 |
|
|
|||||
Americans love small businesses. We dedicate a week each year to applauding them, and spend Small Business Saturday shopping locally. Yet hiding in plain sight is an enormous challenge facing small-business owners as they age: retiring with dignity and foresight. The current economic climate is making this even more difficult. As a professor who studies aging and business, Ive long viewed small-business owners retirement challenges as a looming crisis. The issue is now front and center for millions of entrepreneurs approaching retirement. Small enterprises make up more than half of all privately held U.S. companies, and for many of their owners, the business is their retirement plan. But while owners often hope to finance their golden years by selling their companies, only 20% of small businesses are ready for sale even in good times, according to the Exit Planning Institute. And right now, conditions are far from ideal. An economic stew of inflation, supply chain instability, and high borrowing costs means that interest from potential buyers is cooling. For many business owners, retirement isnt a distant concern. In the U.S., baby boomerswho are currently 61 to 79 years oldown about 2.3 million businesses. Altogether, they generate about $5 billion in revenue and employ almost 25 million people. These entrepreneurs have spent decades building businesses that often are deeply rooted in their communities. They dont have time to ride out economic chaos, and their optimism is at a 50-year low. New policies, new challenges You cant blame them for being gloomy. Recent policy shifts have only made life harder for business owners nearing retirement. Trade instability, whipsawing tariff announcements and disrupted supply chains have eroded already thin margins. Some businessesgenerally larger ones with more negotiating powerare absorbing extra costs rather than passing them on to shoppers. Others have no choice but to raise prices, to customers dismay. Inflation has further squeezed profits. At the same time, with a few notable exceptions, buyers and capital have grown scarce. Acquirers and liquidity have dried up across many sectors. The secondary market, a barometer of broader investor appetite, now sees more sellers than buyers. These are textbook symptoms of a flight to safety, a market shift that drags out sale timelines and depresses valuationsall while Main Street business owners age out. These entrepreneurs typically have one shot at retirement, if any. Adding to these woes, many small businesses are part of what economists call regional clusters, providing services to nearby universities, hospitals, and local governments. When those anchor institutions face budget cutsas is happening nowsmall-business vendors are often the first to feel the impact. Research shows that many aging owners actually double down in weak economic times, sinking increasing amounts of time and money in a psychological pattern known as escalating commitment. The result is a troubling phenomenon scholars refer to as benign entrapment. Aging entrepreneurs can remain attached to their businesses not because they want to, but because they see no viable exit. This growing crisis isnt about bad personal planning; its a systemic failure. Rewriting the playbook on small-business policy A key mistake that policymakers make is to lump all small-business owners together into one group. That causes them to overlook important differences. After all, a 68-year-old carpenter trying to retire doesnt have much in common with a 28-year-old tech founder pitching a startup. Policymakers may cheer for high-growth unicorns, but they often overlook the cows and horses that keep local economies running. Even among older business owners, circumstances vary based on local conditions. Two retiring carpenters in different towns may face vastly different prospects based on the strength of their local economies. No business, and no business owner, exists in a vacuum. Relatedly, when small businesses fail to transition, it can have consequences for the local economy. Without a buyer, many enterprises will simply shut down. And while closures can be long-planned and thoughtful, when a business closes suddenly, its not just the owner who loses. Employees are left scrambling for work. Suppliers lose contracts. Communities lose essential services. Four ways to help aging entrepreneurs Thats why I think policymakers should reimagine how they support small businesses, especially owners nearing the end of their careers. First, small-business policy should be tailored to age. A retirement-ready business shouldnt be judged solely by its growth potential. Rather, policies should recognize stability and community value as markers of success. The U.S. Small Business Administration and regional agencies can provide resources specifcally for retirement planning that starts early in a businesss life, to include how to increase the value of the business and a plan to attract acquirers in later stages. Second, exit infrastructure should be built into local entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are built to support business entry (think incubators and accelerators) but not for exit. In other words, just like there are accelerators for launching businesses, there should be programs to support winding them down. These could include confidential peer forums, retirement-readiness clinics, succession matchmaking platforms, and flexible financing options for acquisition. Third, chaos isnt good for anybody. Fluctuations in capital gains taxes, estate tax thresholds, and tariffs make planning difficult and reduce business value in the eyes of potential buyers. Stability encourages confidence on both sides of a transaction. And finally, policymakers should include ripple-effect analysis in budget decisions. When universities, hospitals or governments cut spending, small-business vendors often absorb much of the shock. Policymakers should account for these downstream impacts when shaping local and federal budgets. If we want to truly support small businesses and their owners, its important to honor the lifetime arc of entrepreneurshipnot just the launch and growth, but the retirement, too. Nancy Forster-Holt is a clinical associate professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Rhode Island. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Breakthroughs happen all the time in the tech world, but only a select few manage to make a lasting impact. Predicting which innovations will shape the future is always a challenge. On Tuesday, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its list of the top 10 emerging technologies of 2025, highlighting those expected to influence global challenges within the next three to five years. The list, compiled with the help of Frontiers Media, a publisher of peer-reviewed scientific journals, avoids naming specific companies. Instead, the WEF focuses on concepts that are both novel and nearing maturity, with the potential to deliver meaningful benefits to society. Here’s what the WEF sees as being on the path to a breakthrough in 2025. Advanced nuclear tech Demand for nuclear energy is on the rise, with the Trump administration pledging to fast-track permits for nuclear projects. The WEF predicts that smaller nuclear designs and alternative cooling systems will offer safer, cleaner energy at a lower cost. These reactors, it says, “could play a key role in building reliable, zero-carbon power systems.” Structural battery composites The weight of batteries has been a pain point for things like cars and planes, impacting their efficiency. New materials that store energy and support weight can make these vehicles lighter, improving both their performance and their environmental impact. Collaborative sensing Speaking of vehicles, networking connected sensors can let vehicles share information in real time with each other, as well as with cities and emergency services. In the case of an incident, this can reduce traffic, increase response times, and improve safety, the WEF says. Generative watermarking As artificial intelligence becomes even more widespread, distinguishing original content from AI-generated material will be critical. Generative watermarking adds an invisible tag to AI content, helping combat misinformation and build consumer trust. Green nitrogen Producing fertilizer today requires fossil fuels, which leads to pollution and carbon emissions. Green nitrogen, which relies on electricity instead, could offer “a more sustainable way to grow food,” the WEF says. GLP-1 drugs for neurodegenerative diseases GLP-1 drugs are currently used to treat obesity and diabetes. The WEF notes they are also showing promise in treating other diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Autonomous biochemical sensing Smart sensors capable of continuously monitoring environmental changes or human health without wires could unlock numerous possibilities. The medical field may use them for early disease detection, while scientists can apply them to track pollution and atmospheric trends. Nanozymes Naturally occurring enzymes help clean pollution and are used in medical diagnostics. Lab-made versions, called nanozymes, are stronger and cheaper, which could expand their use in a variety of applications. Engineered living therapeutics Long-term medical care is expensive and often inconsistent in its results. Scientists, according to the WEF, are developing therapies that use beneficial bacteria to deliver treatments from within the body. This approach could lower costs and improve success rates. Osmotic power systems This renewable energy source, which uses the pressure difference that occurs when freshwater and saltwater mix, produces a cleaner form of electricity. That can be especially helpful in coastal areas where special care must be taken to protect both the environment and wildlife.
Category:
E-Commerce
As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Ive spent the past two decades treating young people and working with families in crisis. And I can tell you this: The threats to youth mental health are bigger than we think, and theyre not coming from where you might expect. While the stigma around therapy and psychiatric care may be slowly receding, access to care is under siege. We’re watching mental health supports erode at exactly the moment families need them most. And in the name of reform, new political efforts like the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) executive order are introducing even more barriers. To be clear, we should absolutely be thoughtful about how we deliver care and prevent misuse of medication in kids’ mental health treatment. But what we cannot do is politicize or pathologize the very tools that save lives. A system in retreat We are in the middle of a youth mental health crisis. According to the CDC, suicide was the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10 to 14 in 2023, the latest CDC data available. One in five children has a diagnosable mental health condition, yet almost two-thirds receive little to no treatment at all. And when care is delayed, the consequences can be severe: school dropout, addiction, chronic illness, even early death. Yet, despite this, we’re watching key supports disappear: School-based mental health programs are being defunded. These programs often catch problems early and are sometimes the only care option for underserved kids. Telehealth access is under threat, despite being a lifeline for rural families and working parents during the pandemic. Medicaid redeterminations have put millions of children at risk of losing coverage. Mental health medication access is being undermined by supply chain issues and growing skepticism around use, especially for conditions like ADHD. MAHAs emphasis on “over-utilization” of psychiatric medication only adds to the problem. When we focus on the wrong risks, we distract from the real ones: untreated illness, suffering families, and preventable tragedies. Stigma with a new disguise Im seeing more and more skepticism about psychiatric treatment. Questions like, “Are we overmedicating kids?” or “Shouldnt we be building resilience instead?” The thing is, its not either-or. We treat diabetes with insulin and teach healthy habits. We manage asthma with inhalers and reduce environmental triggers. Mental health should be no different. Framing treatment as a failure, or something we should avoid unless weve tried everything else, only drives families deeper into shame. And for kids, that can translate into silence, hopelessness, and danger. What kids and families actually need We need a new model for mental health careone that meets families where they are, uses the best available evidence, and doesnt leave them to figure it all out alone. Heres what that looks like: Integrated, team-based care. No one provider can do it all. Kids need therapists, psychiatric providers, and coaches who work together. Early, proactive support. The longer we wait, the worse outcomes get. Lets reach kids early, way before they actually hit a crisis. Technology that expands access, not replaces care. Telehealth and digital tools can help families overcome logistical barriers, especially when thoughtfully designed. Respect for families. Parents shouldnt feel judged for seeking care. They should be met with empathy and real options. Investment in workforce and innovation. We need to train more clinicians, pay them fairly, and support research into better treatments. How can policymakers and leaders help? So what can we actually do? First, we need to protect telehealth paritybecause where a child lives shouldnt determine whether they can see a therapist. We need to fully fund school-based programs, so kids have access to care where they spend most of their time. And we have to stabilize Medicaid enrollment to prevent kids from falling through the cracks just because of paperwork. We also must raise reimbursement rates for mental health carebecause when providers burn out or leave the field, families are the ones left scrambling. Finally, we need to push back on stigmaespecially in the way we write and talk about mental health in policy. This isnt the time for vague language or political posturing. Its time to be clear, evidence-based, and human. Silence isnt neutral It can feel risky to speak up. But as a clinician, a mom, and a human being, I cant stay quiet while kids fall through the cracks. This isnt about left or right. Its about right and wrong. Its about whether were willing to invest in our childrens future or continue to make care harder to reach. Mental health isnt a luxury. And every child deserves the chance to feel better. Lets stop building roadblocks and start building a future grounded in compassion, care, and real support. Monika Roots, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and the cofounder, president, and chief medical officer of Bend Health.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||