Connect with us


The Pixel Watch 2 marries Google brains with Fitbit brawn in an elegant design

It’s everything I hoped it would be.



The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.

In early October, at Google’s annual Made by Google event, the Android maker announced the Pixel 8 and Pixel 8 Pro alongside its second-generation smartwatch, the Pixel Watch 2.

You can order the Pixel Watch 2 for $349 for the Wi-Fi model or $399 for the LTE variant. It comes in matte black, polished silver, or a champagne gold housing paired with vibrant watch bands.

I’ve tested Google’s Pixel Watch 2 for the last two weeks, putting it through its paces, testing out its new stress monitoring feature, and getting in some workouts when I had a chance. And you know what? It’s exactly what I wanted to see in the first-generation Pixel Watch, and that’s not a bad thing at all. 

Get It At Amazon.
Get It At BestBuy.

Google Pixel Watch 2 pros and cons

Google Pixel Watch 2 Pros and Cons


Fitbit integration enables a bevy of health features

Needs multiple sizes like the Galaxy Watch or Apple Watch

Battery life is just good enough

Battery life is just good enough

Improved software for a more fluid expereince

A nearly identical design

Jason Cipriani/TheStreet

I still have the original Pixel Watch, albeit in a matte black finish instead of the polished silver color option I picked this time around. Placing them side by side, color differences aside, I’m having a hard time telling them apart.

The Pixel Watch 2 is the same 41mm size, translating to a 1.2-inch display with a rotating crown for navigating the watch's interface on the right side. Just above it is the lone button, which appears to be slightly larger than last year’s, which helps with finding and pressing it. I struggled with using the button on the original Pixel Watch, and I can’t say I’ve had the same experience with the Watch 2.

Google kept its watch band release mechanism, making removing and replacing watch bands simple. The bands that worked on the first-gen Pixel Watch will work on Watch 2 and vice versa.

On the bottom of the watch are the health-related sensors and four new contact points that weren’t on last year’s model. Those contact points are part of the new charging connection that facilitates a faster charging speed for Watch 2. That, unfortunately, means that last year’s Pixel Watch charger can’t be used on this year’s model.

Related: With Samsung's New Galaxy Watch 6 and Watch 6 Classic, Android users continue to have solid options

One small gripe about the new charging cable is that there’s only one way it’ll attach to the bottom of the watch, and that’s with the cord facing the same direction as the watch’s crown. Previously, as long as the charging pad stuck to the bottom of the watch, it was charging.

In addition to the contact points on the bottom of the watch, the sensor array has also expanded, adding more sensors for improved heart rate monitoring and a new stress-sensing feature.

I really enjoy the overall approach and design of the Pixel Watch 2, but after using the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 and the Apple Watch Ultra, I do wish there was a second, larger model. The Watch 2’s screen cuts off a lot of text and requires more scrolling than what you’d see on a larger screen, and that goes a long way in improving the overall experience.

Greatly improved battery life

Jason Cipriani/TheStreet

One of the biggest complaints about the original Pixel Watch was its battery life. If you were lucky, you could get a full 24 hours of use out of it, but it often meant charging in the middle of the day or skipping wearing it at night to track your sleep.

With the Pixel Watch 2, Google promises over 24-hour battery life to make it easier to track more workouts and your sleep. Over the last two weeks, with an average of 40 minutes of outdoor exercise with GPS active and tracking my sleep, I have been getting about 28 hours of use on a single charge.

While single-day battery life is an issue that plagues many smartwatches, the Pixel Watch 2’s battery performance isn’t something I had to worry about, nor will I complain about, outside of the never-ending wish that smartwatches could last several days.

Pure Google goodness

Jason Cipriani/TheStreet

The Pixel Watch 2 runs Wear OS 4.0, the latest and greatest software for Google’s wearable platform. It’s similar to what the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 runs, but without any added features and customizations Samsung tosses in. This is, if you will, the pure version of Wear OS 4.0. If you’re a longtime Pixel user and fan, you’ll know exactly what I mean by that, as that’s what the Pixel experience is known for.

You can install apps from the Play Store, view and interact with notifications, create custom watch faces, and control music playback all from the watch (in addition to the health and fitness features I’ll discuss below). Beyond those staple smartwatch features, there have been some key improvements made to Wear OS 4.0 that have made a big difference in the day-to-day experience.

Performance has been smooth and responsive during testing. Even when I pushed the Pixel Watch 2 during tasks like installing and updating apps while multitasking by signing into the apps as they installed, I didn't notice any sluggishness or overall slowdowns.

Related: Every new device Google announced today, from the colorful Pixel 8 Pro to the souped-up Pixel Watch 2

My favorite addition, by far, is the ability to sync the phone’s Do Not Disturb and Bedtime statuses with the watch. That means I can set a schedule for when the phone should automatically enter Do Not Disturb mode at night and another schedule for when it should enter Bedtime mode, and both of those modes sync with the Pixel Watch 2.

That may sound like a small feature, but in practice, it means that when you lay down at night to sleep, you no longer have to remember to manually put the watch in either mode, stopping it from dinging and vibrating all night while you sleep, thanks to Do Not Disturb, and preventing the screen from lighting up every time you move your wrist thanks to Bedtime mode.

Admittedly, you won’t have to use this all that often, but it’s one that Apple should copy as soon as possible. When switching phones, the process of moving your watch from your old phone to the new one used to require you to factory reset the watch and then set it up all over again on the new phone. However, the Watch’s settings app now has a transfer phone option.

I tried it last night just to see what the process was like, and to my surprise, it took all of 60 seconds to connect the watch to a different phone. Once done, all my settings, including the PIN code I use to unlock the watch, synced over without issue. I literally had to tap a couple of buttons on the phone and another couple on the watch, and it was done.

Google also added native Google Calendar and Gmail apps to the Pixel Watch 2, which means you can view your daily and hourly agenda right from your wrist.

Overall, though, Google made some progress on improving the Wear OS experience with the Pixel Watch 2, and I’m looking forward to seeing continued improvements.

More Fitbit than ever

Jason Cipriani/TheStreet

With last year’s launch of the Pixel Watch, we saw Google implement Fitbit’s platform and services into the Watch’s health and fitness features. Fitbit’s longstanding history and user confidence bolstered the Pixel Watch as a fitness device, even though it lacked some basic features at launch.

With the Pixel Watch 2, Google doubled down the amount of Fitbit you’ll find throughout the entire experience, with one caveat. Starting with the Pixel Watch 2 and the Fitbit Charge 6, you’ll need to transition your Fitbit account to a Google-linked account before you can set up and use either device. This is problematic for some, like me, who managed my kids' Fitbit accounts for years, a fact that prevents me from making the migration.

Instead, I had to use a secondary Google account for testing, so I didn’t have any of my account history and achievements that date back over a decade. I only mention this because I’m sure others will have to make a decision similar to mine.

Once you’re set up and running, you’ll experience the new Fitbit app layout comprising three primary tabs. The first is where you’ll find all your health measurements, like your readiness score, steps taken, sleep score, and the new stress score feature that leverages a dedicated sensor on the Pixel Watch 2 to monitor your body for changes that could indicate stress.

When the watch detects one of these instances, you’ll receive an alert on your watch asking you how you’re feeling at that moment. You can pick from optics like stressed, frustrated, or content. If you pick the former two, the watch suggests walking or doing one of the built-in breathing exercises to ease stress.

Jason Cipriani/TheStreet

My experience with the new stress tool has been impressive. The first day I wore the Watch 2, I received a prompt early in the day that it had, down to the exact minute, detected I could be stressed. Indeed, I was at that time, and I could log it in the app. Since then, I’ve randomly received the same prompt, sometimes when I felt perfectly content and other times when I was overly frustrated.

Over time, having a log of these moments is a handy way to put a spotlight on how well I handle or don’t handle stressful situations.

I don’t quite understand Fitbit’s readiness score and how it’s measured. You have to wear the watch for a specific number of days, monitoring your activity and your sleep, and then each day, you’ll get a readiness number to help you see how recharged your body is for the day’s tasks. The first few days, I had a readiness score available to me, but it was never more than a score of 1. Yes, 1. And then, I took a single day break from wearing the Pixel Watch 2, and my readiness score disappeared for a few days again. In the Fitbit app, there’s a prompt letting me know my score is being fine-tuned, and after 14 days of use, it’ll be more accurate. Perhaps that’s the case, but it sure feels like a lot of work.

Outside of the extra features, the Fitbit app still has all of its staple features for measuring how long and well you slept, counting your steps, and tracking workouts, and it does all of that just as well as Fitbit’s apps always have. 

Bottom line: Is the Pixel Watch 2 worth it?

Jason Cipriani/TheStreet

If you’re shopping for a smartwatch that works with an Android phone, you have a few options. You can go with Samsung’s Galaxy Watch 6 lineup, which arguably offers the best overall experience for Android users, or you can go with Google’s Pixel Watch 2. With the Galaxy Watch 6, you’re getting a heavily Samsung experience and have more options for design and size.

With the Pixel Watch 2, you’re getting an arguably more elegant design, though you have to be happy with just one size, and a full-on Google-tailored experience that’s going to continue to get new features and updates before the rest of the Wear OS smartwatches.

At $349 for the Wi-Fi model ($399 for the LTE version), it’s priced in line with the rest of the Android smartwatch market while also admitting it’d be a lot more attractive if it were priced under $300.

Get It At Amazon.
Get It At BestBuy.

Google Pixel Watch 2 specs

Google Pixel Watch 2 Specifcations

Pixel Watch 2


41-milimeter (1.2-inches)

Operating System

WearOS 4.0


Qualcomm SW5100

Memory (RAM)







Aluminum case


Matte black, Polished silver, or Champagne gold


$349 for Wi-Fi or $399 for Wi-Fi + LTE


The #PixelWatch2 might look like the PixelWatch, but it improved with better performance and health features. #wearos #fitbit #smartwatch #googlepixel #teampixel #circular #hold

♬ A Cover Is Not the Book - Emily Blunt & Lin-Manuel Miranda & Company - Mary Poppins Returns

Prices are accurate and items in stock at time of publishing.

Read More

Continue Reading


Beer bankruptcy apocalypse claims another fan-favorite brand



Before the covid pandemic, craft breweries had a moment. Beer snobs ruled the day, creating a market for local brewers to expand their businesses into regional distribution.

The demand for interesting beers was clear: Younger drinkers drove a movement that pushed local brewers to challenge the established brands. But that movement was wiped out once covid hit because craft brewers relied on people visiting their breweries.

Related: Retailer goes from Chapter 11 bankruptcy to Chapter 7 liquidation

Even brands that had good distribution in grocery and liquor stores suffered during the period where people could not visit their brewery/bar locations. It was a financial drain that pushed a number of these popular brands to the edge of ruin.

And after the pandemic ended, many of these beer brands suffered as younger consumers moved away from drinking beer, Some embraced the alcohol-free mocktail movement while others simply swapped cocktails, hard seltzers or other alcohol for beer.

Now, the craft beer industry is facing an apocalypse. Most famously, Anchor Brewing, the San Francisco icon that had national distribution, shut down last summer. A wave of bankruptcies followed, including regional favorites like Chicago’s Metropolitan Brewing, New Jersey’s Flying Fish, Denver’s Joyride Brewing, Tampa’s Zydeco Brew Werks and Cleveland’s Terrestrial Brewing.

It has been a devastating run for the craft-beer industry, and the bleeding has not stopped.

It has been a rough period for craft breweries.

Image source: Shutterstock

Another brewery files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

A brewery that touts being at an 8,530-foot elevation, Guanella Pass, also has the distinction of being the first brewery in Georgetown, Colo., since Prohibition. The company described its two locations on its website,   

“At the foot of the Guanella Pass Scenic Byway in Historic Georgetown, CO, sits the original Brewery, and at the foot of Berthoud Pass in downtown Empire sits our second tap room and kitchen. A true mountain brewery,” the company says. 

“We believe that where you drink beer is as important as what beer you drink. So leave the grind behind, sit for a bit, and share a story or two. Because here, all you need is what you have and a good beer.”

The brewery also distributes its beers regionally at a number of locations in Colorado.

Guanella Pass continues to operate after its late-December Chapter 11 filing and the brewery has an upcoming big event scheduled for Feb. 17.

“Pass it along, there’s a Pig Roast in town! Join us at Guanella Pass for our piggy throw down! We’ll be smokin’ this bad boy starting late Friday night to get ready for our grand meat cutting at 3pm. Feel free to swing by and say hi to our BBQ crew. It’s $15 per plate, come and grab some before we run out,” the company said on its website. 

Guanella Pass has a lot of debt

In its bankruptcy filing, Guanella Pass disclosed that it had $2.3 million of debt while bringing in only $860,000 of revenue in the previous year. The company showed $72,000 in assets at the time of the filing. 

The brewer, which hopes to restructure its debt and keep operating, has a significant number of creditors,

“It owes $573,000 to First Savings Bank, which loaned it money in 2021, and $256,000 to the Clear Creek Economic Development Corp., a nonprofit that loaned it money in 2019. Both loans are collateralized by the property at 501 Rose St. in Georgetown,” the Denver Post reported.

The brewer also owes its majority shareholders, Steven and Stacey Skalski, $700,000. In addition, the company has an unpaid $135,000 loan with the U.S, Small Business Administration and owes the Colorado Department of Revenue $100,000 along with $32,000 to its food vendor, $22,000 to its bookkeeper and $10,000 to its power company, the newspaper reported.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024


Continue Reading


Public Health from the People



There are many ways to privately improve public health. Such responses make use of local knowledge, entrepreneurship, and civil society and pursue standard goals of public health like controlling the spread of infectious diseases. Moreover, private responses improve overall welfare by lowering the total costs of a disease and limiting externalities. If private responses can produce similar outcomes as standard, governmental public health programs—and more—perhaps we should reconsider when and where we call upon governments to improve public health.

Two Kinds of Private Responses

Following Vernon Smith and his distinction between constructivist and ecological rationality, private actors can engage in two general kinds of public health improvements. They can engage in concerted efforts to improve public health, and they can engage in emergent responses through myriad interactions.1 Three stories below—about William Walsh, Martha Claghorn, and Edwin Gould—indicate concerted efforts to improve public health.

Walsh, a Catholic priest and President of the Father Matthew Society in Memphis, Tennessee, used the society to organize a refugee camp outside of the city and helped hundreds of people avoid yellow fever during the 1878 epidemic—one of the worst yellow fever epidemics in the country.2 Shortly after learning mosquitos carried diseases prior to 1901, Claghorn chaired the Civics committee of the Twentieth Century Club in the Richmond Hill area of Long Island and led a community-wide anti-mosquito campaign, which rid the area of potentially infectious mosquitos.3 After realizing that many of his employees were sick with malaria, Gould—president of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway—used his wealth and business firm to finance and develop an anti-mosquito campaign throughout Texas.4

These stories show how individuals recognize a public health problem given their circumstances and use their knowledge and available resources to resolve the problem. More recently, we might all be familiar with private, constructivist responses to Covid-19. We all made plans to avoid others and produce our desired amount of exposure. Many people made facemasks from old clothes or purchased them from facemask producers. Businesses, retailers, restaurants, and many others adapted in various ways to limit exposure for their workers and customers. My favorite example, albeit not relevant for most, is the so-called bubble that was implemented by the NBA, which housed teams, encouraged play, and limited infection. The NBA finished their season and crowned a 2020 champion only because of the privately designed and implemented bubble solution. The key is that the bubble pursued all of those objectives, not just one of them. All of these responses indicate how private interactions among people can minimize their exposure, through negotiation, discussion, and mutually beneficial means.

In addition to privately designed solutions, emergent public health responses are also important, perhaps even more so. Long-term migration and settlement patterns away from infectious diseases, consumption to improve nutrition, hygiene, sanitation, and the development of social norms to encourage preventative behavior are all different kinds of emergent public health responses. Each of these responses—developed through the actions of no one person—are substantial ways to improve public health.

First, consider how common migration operates as a means of lowering prevalence rates. As soon as people realized that living near stagnant bodies of water increased the probability of acquiring diseases like malaria, they were more likely to leave those areas and subsequently avoid them. Places with such features became known as places to avoid; people also developed myths to dissuade visitors and inhabitants.5 Such myths and associations left places like the Roman Campagna desolate for centuries. These kinds of cultural associations are also widespread; for example, many people in North and South Carolina moved to areas with higher elevation and took summer vacations to avoid diseases like malaria. East End and West End, in London, also developed because of the opportunities people had to migrate away from (and towards) several diseases.6

While these migration patterns might develop over decades, movement and migration also help in more acute public health crises. During the 1878 yellow fever epidemic throughout the southern United States, for example, thousands of people fled their cities to avoid infection. They took any means of transportation they could find. While some fled to other, more northern cities, many acquired temporary housing in suburbs, and many formed campsites and refugee camps outside of their city. The refugee camps outside of Memphis—like the one formed by William Walsh—helped hundreds and thousands of people avoid infection throughout the Fall of 1878.

Second, more mundane public health improvements—like improvements in nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation—are also emergent. These improvements arise from the actions of individuals and entrepreneurs, often closely associated with voluntary consumption and markets. According to renowned medical scientist Thomas McKeown, that is, rising incomes encouraged voluntary changes in consumption, which helped improve nutrition, sanitation, and lowered mortality rates.7 These effects were especially pertinent for women and mothers as they often selected more nutritious food and altered household sanitation practices. With advancing ideas about germs, moreover, historian Nancy Tomes argues that private interests advanced the campaign to improve house-hold sanitation and nutrition—full of advice and advertisements in newspapers, magazines, manuals, and books.8 Following Tomes, economic historians Rebecca Stein and Joel Mokyr substantiate these ideas and show that people changed their hygiene, sanitation, house-hold cleaning habits, and diets as they learned more about germs.9 Such developments helped people to provide their desired exposure to germs according to their values.

Obviously, there were concerted public health improvements during this time that also explain falling mortality rates. For example, waterworks were conscious efforts to improve public health and were provided publicly and privately, with similar, positive effects on health.10 The point is that while we might be quick to connect the health improvements associated with a public water system, we should also recognize emergent responses like gradual changes in voluntary consumption.

Finally, social norms or rules that encourage preventative behavior might also be relevant kinds of emergent public health responses. Such rules identify behavior that should or should not be allowed, they are enforced in a decentralized way, and if they follow from the values of individuals in a community.11 If such rules pertain to public health, they can raise the cost of infectious behavior or the benefits of preventative behavior. Covering one’s mouth when sneezing is not only beneficial from a public health perspective, it also helps avoid earning disapproval.

The condom code during the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is another example of an emergent public health rule that reduced infectiousness by encouraging safer behavior.12 People who adopted safer sexual practices were seen to be doing the right thing—akin to taking care of a brother. People who refrained from adopting safer sexual practices were admonished. No single person or entity announced the rule; rather, it emerged from the actions and interactions of individuals within various communities to pursue their goals regarding maintaining sexual activity and limiting the spread of disease. Indeed, such norms were more effective in communities where people used their social capital resources to determine which behaviors should be changed and where they can more easily monitor and enforce infractions. This seems like a relevant factor where many gay men and men who have sex with men live in dense urban areas like New York and Los Angeles that foster LGBTQ communities.

Covid-19 provides additional examples where social norms encouraged the use of seemingly appropriate behavior, e.g., social distancing, the use of facemasks, and vaccination. Regardless of any formal rule in place, many people adapted their behavior because of social norms that encouraged social distancing, the use of facemasks, and vaccination. In communities that valued such behaviors, people that wore face masks and vaccinated were praised and were seen as doing the right thing; people that did not were viewed with scorn. Indeed, states and cities that have higher levels of social capital and higher values for public health tend to have higher Covid-19 vaccine uptakes.13

Improving Public Health and More

“Private approaches tend to lower the total costs of diseases and they limit externalities.”

While these private approaches can improve public health, can they do more than typical public health approaches cannot? Private approaches tend to lower the total costs of diseases and they limit externalities. Each aspect of private responses requires additional explanation.

Responding to infectious diseases and disease prevention is doubly challenging because not only do we have to worry about being sick, we also have to consider the costs imposed by our preventative behaviors and the rules we might impose. Thus, the total costs of an infectious disease include 1) the costs related to the disease—the pain and suffering of a disease and the opportunity costs of being sick—and 2) the costs associated with preventative and avoidance behavior. While disease costs are mostly self-explanatory, the costs of avoiding infection warrant more explanation. Self-isolation when you have a cold, for example, entails the loss of potentially valuable social activities; and wearing condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases forfeits the pleasures of unprotected sexual activity. Diseases for which vaccines and other medicines are available are less worrisome, perhaps, because these are diseases with lower prevention costs than diseases where those pharmaceutical interventions are not available. Governmental means of prevention also add relevant costs. Many readers might be familiar with the costs imposed by our private and public responses to Covid—from isolation to learning loss, and from sharp decreases in economic activity to increased rates of depression and spousal abuse.14 Long before Covid, moreover, people bemoaned wearing masks during the Great Flu,15 balked at quarantine against yellow fever,16 and protested bathhouse closings with the onset of HIV.17

Figure 1 shows the overall problem: diseases are harmful but our responses to those diseases might also be harmful.

Figure 1. The Excess Burden of Infectious Diseases

This figure follows Bhattacharya, Hyde, and Tu (2013) and Philipson (2000), who refer to the difference between total costs and disease costs as the excess burden of a disease. That is, excess burden depends on how severely we respond to a disease in private and in public. The excess burden associated with the common cold tends to be negligible as we bear the minor inconvenience of a fever, a sore throat perhaps, or a couple days off work; moreover, most people don’t go out of their way to avoid catching a cold. The excess burden of plague, however, is more complicated; not only are the symptoms much worse—and include death—people have more severe reactions. Note too that disease costs rise with prevalence and with worsening symptoms but eventually decline as more severe diseases tend to be less prevalent. Still, no one wants to be infected with a major disease, and severe precautions are likely. We might shun all social interactions, and we might use government to impose strict quarantine measures. As disease severity rises along the horizontal axis, it might be the case that the cure is worse than the disease.

The private responses indicated above all help to lower the total costs of a disease because people choose their responses and they use their local knowledge and available resources to select cheaper methods of prevention. Claghorn used her neighborhood connections and the social capital of her civics association to encourage homeowners to rid their yards of pools of water; as such she lowered the costs of producing mosquito control. Similarly, Gould used the organizational structure of his firm to hire experts in mosquito control and build a sanitation department. These are cheap methods to limit exposure to mosquitos.

Emergent responses also help to lower the total costs of a disease because such responses indicate the variety of choices people face and their ability to select cheaper options. People facing diseases like malaria might be able to move away and, for some, it is cheaper than alternative means of prevention. Many people now are able to limit their exposure to mosquitos with screens, improved dwellings, and air conditioning.18 Consider the variety of ways people can limit their exposure to sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. If some people would rather use condoms to limit HIV transmission, they are better off doing so than if they were to refrain from sexual activity altogether. Similarly, some people would be better off having relatively risky sexual activity if they were in monogamous relationships or if they knew about their partner’s sexual history. That people can choose their own preventative measures indicates lower total costs compared with blunt, one-rule-for-all, governmental public health responses.

Negative and positive externalities of spreadable diseases indicate too much infectious behavior and too little preventative behavior, respectively. Hosting a party is fun, but it also incurs the internal costs of the drinks and appetizers and, more importantly, perhaps the external costs of raising the probability that people get sick. Attending a local cafe can be relaxing, but you have to pay for a cup of coffee and you might also transmit a disease to other coffee drinkers. The same could be said for many other public and social activities that might spread diseases like attending a class or a basketball game, transporting goods and people, and sexual behaviors. Our preventative behaviors from taking a vaccine to covering your mouth and from isolation to engaging in safer sexual practices emits positive externalities. If left unchecked, negative and positive externalities lead to higher rates of infection.

Overall, we should continue to think more critically about delineating how private and public actors can improve public health and overall welfare. More importantly, we should recognize that private actors are more capable than we often realize, especially in light of conscious efforts to improve public health and those efforts that emerge from people’s actions and interactions. These private efforts might be better at advancing some public health goals than public actors do. Individuals, for example, have more access to local knowledge and can discover novel solutions that serve multiple ends—often ends they value—rather than the ends of distant officials. Such cases and possibilities indicate cheaper ways to improve public health.


[1] Smith (2009), Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms, Cambridge University Press.

[2] For more on Walsh, see Carson (forthcoming), “Prevention Externalities: Private and Public Responses to the 1878 Yellow Fever Epidemic,” Public Choice.

[3] For more on Claghorn, see Carson (2020), “Privately Preventing Malaria in the United States, 1900-1925,” Essays in Economics and Business History.

[4] For more on Gould, see Carson (2016), “Firm-led Malaria Prevention in the United States, 1910-1920,” American Journal of Law and Medicine.

[5] On the connection between malarial diseases, dragons, and dragon-slaying saints, see Horden (1992), “Disease, Dragons, and Saints: the management of epidemics in the dark ages,” in Epidemics and Ideas by Ranger and Slack.

[6] For more on migration and prevalence rates, see Mesnard and Seabright (2016), “Migration and the equilibrium prevalence of infectious disease,” Journal of Demographic Economics.

[7] The American Journal of Public Health published several commentaries on McKeown in 2002:

[8] Tomes (1990), “The Private Side of Public Health: Sanitary Science, Domestic Hygiene, and the Germ Theory, 1870-1990,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine.

[9] Mokyr and Stein (1996), “Science, Health, and Household Technology: The Effect of the Pasteur Revolution on Consumer Demand,” in The Economics of New Goods, NBER.

[10] See Werner Troesken’s work on public and private waterworks in the U.S. around the turn of the 20th century. See Galiani, Gertler, and Shargrodsky (2005), “Water for Life,” Journal of Political Economy.

[11] Brennan et al., (2013), Explaining Norms, Oxford University Press.

[12] For more on the condom code, see Carson (2017), “The Informal Norms of HIV Prevention: The emergence and erosion of the condom code,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics.

[13] Carilli, Carson, and Isaacs (2022), “Jabbing Together? The complementarity between social capital, formal public health rules, and covid-19 vaccine rates in the U.S.,” Vaccine.

[14] Leslie and Wilson, “Sheltering in Place and Domestic Violence: Evidence from Calls for Service During Covid-19.” Journal of Public Economics 189, 104241. Mulligan, “Deaths of Despair and the Incidence of Excess Mortality in 2020,” NBER, Betthauser, Bach-Mortensen, and Engzell, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Nature Human Behavior,

[15] On the great influenza epidemic, see CBS News, “During the 1918 Flu pandemic, masks were controversial for ‘many of the same reasons they are today’.” Oct. 30, 2020.

[16] On yellow fever quarantine in Mississippi, see Deanne Nuwer (2009), Plague Among the Magnolias: The 1878 Yellow Fever Epidemic in Mississippi.

[17] On these closures, see Trout (2021), “The Bathhouse Battle of 1984.”

[18] Tusting et al. (2017), “Housing Improvement and Malaria Risk in Sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country analysis of survey data.” PLOS Medicine.

*Byron Carson is an Associate Professor of Economics and Business at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, where he teaches courses on introductory economics, money and banking, health economics, and urban economics. Byron earned his Ph.D. in Economics from George Mason University in 2017, and his research interests include economic epidemiology, public choice, and Austrian economics.

This article was edited by Features Editor Ed Lopez.

social distancing

Continue Reading


Analyst unveils new Lowe’s stock price target ahead of earnings



They are three letters that represent a multi-billion dollar industry: DIY.

Mention do-it-yourself home repairs, and some people will probably think of This Old House or the 1990s sitcom “Home Improvement,” where Tim Allen portrayed the host of the fictional “Tool Time” TV program. 

Others might think of HGTV, the Property Brothers Jonathan and Drew Scott, or Joanna and Chip Gaines of Magnolia Network. Whatever your particular cultural reference, rest assured that the DIY market is a revenue monster.

An estimated 75% of U.S. homeowners take on DIY projects, and 62% named saving money a top reason for their home improvement efforts. As a result, total U.S. home improvement sales amounted to $538 billion in 2021, according to Statista, and is projected to grow to $621 billion in 2025.

The number of do-it-yourselfers climbed during the COVID-19 outbreak as people had more time on their hands, interest rates were at rock bottom, and stimulus checks were flowing. 

That was good news for home improvement retailers like Lowe’s, which saw its stock price soar in 2021 thanks to higher demand. 

Unfortunately, rising interest rates, inflation, and job uncertainty have increased, denting demand and causing investors to wonder what could happen to Lowe’s shares next.

Lowe’s shares are facing headwinds as do-it-yourself demand slips. Photographer: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Pullback in DIY spending

Young homeowners are more likely to attempt do-it-yourself projects because they tend to have less disposable income and believe that the DIY approach will be less costly than hiring a contractor.

The most common types of DIY projects are home interior projects, such as painting, flooring, and décor, which are taken on by 31% of homeowners surveyed.

Unfortunately, those younger DIYers are also most susceptible to tighter budgets, and as a result, Lowe’s  (LOW) – Get Free Report revenue has declined year-over-year for three straight quarters.

Related: Walmart makes a surprise move that investors will love

Lowe’s, which reports quarterly earnings on Feb. 27, is the second-biggest name in the home improvement game, behind Home Depot  (HD) – Get Free Report, which is slated to release updated earnings results on Feb. 19.

Lowe’s posted better-than-expected third-quarter earnings in November but trimmed its full-year profit forecast, echoing Home Depot’s warning that consumers were spending less on big-ticket items- those worth more than $1,000- heading into the holidays.

“While we’ve seen a more cautious consumer for some time now, this quarter, we saw some of these consumers increasingly prioritizing experiences over goods, spending on travel and entertainment,” Chairman and CEO Marvin Ellison said during a conference call with analysts at the time.

Ellison reminded the analysts that DIY customers drive 75% of the company’s revenue while professionals only account for 25% of sales, as opposed to the broader market where the market is roughly fifty-fifty. “As a result, whenever the DIY customer becomes cautious, it disproportionately affects us.”

Given that backdrop, analysts surveyed by FactSet expect Lowe’s to report earnings of $1.68 per share on sales of $18.3 billion, down from earnings of $2.28 per share and revenue totaling $22.45 billion one year ago.

Lowe’s CEO ‘Bullish’ on home improvement

Ellison said that Lowe’s remained bullish on the home improvement industry’s medium- to long-term outlook.

More Retail:

Costco members get some sneaky bad newsPopular retailer looks set for Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing‘Pay Now, Pay Later’ is more popular, and riskier, than ever

“We expect home prices to be supported by a persistent supply-demand imbalance of housing, while at the same time, 250,000 millennial household formations are expected per year through 2025, and their parents and grandparents, the baby boomers, increasingly prefer to age in place in their own homes,” he said.

Nevertheless, on Feb. 5, Truist lowered its price target on Lowe’s stock to $244 from $252.

Analyst Scot Ciccarelli told investors in a research note that he is reducing his margin assumptions for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 and cutting his earnings estimates to $12.80 and $14.20 a share from $13.35 and $14.75, respectively.

He did, however, keep his buy rating on the company.

“For the medium-term, we are becoming increasingly bullish on the home improvement sector given general spending resilience, home equity increases, easing comparisons, and the recent positive inflection in Private Residential Fixed Investment PFRI data,” he said.

Ciccarelli said that he believed consumer spending remains fairly steady due to healthy personal balance sheets and strong employment. 

In addition, while the tightening cycle should slow spending, it shouldn’t derail it, he said.

The analyst said that while Lowe’s comparable store sales have decelerated notably over the last two quarters—down roughly 7% to 8%– he believes the company will also get to compare against these easier results in the second half of the calendar year.

Ciccarelli added, “We remain buyers and think that LOW can move sharply higher if we are indeed at the early stages of an easing cycle.”

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

interest rates
consumer spending

Continue Reading