging growth, but then the industry has had to figure out how to attract everyone else who isn’t as invested in being a front-runner. 

  But Gore isn’t concerned about the long-term appeal of EVs. “That’s something that has been absolutely consistent, that regardless of what anyone’s heard, the experience of driving an EV is overwhelmingly positive, and the same with owning one,” he says. 

  Though EV sales dipped 1% in North America this year compared with 2024, they’re still up 24% globally. 

  Despite the challenges the EV industry faces in the U.S. and abroad, experts like Gore are positive that there’s still plenty of market to reach—and that continued advancement, particularly in battery technology, means electric vehicles make sense for the future.

  The U.S. EV industry has seen ups and downs before. And though it might be the right move, economically, for automakers to pull back on EV plans at this time, they risk falling behind if and when the market swings back.

  “For people who don’t [scratch their EV plans], I think the reward will be a much bigger market than a lot of companies,” Gore says.

• Hyundai and Kia to offer free anti-theft repairs for millions of cars under a multistate settlement

  Automakers Hyundai and Kia must offer free repairs to millions of models under a settlement announced Tuesday by Minnesota’s attorney general, who led an effort by dozens of states that argued the vehicles weren’t equipped with proper anti-theft technology, leaving them vulnerable to theft.

  Under the nationwide settlement, the companies will offer a free repair to all eligible vehicles at a cost that could top $500 million, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said. Hyundai and Kia must also outfit all future vehicles sold in the U.S. with a key piece of technology called an engine immobilizer and pay up to $4.5 million of restitution to people whose vehicles were damaged by thieves.

  The settlement was reached by 35 states, including California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The vehicles eligible for fixes date as far back as 2011 and as recently as 2022. About 9 million eligible vehicles were sold nationwide.

  Thefts of Hyundai and Kia vehicles soared in part because beginning in 2021, videos posted to TikTok and other social media demonstrated how someone could steal a car with just a screwdriver and a USB cable. Minneapolis reported an 836% increase in Hyundai and Kia thefts from 2021 to 2022. Ellison announced an investigation into the automakers in early 2023.

  Ellison said the two companies installed engine immobilizers on cars sold in Mexico and Canada, but not widely in the U.S., leading to car thefts, crimes and crashes that injured and even killed people, including teenagers.

  “This crisis that we’re talking about today started in a boardroom, traveled through the Internet and ended up in tragic results when somebody stole those cars,” Ellison said at a news conference.

  He was joined by Twin Cities officials, a woman whose mother was killed when a stolen Kia crashed into her parents’ vehicle and a man whose car was stolen nine times — as recently as Monday night, and including seven times after a previous software fix.

  Under the settlement, Hyundai and Kia will install a zinc sleeve to stop would-be thieves from cracking open a vehicle’s ignition cylinder and starting the car.

  Eligible customers will have one year from the date of the companies’ notice to get the repair at an authorized dealership. The repairs are expected to be available from early 2026 through early 2027.

  In a statement, Kia said the agreement is the latest step it has taken to help its customers and prevent thefts.

  “Kia is eager to continue working with law enforcement officers and officials at federal, state, and local levels to combat criminal car theft, and the role social media has played in encouraging it, and we remain fully committed to upholding vehicle security,” the company said.

  The Associated Press emailed Hyundai for comment.

  —By Jack Dura, Associated Press

• Stock market falls after mixed data on the economy

  The U.S. stock market is drifting lower on Tuesday following mixed data on the economy’s strength, which did little to clear uncertainty about where interest rates may be heading.

  The S&P 500 fell 0.4% in afternoon trading and remains a bit below its all-time high set last week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 271 points, or 0.6%, as of 1:53 p.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was mostly unchanged.

  Treasury yields eased a bit, following a larger initial drop, after one report said the U.S. unemployment rate was at its worst level last month since 2021, but employers also added more jobs than economists expected. A separate report, meanwhile, said an underlying measure of strength for revenue at U.S. retailers grew more in October than economists expected.

  The mixed data initially sent Treasury yields lower in the bond market. The knee-jerk reaction seemed to be that the reports could encourage the Federal Reserve to see the slowing job market as the biggest threat to the economy, rather than high inflation, and cut interest rates further in 2026. But yields quickly recovered and then drifted up and down.

  What the Fed does with interest rates is a top driver for Wall Street because lower rates can give a boost to the economy and to prices for investments, even if they also may worsen inflation. A report coming on Thursday will show how bad inflation was last month, and economists expect it to show prices for U.S. consumers continue to rise faster than anyone would like.

  A report released on Tuesday after U.S. stocks began trading suggested price pressures are rising sharply, with average selling prices for businesses climbing at one of the fastest rates since the middle of 2022. The preliminary data from S&P Global also said growth for overall business activity slowed to its weakest level since June.

  “Higher prices are again being widely blamed on tariffs, with an initial impact on manufacturing now increasingly spilling over to services to broaden the affordability problem,” according to Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

  In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.16% from 4.18% late Monday. The two-year Treasury yield, which more closely tracks expectations for the Fed, eased to 3.48% from 3.51%.

  Helping to keep the overall market in check were continued swings for stocks that have been caught up in the frenzy around artificial-intelligence technology.

  Oracle rose 2.4%, and Broadcom rose 0.1%. They both had dropped to sharp losses last week, even though both reported stronger profits for the latest quarter than analysts expected.

  But CoreWeave, which rents out access to top-of-the-line AI chips, fell 4.9%.

  Questions remain about whether all the spending underway on AI technology will produce the kind of profits and productivity that will make it worth the expense.

  Elsewhere on Wall Street, Pfizer fell 5.2% after giving a forecast for profit in 2026 that was below what some analysts expected. Its forecast for revenue next year, of between $59.5 billion and $62.5 billion, was close to analysts’ expectations.

  Kraft Heinz fell 0.1% after saying Steve Cahillane, who was most recently CEO of Kellanova, will join as CEO on Jan. 1. After Kraft Heinz splits into two companies, which is expected to happen in the second half of 2026, Cahillane will lead the one that will hold onto the Heinz, Philadelphia and Kraft Mac & Cheese brands.

  In stock markets abroad, indexes fell across much of Europe and Asia.

  Japan’s Nikkei 225 dropped 1.6% ahead of an expected hike to interest rates by the Bank of Japan later this week.

  Other markets in Asia also had some of the world’s sharper swings. South Korea’s Kospi dropped 2.2%, while indexes fell 1.5% in Hong Kong and 1.1% in Shanghai.

  —By Stan Choe, AP business writer

  AP Business Writers Matt Ott and Elaine Kurtenbach contributed.

• How Trump’s anti-DEI policies are hurting Black workers

  When the government shutdown came to an end last month, the much-delayed jobs report for September was finally released, revealing that the unemployment rate had inched up to 4.4%—the highest it had been in four years. Amid a tough job market and economic uncertainty, it’s little surprise that unemployment is on the rise again. In the latest jobs dispatch that was published today, unemployment had ticked up to 4.6% for the month of November. 

  But it’s a specific segment of the workforce that is most acutely feeling the effects of this spike in unemployment: For Black workers, the rate has stretched to 8.3%, up from 6%, in just the last six months. The rate among white workers, by comparison, has remained relatively steady, hovering just over 3%.

  Why Black unemployment is rising

  There are many reasons for this particular increase in unemployment. But experts say the dizzying pace of the Trump administration’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion has notably contributed to the rising unemployment rate among Black workers—and, more specifically, Black women, though the new jobs report for November indicates that unemployment among Black men has also increased.

  The DEI pullback orchestrated by the Trump administration is not solely to blame for this dip in employment, though it plays a significant role. Since assuming office, Trump has taken aim at DEI programs across the public and private sectors. Starting in January, Trump issued a flurry of executive orders that shut down DEI offices across the federal government. He also reversed a key executive action that had promoted racial equity by curtailing discriminatory employment practices among contractors that work with the federal government. In addition, Trump has sought to dissolve DEI efforts across corporate America by directing federal agencies to investigate private companies—a move that has led many employers to reevaluate their DEI policies or eliminate certain programs altogether. 

  The job losses catalyzed by Trump’s directive to cut DEI roles across the federal government have affected Black workers, who also tend to hold diversity jobs in higher numbers. Even beyond that, the federal job losses—which are on track to reach 300,000 by the end of the year—have hit Black workers especially hard, because they are overrepresented in that part of the workforce. Data from September 2024 indicates that almost half of federal workers are women and about 41% are people of color. 

  An analysis by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) earlier this year found that women and people of color were overrepresented at many of the federal agencies that saw significant reductions in their workforce. The Trump administration’s cuts have also targeted probationary workers—those in their first year of service or people who have recently been promoted—who are more likely to be women. 

  “It really boils down to sort of a perfect storm of factors,” says Valerie Wilson, the director of the program on race, ethnicity, and the economy at the Economic Policy Institute. “We have the federal layoffs and job losses. We have the retraction of DEI policies . . . and organizations, including the federal government, that have essentially eliminated DEI departments or roles that were likely held by a large number of Black women.” Wilson also notes that job losses across industries have disproportionately impacted women—from manufacturing to professional and business services. 

  How the DEI backlash has impacted Black workers

  While it’s difficult to quantify the full scope of how anti-DEI measures have impacted Black employment, Wilson says there’s no doubt that there’s a correlation—and that the fallout goes beyond the elimination of DEI jobs held by Black workers. The Trump administration’s approach to DEI has also reshaped the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has made “unlawful DEI-related discrimination” a focus of its enforcement under new chair Andrea Lucas. 

  Wilson argues the administration’s actions have a chilling effect, both on corporate DEI efforts and when it comes to how workers can seek recourse if they do face discrimination in the workplace. The fear that they might be targeted or face litigation has already driven employers to make significant changes to their DEI programs in recent years, dating back to the Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action in 2023. Tech companies like Meta and Google have dropped representation goals that were intended to diversify their ranks—once a common practice in the industry—while major employers like Walmart and McDonald’s have stopped prioritizing diverse suppliers and pulled out of the Human Rights Commission’s Corporate Equality Index, an influential benchmarking survey that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ workers. 

  Lauren Khouri, the senior director of workplace equality at the NWLC, points out that there are plenty of other programs that have been harmed by federal cuts and, in turn, impact workers of color—even if they are not explicitly denoted as DEI initiatives. 

  “It’s not just the cuts that we’ve seen in the federal workforce,” she says. “If you look at the repercussions of cuts in grant programs across the federal government, we’ve seen an attack on domestic violence and sexual assault service provider organizations across the country, both at the state and local level. We’ve seen an attack on Department of Labor grant programs that specifically went to lifting up women in the trades. Without that funding, those organizations—whose mission and job is to lift up women, people of color, and marginalized communities—have had to make really hard choices to keep the lights on.” 

  The erosion of DEI programs will also play a major role in how Black workers bounce back from this surge in unemployment. 

  “I think we have yet to see the full impact,” Wilson says. “It’s going to come into play on the other end of job losses, when we’re looking at how quickly people recover—and not just how quickly they recover, but what kinds of positions they recover into. The purpose of a lot of those programs wasn’t just to hire a more diverse set of workers for any kind of role—it was also [creating] opportunities for people to gain access to higher-level positions.” 

  What it will take to recover jobs

  When Black employment is lagging, it is often a sign of a broader economic downturn, according to Khouri—so it’s not just Black workers who might be faced with job insecurity, if that’s any indicator. Since Black workers are concentrated in lower-wage jobs that are more vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy, they are often impacted first when a recession is on the horizon. (This was evident during the pandemic, when unemployment spiked to over 16% and Black workers experienced job losses at a record high.)

  The ongoing backlash to corporate DEI programs is, however, far more likely to impact Black workers seeking out jobs in industries that have historically shut out those workers. In the tech industry, DEI initiatives had slowly helped bring more underrepresented groups—namely Black and Latino workers—into technical and leadership roles (even if that progress had been halting). The finance industry had made marginal progress on promoting Black employees into senior roles, and Black representation on boards had improved amid calls for greater diversity. A Bloomberg analysis found that in 2021, after many companies made significant investments in DEI efforts, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs—and a whopping 94% of those jobs were filled by people of color. 

  Amid an ongoing federal hiring freeze and slowing employment, Black workers may also face an uphill battle even when it comes to finding steady employment in the federal workforce—which, until now, had been a more reliable path to the middle class for Black Americans. 

  “The reason why we have a more diverse federal workforce is because at one point, the federal government was actually willing to sort of be a leader in establishing more equitable employment practices that were ultimately adopted in states and cities and, to some extent, the private sector,” Wilson says. 

  “So when we start cutting federal jobs, we’re actually cutting jobs from a sector that had—at least since the 1960s—been more of a leader in establishing equity. That may not be messaged or presented as explicitly anti-DEI, but it has that effect.”

  The federal government was once a model for how equitable hiring practices could actually transform the workplace and cultivate true diversity. Now, not only has Trump culled the federal workforce—but he has also chipped away at the very DEI policies that could have offset those losses and empowered Black workers to find work in the private sector.

• These ‘historical tours’ of modern offices capture just how banal work is

  If you’ve ever been to a museum or on a school field trip, you may have had a tour guide walk you through a historical exhibit of 19th-century households or of ancient Mesopotamian agricultural tools.

  Now, a current TikTok trend suggests that one day in the future, those exhibits will be the modern workstation—standing desks, Zoom meeting headsets, and all. The viral series titled “Historical tour of a corporate worker’s desk,” by marketing professional and content creator Heike Young, imagines what that will look like. 

  “Now in those times, it would have been really common for a corporate worker to sit at a desk, much like this one, and be on calls all day,” she says in the skit, now with over 116,000 views. Behind Young, a standing desk is set up with two screens, one for work and the other for online shopping, she says. The desk is scattered with an assortment of beverages, or “brown liquids,” plastic food containers, and packets.

  “Believe it or not, this worker would’ve actually been considered very lucky to have a job like this,” she continues. “People would submit hundreds of applications and submit themselves to many humiliation rituals just to get a job like this one.”

  In another video, Young highlights a few common tabs workers would have had open on their screens.

  “Yes, Amazon. That’s the same name as the extinct rainforest, that’s right,” she replies to a “question.” “We got some history buffs in here.”

  She also educates on the linguistic practices of the period, more commonly known as business jargon or “work voice.”

  “There was one sound that always got the laborers moving. It was a mild form of psychological torture,” she explains in yet another skit. “Our museum’s immersive effects team will play it now. And there were two common variations. One was more typical among workers who used Windows technology. And the next one is often for people who used Apple Mac.”

  The comments are filled with corporate workers who feel horrifyingly seen by the series. “With every video I watch, the more I’m horrified by the reality of the life I currently live,” one commenter posted. 

  Others, though, had the opposite reaction. “This made me feel really hopeful in a very strange way,” someone wrote, finding comfort in the fact that, for better or worse, the current economic reality cannot continue forever. 

  “Much of corporate landscape right now is pretty bleak, and it’s easy to get frustrated with it all,” Young told Fast Company. “But we are living in one moment. There’s so much history before and after us.”

  With the series, she thought to zoom out and examine the corporate experience from an entirely different point of view, much the same as we might now look back on laborers in the past and their working conditions. 

  “When viewing it from the future as a detached museum docent, what is striking?” Young continues. “What little, mundane details seem quaint, absurd, or even grotesque?”

  As for what anthropologists will be uncovering about the corporate worker experience centuries from now, Young says: “A bunch of Amazon returns that may never go back. Chips, gotta have chips. A fork with an empty plastic container. Three different beverages—some for their caffeine and some for the illusion of hydration. And a picture of the people you’re doing this for.”