Licensed franchises now account for a third of global toy sales. From Pokémon to Jurassic Park, toy companies are increasingly selling nostalgia alongside play.

—The Economist

It often feels like every new movie or television show is a remake, reboot, or sequel. Now that same shift toward established intellectual property is reshaping the toy industry. According to Circana, the share of global toy sales tied to licensed IP has grown from 25% to 37% since 2018. That’s an increase of +12 percentage points.

Perhaps no company embodies this trend more than Lego. Just this month, it announced new Pokémon-themed “smart” sets. The toy maker has spent years expanding beyond its original themes, partnering with franchises ranging from Star Wars and Harry Potter to Minecraft and Fortnite. Circana estimates that more than 50% of Lego’s $13B annual revenue comes from licensed IP.

But Lego is hardly alone. Funko’s Pop! vinyl figurines depict everyone from Happy Gilmore to Freddie Mercury. Hasbro sells Monopoly boards based on franchises like X-Men and Dune. And Magic: The Gathering includes crossover sets featuring Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Monty Python, and dozens of other well-known brands.

On the surface, the appeal of licensed IP is obvious: Established franchises come with loyal fan bases. And as moated franchises scale ever larger with fans who never outgrow their pop-culture obsessions, entire industries of brand merch—from books and toys to clothing, snacks, and theme parks—grow along with them.

But the toy industry is also capitalizing on the nostalgia clinging to many of these brands. While some products are tied to newer hits like Bluey, many draw on franchises that are more than 30 years old, like Jurassic Park and The X-Files. These toys allow parents to introduce their children to the characters they grew up with, while also appealing to adult collectors. (See “Board Games Make a Comeback” and “Lego: New Stress Reliever for Adults.”)

Remember, toys are no longer just for children. As Millennials and Gen Xers continue to spend on the franchises of their youth, toy companies are finding that nostalgia can be just as profitable as attracting the next generation of fans.

Prediction markets have grown nearly 30-fold over the last two years. Sports betting is driving much of that expansion.

—Pew Research Center

In the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election, prediction markets went from a niche curiosity to a mainstream obsession. Many observers argued that the “wisdom of the crowd” might prove more reliable than traditional polling. In the end, prediction markets favored Trump, even as most polls showed Kamala Harris holding a narrow lead.

Since then, prediction markets have exploded in popularity. According to a new Pew report, combined global trading volume on Kalshi and Polymarket International, the world’s two largest prediction markets, totaled $810.2 million in July 2024. By April 2026, that figure had surged to $23.8 billion, an increase of 2,838% in less than two years.

Despite the attention prediction markets receive for political forecasting, sports betting is the industry’s primary growth engine. Since July 2024, sports-related contracts have accounted for 39% of all trading volume on Polymarket and an even larger 80% on Kalshi. Politics ranks second on Polymarket, making up 32% of trading volume, compared with just 7% on Kalshi.

Sports and political markets are highly event-driven. Trading activity tends to surge around major elections, championship games, and other headline-making events.

Prediction markets are increasingly competing with online sportsbooks like FanDuel and DraftKings. Unlike traditional sportsbooks, they can operate in states where sports betting is still illegal, such as California. They also appeal to newcomers by stripping away much of the jargon. Rather than navigating point spreads, parlays, and complex odds, users typically make a simple binary prediction: who wins and who loses. (See “Sharps and Beards: The Wacky World of Online Sports Betting.”)

The threat is significant enough that DraftKings has launched its own prediction market platform. Despite the move, the company's stock has fallen more than 30% over the past year. For now, investors view prediction markets as a disruptive force rather than a complementary product.

Empty-nest Boomers now own more large homes than Millennial families. And the forces driving that trend could persist for decades.

—Redfin

According to a new analysis of Census data by Redfin, Baby Boomers own the largest share of America’s biggest homes. Boomers living in one- or two-person households own 28% of homes with three or more bedrooms. By comparison, Millennials with children own just 16% of such large homes. That’s a difference of 12 percentage points.

Across all household types, Boomers own 35.3% of large homes, followed by Gen X at 31.2%, and Millennials at 23.8%.

So why do Boomers still own so many big houses?

We’ve often written about Boomers’ tendency to “age in place.” (See “The Death of Senior Housing” and “Why Americans Are Spending More On Home Improvement.”) Unlike the GI Generation, which was more willing to embrace retirement communities, Boomers have shown a strong preference for staying put. Many want to remain near their children and grandchildren. Others continue to support multigenerational households or remain employed well past traditional retirement age. As a result, many Boomers continue to occupy the large homes in which they raised their families.

There is also a financial component. Many Boomers have either paid off their mortgages entirely or locked in low interest rates back in the 2010s. As a result, they have little economic incentive to sell. At the same time, many Millennials struggle to afford large homes when they do come onto the market.

Of course, this imbalance will not last forever. Many Millennials will eventually inherit these homes as their Boomer parents pass away. And some are already living in these homes. But the youngest large “baby boom” cohort, born in 1964, will not enter their high-mortality years until the late 2040s. In fact—and this comes from the SSA’s Longevity Visualizer—half of all couples born in 1964 won’t both be deceased until the year 2056. By that time (gulp!) the oldest Millennials will be in their early 70s.

So no, the imbalance won’t last forever. But unless something else changes, the demographic forces keeping large homes off the market today may remain in place for decades. (See “Who Will Buy All the Boomer Homes?”)

Public opposition to AI data centers is rapidly rising across the political spectrum. Americans increasingly fear the strain these facilities could place on water supplies, power grids, and local utility bills.

—Gallup

According to Pew, 38% of Americans now live within five miles of a data center. For years, local governments largely viewed these sprawling facilities as economic wins. But as the AI boom accelerates and new projects spread across the country, public sentiment is rapidly turning negative. A new poll from Gallup reveals just how strong the backlash has become.

Fully 72% of US adults now oppose the construction of AI data centers in their local communities. That includes 23% who say they “somewhat oppose” new development and 48% who say they “strongly oppose” it. By contrast, only about one-quarter of Americans support building new facilities nearby.

The backlash is remarkably bipartisan. Democrats and independents are the most resistant to new construction, with 75% and 74% opposed, respectively. But Republicans are not far behind: fully 63% also oppose building new AI data centers in their communities.

That growing resistance is now beginning to spill into the midterms. Candidates from both parties are increasingly questioning the generous tax breaks, subsidies, and energy deals once used to attract data center projects.

So what’s driving the backlash? Much of the opposition centers on the strain data centers place on local infrastructure. Fully 18% of Americans cite concerns about water usage, while another 18% worry about energy consumption and pressure on the electrical grid. An additional 15% specifically fear that new facilities could drive up utility bills.

But the backlash also reflects growing skepticism toward AI itself. About 12% say they oppose new construction because they fear AI will replace human workers, while another 10% say they simply dislike AI altogether. Pew has been tracking overall favorability toward AI since 2021. Among voters is both parties, opinion has clearly been shifting from “excited” to “concerned.”

When we look around the world at attitudes toward AI in other countries, a paradoxical picture emerges: Among 25 nations surveyed by Pew, American adults are the most negative about AI, despite the face that the US economy stands to benefit the most from AI’s global success. This may simply reflect the fact that Americans have more up-close contact with AI. Or that countries with low institutional trust are more fearful about any change that may benefit one group over another.

Over the years, we’ve written several NewsWires about the growing techlash in America. But much of that backlash was aimed at social media companies. (See “Tech-Lash Intensifies” and “Americans Don’t Trust Big Tech.”) Now, AI is emerging as the new villain. Silicon Valley and Wall Street may be sold, but the public isn’t buying it. Just look at the wave of viral videos from this year’s college commencements, where speakers were booed after they declared that AI is the future. Back in the late-1990s, youth were mostly enthusiastic about the dot.com craze. No replay of that here.

Subscribe now

Americans are increasingly disconnected from their neighborhoods. Young adults, in particular, are far less likely to interact with their neighbors than they were a decade ago.

—Survey Center on American Life

According to a new report from the Survey Center on American Life, Americans are interacting with their neighbors less often. In 2012, 59% of US adults said they spoke with their neighbors at least a few times a week. Today, just 40% say the same. That’s a -19 percentage point decline.

The drop in interaction has been especially sharp among young adults. Over the past 13 years, the share of 18- to 29-year-olds who talk with their neighbors weekly has fallen -26 percentage points to just 25%. By comparison, the share of adults aged 65 and older who regularly speak with their neighbors has declined only -7 percentage points to 56%.

The survey also found that college-educated Americans are more engaged with their neighbors than those without a degree. Compared to non-college graduates, they are more likely to work with neighbors to solve local problems (46% vs. 34%), socialize with neighbors (58% vs. 46%), and exchange texts or emails with them (65% vs. 45%).

Importantly, these gaps persist even after controlling for whether respondents live in urban, suburban, or rural areas. The findings align with other recent surveys we’ve covered, which found that working-class Americans are more likely to report smaller social circles and weaker personal support networks than white-collar workers. (See “Divided by Wealth: How Class Shapes Our Friendships.”)

So what do Americans think makes a good neighbor? According to the survey, 65% say it means “not getting too involved in your neighbors’ personal affairs.” Only 33% say being a good neighbor means offering help even when it isn’t requested.

Views also differ sharply by age. Among young adults, 70% say good neighbors should stay out of personal matters, compared to just 57% of seniors. That’s a gap of 13 percentage points.

All in all, the report adds to a growing body of evidence that many Americans, especially younger Americans, are becoming increasingly isolated. (See “All the Lonely People” and “Where Have All Our Friends Gone?”) Traditional sources of community and social support, from churches to labor unions, have steadily lost influence over the past several decades. Now, even the most basic form of community, relationships with the people living next door, is fading.

Subscribe now

Most Americans now believe self-driving cars will become commonplace within the next decade. But despite growing expectations for adoption, public trust in the technology remains low.

—Gallup

Subscribe now

According to a new Gallup survey, Americans increasingly believe that self-driving cars are the future of transportation. Fully 31% of US adults believe driverless cars will be commonly used within the next five years. That’s a +12 percentage point increase from 2018, when just 19% said the same.

An additional 34% believe autonomous vehicles will become commonplace within the next decade. Altogether, 65% of Americans expect driverless vehicles to be widely used within 10 years.

But that doesn’t mean Americans are eager to buy one themselves. Just 19% say they would purchase a self-driving car if the technology became widely available within the next 20 years, unchanged from 2018. Meanwhile, 73% say they would still prefer a vehicle they personally drive, statistically unchanged from seven years ago (75%).

In fact, Americans are now more—not less—concerned about the safety of driverless cars. In 2018, 47% said the safest roads would be those with mostly or entirely human-operated vehicles. Today, that figure has climbed to 58%, up +11 percentage points.

Driverless car companies are quick to argue that autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers. But many industry experts remain skeptical that the data fully reflect how these systems would perform at scale. Over the years, we have also questioned whether the technology is truly ready for widespread adoption. (See “Americans Grow Cold on Self-Driving Cars” and “Self-Driving Cars Still Stuck in Neutral.”)

The public’s hesitation has likely been reinforced by a series of high-profile incidents. Waymo, the robotaxi company owned by Alphabet, has been at the center of several viral controversies. In December, a Waymo vehicle appeared to drive through a police standoff. In January, one reportedly struck a child near a school. Then in March, another blocked an ambulance responding to a shooting scene.

If self-driving car companies want the public’s trust, it’s not enough for their vehicles to be safer on average. They also have to prove they won’t behave in ways that feel unnatural, unpredictable, or outright absurd. People can forgive human error. They are far less willing to forgive a machine driving through a police standoff.

Millennial direct-to-consumer brands once promised to disrupt retail with sleek design and viral marketing. Now, higher costs and tighter capital are exposing the limits of that model.

—The Economist

Subscribe now

In the late 2010s, Allbirds (BIRD) was one of the hottest Millennial brands. Its eco-friendly wool sneakers became a staple among Silicon Valley tech workers. But since going public in 2021, the company’s share price has collapsed by a whopping -99%. Now, in a last-ditch effort, it plans to sell its core footwear business and pivot toward AI. Apparently, when all else fails, just add “AI” and hope the market forgets you used to sell shoes.

But Allbirds isn’t an outlier. It’s the latest casualty in a broader pattern: the rapid rise and fall of Millennial direct-to-consumer brands.

In the 2010s, a wave of startups bet they could bypass traditional retail and sell directly online to young consumers: Casper sold online mattresses, Warby Parker glasses, Allbirds shoes, Dollar Shave Club razors, and Glossier makeup.

Just as important, they turned their customers into marketers. Sleek design and packaging fueled a constant stream of social media posts and unboxing videos, creating free advertising at scale. At their peak, many of these companies reached billion-dollar valuations.

That playbook is now breaking down, and the unwind has been swift. Casper went public in 2020, only to go private two years later after its valuation fell roughly -70%. Unilever bought Dollar Shave Club for $1 billion in 2016, then sold it in 2023 for significantly less. And Glossier has explored selling its business, but without success.

So what changed? First, the easy money disappeared. As interest rates rose, venture capital pulled back from consumer brands and shifted toward AI. At the same time, digital advertising became more expensive and saturated, eroding one of the core advantages of the direct-to-consumer model.

Competition has also intensified. A new generation of brands is being launched by celebrities and influencers who already command massive online audiences. Instead of relying on customers to generate buzz, these companies arrive with built-in distribution from day one.

The result is a far tougher landscape. Higher customer acquisition costs, tighter capital, and stronger competition are squeezing the very model that once defined Millennial consumer startups. The question is no longer whether these brands can scale. It’s whether they can survive.

Young men are reporting a sharp rise in religiosity. Young people are now the only age group in which men place greater importance on religion than women.

—Gallup

Subscribe now

Over the last two decades, American religiosity has steadily declined. (See “Is America Losing Its Religion?”) Church attendance has fallen, affiliation has weakened, and a growing share identify as religious “nones.” But one group is now reversing that trend: young men.

According to a new Gallup survey, in 2025, 42% of men ages 18-29 said that religion was “very important” in their lives. That’s a +14 percentage point increase since 2023, when only 28% said the same thing. Young men’s religiosity is nearly back to its 2001 level of 43%.

This surge in religion among young men stands in sharp contrast to young women. Just 29% of women ages 18–29 say religion is “very important” in their lives, a -3 percentage point decline since 2023. That leaves a striking 13-point gap between genders. In fact, young adults are now the only age group in which men report higher religious importance than women. This is a clear break from the historical norm, where women at every age have consistently expressed more interest in religion than men.

On the ground, churches are reporting a similar shift. Catholic and Orthodox congregations in particular say they are seeing an influx of men in their 20s. Anecdotally, new converts often point to a desire for community, a search for meaning beyond an increasingly digital world, and inspiration from figures like Charlie Kirk.

As the example of Kirk may suggest, many of these longings—for community, direction, inspiration—come together for young men in Christian Nationalism. A sizable share of young men has shifted toward the Republican Party in recent years, and insistence on religiosity, usually Christianity, is often tied to a conservative identity. (Just as insistence on no religiosity is tied to a progressive identity; see “More on the Widening Youth Gender Divide.”) In that sense, saying religion is “very important” or “unimportant” may function less as a reflection of your institutional religious ties and more as a signal of your tribal identity, red zone or blue zone.

The data from Gallup appears consistent with that interpretation. While the share of young men who say religion is “very important” has risen by +14 percentage points, the share attending church at least once a month has increased by just +7 points, to 40%. In other words, the rise in stated belief is outpacing the rise in behavior.

It also turns out that both young men and young women are attending church somewhat more today (2024-25) than they were a few years ago (2020-21)—again, about +7% more—though attendance by all older age groups has declined. While this is mostly among young Republicans, it can also be seen among young Democrats. So there is something of a “church revival” among young people across the board. The difference, for young conservative men, is that even those who don’t go to church embrace the identity shift. It’s a big deal. It’s “very important in my life.”

Subscribe now

News:

• A new report from FMI found that more than 75% of US adults now view meat and poultry as part of a healthy diet. That’s up from 64% in 2020, an +11 percentage point increase.

Trend:

• Americans are becoming increasingly focused on protein, and this shift is now showing up in policy. New federal guidelines place greater weight on red meat and dairy whi…

Read more

According to the CDC’s preliminary 2025 birth data, US fertility continues to decline. Births are rising among older women, but falling faster among the young.

—CDC

Subscribe now

The US total fertility rate (TFR) fell from 1.599 in 2024 to 1.574 in 2025. That’s a -1.6% decline and, once again, the lowest reading on record. If you exclude the 2021 blip, the TFR has fallen for the last ten years.

Let’s break it down by age. The teen birth rate fell -7.1%, hitting a record low of 11.7 births per 1,000 women. Birth rates among women in their 20s also declined. But for those 30 and older, rates ticked slightly higher.

This trend towards older moms has steadily accelerated over the last 30 years. But these gains are not large enough to offset declines among younger women. For an offset to be effective, we would have to see a significant rise in the birth rate of 30-to 34-year-olds. But we aren’t seeing that. The birth rate for this group is the same in 2025 as it was in 2004. Over age 35, the absolute numbers are simply too small to matter.

We are currently preparing for our 2026 US Demography Review. And we will provide a more in-depth look at the state of US fertility. Here is a sneak peek: Don’t expect a birth rebound any time soon.

Subscribe now

News:

• According to Bloomberg, the US military is committing nearly its entire stockpile of JASSM-ER cruise missiles to the war with Iran. The stealth weapons are being pulled from bases across the US and Pacific. Of the roughly 2,300 prewar stockpile, just 425 will remain available for use outside the Iran conflict.

Trend:

• The US and its allies are facing …

Read more

Time spent online is closely tied to how Americans see politics. The heaviest users consistently express the most hardline views.

—The Kettering Foundation

Subscribe now

According to a joint survey by the Kettering Foundation and Gallup, heavy social media use is associated with a darker and more extreme political outlook.

The divide is most visible in views on democracy. Among adults who spend an hour or less per day on social media, 73% say democracy is the best form of government. But among those who scroll for five or more hours, only 57% say the same. That’s a whopping 16 percentage point difference.

Heavy social media usage is also linked to greater tribalism. Just 21% of light users say they find it hard to get along with people who don’t share their beliefs, compared with 29% of heavy users. That’s an 8-point gap.

Most striking is the split in attitudes toward political violence. Only 9% of light users say it is sometimes acceptable to use violence to achieve political goals, versus 22% of heavy users. That’s a 13-point difference.

What explains these results? In part, it’s generational membership. Time spent on social media is a proxy forage. While this survey doesn’t provide crosstabs, we can assume heavy social media users skew young, while light users skew older. And these same divides show up consistently in age-based surveys.

In 2024, we highlighted a poll that found 42% of Americans ages 18–29 agreed that the country may need to resort to violence to get back on track, compared with just 11% of those 60+. (See “A Bleeding Ear, a Fist Pump, an Exit Post... and the Triumph of Populism.”) And a 2025 survey by the Manhattan Institute found that young people across both parties are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories, acknowledge racist views, and express negative attitudes toward minority religions.

Nevertheless, it’s easy to see how heavy social media use could reinforce more extreme views across all age groups. A small, highly vocal minority drives most online political content, and users tend to follow people they already agree with. The more time spent in that echo chamber, the more those views can harden. (See “Who’s Writing All Those Tweets?”)

Subscribe now

News:

• Since October 8, 2025, Cathie Wood’s ARK Innovation ETF ($ARKK) has declined by over -25%.

Read more

The world is getting happier, but not the English-speaking world. While global life satisfaction has improved, the Anglosphere is falling behind due to rising pessimism among younger generations.

—Gallup

Subscribe now

Gallup has just released its 2026 World Happiness Report. The global survey asks over 1K respondents from each country to rank their lives, where zero equals the worst possible life, and ten equals the best. These scores are averaged over the last three years.

For the second consecutive year, no English-speaking country ranked among the world’s 10 happiest nations. New Zealand placed 11th, Australia 15th, the US 23rd, Canada 25th, and the UK 29th. The US now sits between Saudi Arabia (22nd) and Poland (24th). The top rankings continue to be dominated by Nordic countries, with Finland once again claiming the No. 1 spot.

Since 2012, the global average happiness score has increased by +4.33 percentage points. In contrast, the Anglosphere has moved in the opposite direction, with an average decline of −5.08 points: the UK (−2.8), New Zealand (−3.1), the US (−3.8), Australia (−5.9), and Canada (−9.8).

This decline in Anglosphere life satisfaction is concentrated among younger generations. Among those under 25, the six largest declines in happiness since 2011 have all occurred in English-speaking countries.

We’ve written extensively about the worsening mental health of young Americans. But this isn’t just a US story. Other surveys show that young people across the Anglosphere are reporting lower life satisfaction and growing distrust in institutions. And ultimately, this shift is fueling the rise of populist movements across these nations. (See “Generation Hopeless: The Despair of Young Americans” and “Global Millennials: Down on Democracy and Drawn to Populism.”)

Subscribe now

News:

• Since March 2, QatarEnergy has indefinitely halted helium and LNG production at Ras Laffan Industrial City. Even after the war, Qatar said annual helium exports will be reduced by -14% over the next 3-5 years until facilities are repaired.

Trend:

• Helium is one of several resources now under pressure due to the war in the Gulf. Qatar accounts for roug…

Read more

From crypto to prediction markets, young Americans are embracing higher-risk bets. Behind the shift is a growing belief that the old playbook no longer works.

—Northwestern Mutual

Subscribe now

According to a new survey by Northwestern Mutual, young adults are far more likely to dabble in speculative assets than older generations. For example, 35% of Millennials and 32% of Homelanders are invested in crypto or plan to do so in 2026, compared with 24% of all adults. That’s a gap of +11 and +8 percentage points, respectively.

The gap is even larger in sports betting and prediction markets. Some 32% of Homelanders participate, compared with 17% of all US adults. That’s a difference of +15 percentage points. And that gap may be widening.

Prediction markets are dominated by young men, but companies are working to broaden their appeal. To attract young women, platforms are increasingly offering bets tied to pop culture, from music charts to reality TV outcomes. The strategy appears to be working. Over the past 10 months, Kalshi has doubled its share of female users from 13% to 26%.

At first glance, these results may seem surprising. Millennials and Homelanders are known for their risk aversion. So why are they investing in high-risk assets? They do not view these bets as random lottery tickets. Instead, armed with data, algorithms, and their own intuition, many believe they can beat the system. (See “Sports Betting on the Rise.”)

That confidence may fade with experience. Early signs are already visible in sports gambling. While young men are the most likely to place bets, they have also recorded the largest increase in concern about its effect on society and on their own emotional health. This likely reflects their more direct exposure to the downsides. (See “The Sports Betting Backlash Has Begun.”)

Subscribe now

News:

• In 2025, Philip Morris International (PM) shipped 794 million cans of Zyn nicotine pouches in the United States. That’s a whopping +37% YoY increase.

Trend:

• Nicotine pouches have surged in popularity as consumers look for alternatives to traditional smoking. These smokeless, tobacco-free products deliver nicotine discreetly through …

Read more

Movie theater revenue and attendance remain stuck below pre-pandemic levels. In the streaming era, audiences increasingly prefer the couch to the cinema.

—Pew Research Center

Subscribe now

The 2026 Academy Awards are Sunday night. But behind Hollywood’s biggest celebration lies an uncomfortable reality: The movie theater business is in steep decline.

Nearly six years after the pandemic, theaters remain a shadow of their former selves. In 2025, the domestic box office totaled just $8.6 billion, down -3% from 2023 and -24% from 2019.

The drop in ticket sales is even more dramatic. In 2025, just 769 million movie tickets were sold across the US and Canada, down -6% from 2023 and -37% from 2019. The longer-term fall is even starker. Ticket sales are now -51% below their 2002 peak, when blockbuster franchises like Harry Potter, Spider-Man, The Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars dominated the big screen.

In AMC’s 4Q earnings call, the movie theater chain reported that global attendance fell -10% from the same period the year prior. The company also said it plans to continue closing more theaters. AMC, down -62% YoY, is now trading at barely $1.00 per share. If it doesn’t rediscover its meme stock mojo, the shadow of bankruptcy looms.

Hollywood is also spending far less on film production. According to FilmLA, filming permits in Los Angeles County totaled just 19.7K in 2025, down -49% from 2018 and roughly on par with 2020, when the world shut down due COVID-19. Part of the decline reflects productions moving out of California to cheaper locations. But it also reflects a broader shift in media spending, as studios redirect more of their budgets toward live programming, especially sports.

So why aren’t people going to the movies? The primary reason is streaming. The average American household now subscribes to four streaming services, spending about $69 per month. For many consumers, it makes more sense to wait for a new release to appear on Netflix or HBO, platforms they already pay for. With movie tickets now costing $13–$18 each, a single trip to the theater can easily cost more than an entire month of streaming. Indeed, the traditional ritual of the 200-minute, in-and-out theater experience may not survive the impact of the 10-hour, multi-episode streaming binge.

For Hollywood, the problem is simple: Consumers still love movies, but increasingly prefer watching them at home.

Americans are more likely than people in other countries to say their society is immoral. They also express some of the strongest moral judgments about their own people’s behavior.

—Pew Research Center

Subscribe now

According to a new Pew survey spanning 25 countries, Americans are the most critical of their fellow citizens. Fully 53% of US adults say the morality and ethics of Americans are “somewhat or very bad.” That’s +25 percentage points above the cross-country median (28%). What’s more, the US is the only country where a majority believes their fellow countrymen are more bad than good.

This is the first year Pew has asked this question, so there’s no historical data to show whether Americans are becoming more judgmental over time. But other data suggest partisan views of morality have hardened in recent years.

Between 2016 and 2022, the share of Republicans who say Democrats are immoral rose +25 points, to 72%. And the share of Democrats who say Republicans are immoral climbed +28 points, to 63%. Similar increases occurred in how each party demonizes the other: closed-minded, dishonest, unintelligent, and lazy.

At the same time, Americans appear to have stricter standards of morality than most of the countries surveyed. Pew asked respondents whether nine behaviors were morally acceptable or unacceptable. In many cases, Americans were more likely than others to condemn them.

For example, 90% of Americans say extramarital affairs are morally wrong, +13 percentage points above the cross-country median (77%). 39% say homosexuality is immoral, +11 points above the median (28%). And 23% say getting a divorce is unacceptable, also +11 points above the median (12%).

However, in two areas, Americans were among the most permissive in the world. Only 23% say using marijuana is morally wrong, -29 percentage points below the cross-country median (52%). And just 29% say gambling is immoral, -20 points below the median (49%). That said, other surveys suggest American attitudes toward sports betting are becoming more negative as legalization spreads. (See “The Sports Betting Backlash Has Begun.”)

Because this is the first time Pew has fielded these questions, we cannot yet tell from this survey how Americans have changed over the last decade. But we do know that cultural attitudes have shifted in a more conservative direction over the last several years. (See “Social Conservatism Has Risen Since the Pandemic” and “LGBT Identification Rises, But Public Support Declines.”) Since it’s plausible that conservatives use a higher bar of acceptability in responding to these nine questions, then it probably is true that the recent trend is toward more judgmentalism.

The current Fourth Turning has brought a renewed interest in asserting—and perhaps even enforcing—boundaries of acceptable behavior.

In South Korea, births have now risen for a second straight year. Although the country still has the lowest fertility rate in the world, the recent uptick suggests behavior may be shifting.

Read more