gshc2020.com

Sellers of deliciously addictive cookie-flavored treats? Sure. Nefarious as hell. But car manufacturers and dealers were singled out by Congress in the mid-1950s, when an Oklahoma Democrat (we know, times sure have changed), Senator Almer Stillwell Monroney, spearheaded legislation called the Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958.

Thereafter, that window sticker was dubbed a "Monroney." In accordance with federal law, they are still used today and are affixed to either the windshield or a side window of the car. They include crucial details, namely, and most importantly, the MSRP. The letter S in that acronym stands for "suggested," and, by law, it is the amount the manufacturer suggests the car should sell for. But MSRP includes padding for the dealer, i.e., their profit. They pay a dealer invoice price, and when you shop, you're trying to squirm below the MSRP and above their invoice price. Squirming is the trick. And it's why we just love car dealers, right?

You can't know the invoice, but you can get close to what that car is worth

Acilo/Getty Images

Car dealers don't want to tell you what they paid for their inventory, any more than the grocer wants to tell you the price they paid for the T-bone. Because you would never want to pay more than what that steak costs them. So you're unlikely to know the invoice price, but that's okay, because there are tools to tell you what the car model you're after is actually selling for.

One handy source is Truecar.com, a transaction-based database that provides a live index of what cars are actually selling for. Yes, we know, TrueCar isn't a charity. They're in the business of helping car dealers sell their wares. And their network of 13,000 franchises represents about 35% of the nation's dealers. So even if you don't buy through them, this gives you a decently-sized snapshot, sorted for your zip code, so you could bring it to your dealer as an argument for what others are paying compared to the MSRP. In the case of this Ford Mustang Mach-E, we found a savings of $2,361 off the $39,840 MSRP.

TrueCar says its data reflects about two months of sales, and that its transaction prices run within $20 of the nationwide average. They also saytheir TrueCar Price Graph is weighted by similarly configured vehicles, and that's important. It should make it easier to ballpark, say, the car optioned with heated seats and the upgraded sound system, without having to know if that's the XLE or the LX or whatever packaging that lives in the dealer's head — but probably not yours.

You can use similar tools for used-car shopping

Anna Barclay/Getty Images

TrueCar is hardly the only tool in the game. Edmunds shows what it calls the Edmunds Suggested Price, and like TrueCar's Price Graph, it's a measure of what other shoppers are paying in your area. Yep, Edmunds is in the business of selling cars, and they're owned by CarMax. They use CarMax and other dealer data to determine the Edmunds Suggested Price. Even so, when we faux shopped for the 2026 sales champion, the Honda CR-V in the Los Angeles area, their $35,915 suggested price was $1,493 below the $37,080 MSRP.

If you're shopping used, CarGurus offers a ballpark of the average selling price of most models. This is based on what they call Instant Market Value, which works much like the tools on TrueCar and Edmunds and grades sale prices for listings in your area on a scale of Great, Good, Fair, High, or Overpriced. CarGurus says they track data at a granular level, including factors such as mileage and trim. 

One downside of CarGurus is that it only tracks used-car dealer pricing, not private used-car sales. Even so, their network of over 40,000 dealers should give you a good idea of the going rate for a specific model, and that data will come in handy when negotiating with a private seller.

And used- and new-car transactions are more alike than you think, because MSRP is a mythical figure that isn't what most people pay. The statistic that matters is the average price at which any car is actually selling for. And knowing that number is a far better baseline for getting the price you want.  %!s()

The opposition leader, Angus Taylor, last week used a major speech to argue Hanson’s platform would cost more than $1tn over a decade, force the Reserve Bank to lift rates and even risk a sovereign debt crisis.

Appearing on Sky News, Joyce – who is now One Nation’s treasury spokesperson – brushed off Taylor’s attack.

Sky News host Andrew Clennell asked Joyce if the party would submit all of its policies to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) for costings, to which he replied:

double quotation markWe will do it to the best of our ability.

Pressed for a guarantee, Joyce said:

double quotation markI’m not going to give a sort of guarantee like that, Andrew, because that means I have the resources to do it.

And if I get the promise that we’re going to have the resources to do it, it certainly makes it a lot easier.

It is important to note that One Nation’s staffing numbers should have no bearing on its capacity to submit costings to the PBO. The budget office is available to all MPs – including independents – to provide independent analysis of their proposals.

Asked by Clennell if One Nation would be prepared to fund additional staff itself, Joyce said:

double quotation markWe’ll have to.

Key events

• 1h ago

  Joyce declines to guarantee One Nation policies will be costed before next election

• 1h ago

  Queensland man charged with DV murder after remains found believed to be those of missing mother

In some more from that Pat Conroy Insiders interview, the minister defended a new deal with India allowing it to buy Australian uranium despite not being a signatory to the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

During the week, with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, visiting Australia, the two countries announced a a new uranium deal which Anthony Albanese said would enable uranium exports to flow to India for “peaceful purposes” – mainly, energy production.

Australia had previously struck a deal with India to sell uranium to the country in 2014, but regular shipments have not occurred due to concerns it could be used for weapons.

Conroy told the ABC:

double quotation markGovernments of both persuasions, both the liberal, previous government and our government have been working towards putting in place safeguards, so that we are confident that the uranium will only be used for their domestic energy production.

We’re satisfied that the systems are in place for that. And that’s why we’ve been in the position to reach the agreement that we’ve been.

Conroy did not detail the new “safeguards” to stop India from using the uranium to make nuclear weapons, and said:

double quotation markWe’re responsible for what our uranium is used for.

What India does with its uranium is a question for them.

Defence industry minister says Pacific in “arms race” after Chinese missile test

Labor MP Pat Conrory, the minister for defence industry and pacific island affairs, says China’s recent missile test has both hurt its standing in the region and contributed to an “arms race”.

Conroy has been interviewed on ABC’s Insiders program this morning, six days after a People’s Liberation Army Navy submarine test fired a ballistic missile into the South Pacific nuclear-free zone.

The missile test - China’s second in the region in less than two years – prompted swift condemnation from leaders including the US, Australia and New Zealand, who accused Beijing of “destabilising” the region.

Conroy told the ABC:

double quotation markWhat we’re seeing in the region is the biggest arms race, the biggest buildup of military since 1945 and concerningly, that is occurring without any transparency or strategic reassurance.

This is a race where we need to make sure that the Ausrtalian Defence Force has the best possible equipment, and that’s why we’re providing the biggest peacetime increase in defence funding ever.

Conroy said the government bringing forward “critical air defence”, though he dodged questions about whether Australia would be able to defend an attack from a missile like the one China used, were one to occur right now.

He said conflict in the Pacific would be the “nightmare scenario” and that:

double quotation markWe’re prepared for a conflict in our region. Everyone is working very hard to avoid it.

My colleagues overseas have written this helpful explainer about the missile test, which you can read here:

Joyce declines to guarantee One Nation policies will be costed before next election

Dan Jervis-Bardy

One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce has failed to guarantee the party will cost all of its policies ahead of the election after the Coalition claimed the rightwing party’s agenda would destroy the budget and drive up interest rates.

The opposition leader, Angus Taylor, last week used a major speech to argue Hanson’s platform would cost more than $1tn over a decade, force the Reserve Bank to lift rates and even risk a sovereign debt crisis.

Appearing on Sky News, Joyce – who is now One Nation’s treasury spokesperson – brushed off Taylor’s attack.

Sky News host Andrew Clennell asked Joyce if the party would submit all of its policies to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) for costings, to which he replied:

double quotation markWe will do it to the best of our ability.

Pressed for a guarantee, Joyce said:

double quotation markI’m not going to give a sort of guarantee like that, Andrew, because that means I have the resources to do it.

And if I get the promise that we’re going to have the resources to do it, it certainly makes it a lot easier.

It is important to note that One Nation’s staffing numbers should have no bearing on its capacity to submit costings to the PBO. The budget office is available to all MPs – including independents – to provide independent analysis of their proposals.

Asked by Clennell if One Nation would be prepared to fund additional staff itself, Joyce said:

double quotation markWe’ll have to.

Queensland man charged with DV murder after remains found believed to be those of missing mother

Queensland police say they have charged a 48-year-old man with domestic violence murder after finding a body believed to be missing mother Jana Armstrong.

Police said human remains were found overnight in bushland off Esk Hampton Road in Redbank Creek, northeast of Toowoomba, and they have declared the area a crime scene.

While the remains were yet be formally identified as of 7.30am this morning, police said believed they they were Armstrong’s and that they were in contact with her family.

Armstrong had been reported missing from Newtown after she was last seen on 7 July.

Police said Darling Downs district detectives arrested a 48-year-old man using a search warrant at a property on West St in nearby Harristown, and charged him with one count of murder (domestic violence offence).

The man is due to appear at the Toowoomba Magistrates Court tomorrow, police said.

As part of their ongoing investigation, police have asked anyone with information, or relevant CCTV, dashcam or other vision to contact them.

Police say investigators are particularly interested in dashcam or CCTV vision between Toowoomba and Esk, along Esk Hampton Road and the New England Highway, taken between 10.30pm on 7 July and 1.30am on 8 July.

Catie McLeod

Welcome

Hello, I hope you’re having a nice weekend. I’m Catie McLeod and I’ll take you through today’s breaking news.

A man has been charged with murder after the discovery of remains believed to be a missing Queensland woman. Details on that shortly. %!s()

Today, of course, most Americans live considerably longer, around 79 years on average.

"It's an extraordinary thing that we can now expect to live long lives—unless we're extremely unlucky—and more than that, to be relatively high functioning," said Yale Law School's Samuel Moyn. "I'm interested in, let's say, the dark side of that. What are the unexpected consequences of having longer lives?

The answers to that question are the basis for his new book, "Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It."

What Moyn calls "the great aging" has, he says, transformed America into a society in which older people control a disproportionate amount of political power and wealth and "hoard" jobs and housing, depriving the young of opportunity and political say.

Some of the statistics Moyn cites: The median age of congresspeople is more than 60. The median age of voters is 52; in some campaigns, donor ages average as high as 70. Workers over the age of 55 now comprise nearly a quarter of the workforce, compared to 10% in 1990.

Wealth is increasingly concentrated among the old, as is homeownership.

"If Americans deserve a society that is oriented to innovation and problem-solving, and equips and launches the young into the prime of life, the country is heading the wrong direction," Moyn writes.

His book prescribes a host of possible strategies for wresting control from the aged, from making voting mandatory and boosting public funding of elections to reevaluating age-related tax breaks and bringing back mandatory retirements. Finally, he suggests that a more socialistic model of elder care in America would help reduce the angst around aging that compels older workers to cling to jobs and wealth.

Moyn (who—it's worth noting—is in his mid-fifties) is the Kent Professor of Law and History at YLS and in Yale's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and head of Grace Hopper College at Yale. His previous books include "Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War" (2021), "Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World" (2018), and "The Last Utopia" (2010).

He sat down with Yale News to talk about how the gerontocracy has alienated younger voters, why he supports abolishing the U.S. Senate, and his own plans for retirement.

You say that older people are 'hoarding' jobs and wealth. One of the examples you devote considerable attention to is the concentration of political power in the older generation—including who is in elected office, who is funding those campaigns, and who votes. What are the ramifications of this?

I'm trying to shift the conversation a little beyond the very real and—I think—widely appreciated problem of the elderliness of our political class to also consider the age of the electorate. It wouldn't change much to just have younger politicians because the electorate is so old and the money going into campaigns is so old.

The ramifications are that as we age, there are things that we are likely to want more than we did before, and things we are less likely to want, such as addressing long-term crises like climate change or national debt. Of course, there are going to be exceptions—I'm not saying that all younger people are Democrats and all older people are Republicans. My bigger claim is that younger people are less conservative with a small c, and older people are likely to be more backward-oriented than future-oriented, more set on preservation than renovation. I'm most concerned about those general patterns.

You hold special disdain for the U.S. Senate, in which the median age of members is currently around 64. You would like to see it abolished. Why?

I argue that our founders really did have a conscious agenda of giving power to old people, adopting a Council of Elders like the one that ruled in Sparta, in which all members had to be 60 or over. My beef with the Senate is that in the name of stability it actually impedes progress and reform. And I'm upset that it's kind of a holdover from our archaic past, which is about having old people in power.

One way to deal with the impact of the lopsided proportion of older voters, you suggest, is to reduce the weight of the elder vote in elections. Peoples' votes would count for less the older they get. Why not a concerted effort to mobilize more young candidates and young voters instead?

I'm for all of the above. The spirit of the book is to tote up all the different solutions one might consider. In the electoral domain, I also have more modest ones, like relaxing voter registration requirements to avoid punishing mobility, or mandatory elections, or giving everyone the power to leave work to vote. We could also consider correlating our votes with our stake in the election, which in my opinion is greater when you have a longer time to live under the policies being chosen. Take climate change, for example. We have documented that the older you are, the less you care about it, for the very understandable reason that you'll be less affected by it.

I don't doubt that there could be a conjuncture in which youth get excited about politics again. But I think we should start with the observation of how alienated they are under gerontocracy.

You must have these conversations with your students. What do you hear from them?

I have two college-aged daughters, and they are alienated and resigned from the political system. I think that's true of GenZ and those younger. I reference the John Mayer song "Waiting on the World to Change," about disaffection and the indignity of being forced to wait your turn to wield power and then getting criticized for abstention. I'm all for shaming the youth—everyone can be more civically-minded. But there's a striking lack of empathy for how clear it is to them that they don't have a big part in the country's democracy. They're not wrong to think our system is broken. The question is whether we just say the only remedy is for them to do better. What about the rest of us?

One of your suggestions for getting more older people to retire, thereby freeing up jobs for younger people, is bringing back mandatory retirement provisions. Not across the board, but in some professions. Could that be considered a form of ageism?

No, I think we first have to determine what's fair for all. If it's fair, it can't be discriminatory. I'm concerned about ageism where it's discriminatory. I'm not concerned about undoing privilege when it's real and unfair.

You make the association between age and wealth—as of 2019, Americans over the age of 54 held nearly 72% of the country's wealth. Some of the reviewers of your book have argued that that wealth inequity is less generational than oligarchical, that wealth among the old is greatly concentrated among a minority. What's your response?

I don't think we can choose between taking oligarchy seriously and taking age seriously because the oligarchy is old. You have to combine both factors. I wouldn't be caught dead saying, "Men make more money than women, but that's not on account of sex or patriarchy. It's because of oligarchy." That's insane. Oligarchy and patriarchy go together and always have. Gerontocracy is a new phenomenon, but it explains the kind of oligarchy we have, which is older.

My response to those kinds of claims are that they don't really understand what class is. It's affected by gender and race as well as age. And we acknowledge that freely when it comes to gender and race. I'm interested in why there is this resistance to doing so with age when the evidence is so powerful that age helps constitute class ascendency or oligarchic power.

You end the book with a vision of a future in which seniors don't feel so nervous about letting go of their jobs and their wealth because there is a better social safety net for them. Would you talk about that?

Absolutely. I think that as a matter of moral principle, our welfare state is scandalous. Older people are not given enough benefits, especially when they're not oligarchs and they're poor. I emphasize throughout the book that among the worst victims of gerontocracy are older people who are not wealthy. We need to increase care, including the long-term care that is now excluded from our Medicare program. I envision a kind of grand bargain where we accept the stages in our lives, and in our last one, we're given not just care, but the chance to reinvent ourselves one last time. In exchange, we relinquish our power, including the forms of wealth that we've accumulated.

At what age will you retire?

I've had conversations with colleagues about this in response to my book. I would be very happy to retire any time once I get my kids through college. I'm hoping to retire before 70.

I'm sure the book is sparking lively conversations in many corners.

I hope there are some useful conversations in the mix. It's a consciousness-raising book: "Here are the grim but undeniable facts. Here are some proposals." If we don't take age seriously as a factor in politics, we really can't reform the country in the ways that are needed.

More information

Samuel Moyn, Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It (2026)

Who's behind this story?

Stephanie Baum

Master's in TESOL from The New School. Passionate about language learning and editing science news on biology and space exploration. Full profile →

Andrew Zinin

Master's in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X's editorial success. Full profile →

Citation: Q&A: Unforeseen consequences of the 'great aging' of America (2026, July 11) retrieved 11 July 2026 from https://phys.org/news/2026-07-qa-unforeseen-consequences-great-aging.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. %!s()