Featured Post from Louisiana State University

How Will the Government Shutdown Affect Consumers? LSU Marketing Behavior Expert Dan Rice Offers Insight

A lot of this is going to depend on the specific consumer and industry, and much of it might be at broader economy-wide type impact, Rice says

Oct 1, 2025

3 min

Dan Rice


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


Some interesting areas that I’ve seen in the press:

"Consumer Sentiment was measured at the 7th lowest point (55.1) since its inception in 1952, yet we’re not seeing a huge decrease in spending (CNN). Part of the argument is the spending is an average measure and really wealthy consumers are not feeling the pinch and spending like normal or moreso, while less financially-well-off-individuals are pulling back their spending (Spectrum Local News).


Presumably, the shutdown doesn’t help that figure.


In terms of consumer groups affected, let’s look at government workers first. An article by the BBC claimed roughly 750,000 “non-essential” federal workers could be furloughed without pay. This means that many to most of those are going to struggle with paying for the necessities and this becomes more and more of a strain the longer the shutdown wears on.


Furloughed Workers: Most furloughed workers are required to be paid back pay when the shutdown is over by law. That could in some ways create more purchases in the future if they can’t be bought currently, but could also lead to things like more credit card debt as people can put charges on a credit card to pay back later. While from a consumer psychology standpoint that might make sense, but it’s a very risky practical strategy. Gov’t contractors don’t get the same guarantee. Businesses that rely heavily on such groups (e.g., in a town where many fall into those segments) might suffer or shutter. This means other consumers that frequent those establishments have their routines disrupted , and force them to find other providers.


Essential Workers: Then we have the group of “essential” workers that must go to work and still not be paid, Air Traffic Controllers, The military, TSA Agents, certain law enforcement groups, etc. that all might draw back spending with no immediate income. That can cause major issues for retailers and producers, which could lead to more layoffs in the private sector, putting more consumers into financial straits.

If you’re someone that likes to visit national parks or zoo’s like the National Zoo, or the Smithsonian Museums (which has claimed they’ll have funding at least through October 6th), you could be disappointed to have reduced accessibility or outright closures due to the shutdown, again according to the BBC.


Healthcare: Healthcare could definitely be affected, particularly for those on Medicaid and medicare (i.e., the elderly and poor). So if you view medical services as consumer good, then there will be issues there as well (increased wait times, decreased satisfaction, etc.), which is likely to add apprehension and anxiety to many consumers.


Travel: If you’re a traveler, staffing shortages in the TSA and Air Traffic Controllers could lead to significant travel delays, which could disrupt leisure or business plans, or force people to cancel plans altogether. If you’re traveling abroad getting your passport updated could take longer.


All these things (and many more) may happen or not depending on the length of the shutdown and the severity of the furloughs. Those in better financial positions will suffer less, while those already in less desirable financial situations might find that delays in some of their normally federally funded services (e.g., SNAP, WIC, etc.) create even bigger issues."

Connect with:
Dan Rice

Dan Rice

Associate Professor

Dr. Rice utilizes theory to generate impactful insights into consumer response.

Experimental DesignDigital MarketingMarketing ManagementConsumer BehaviorInternational Marketing

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Louisiana State University

3 min

Holiday Shopping 2025: LSU Expert Dan Rice on The Impact of Tariffs, Tech, and Changing Behavior

Dan Rice, LSU marketing associate professor and director of the E. J. Ourso College of Business Behavioral Research Lab, shares insights on what’s changing, what’s driving spending trends, and what to watch for as we head into the end of the year. What do you expect for holiday shopping trends this year? Like most other years in recent history, most of the bodies forecasting holiday spending are predicting increases in total sales. The National Retail Federation (NRF) is predicting a growth rate of 4%, with sales totaling over $1 trillion. Other bodies like Simon Kucher, a pricing consultancy, project increases of over 7%, and Visa was projecting roughly 10% raises in gift spending. While these figures always vary between entities due to different specific formulas, it appears that some of the higher numbers were released earlier in the year, suggesting that later numbers may be reflecting a more up-to-date market forecast. Interestingly, this projected increase is happening despite many bodies, including the NRF, suggesting a decrease in planned per person spending. This suggests that the population growth of consumers might explain the increase in total sales for retailers, even if there’s a true decrease per person. We may also begin to see the impacts of tariffs on pricing in the holiday shopping season. This is supported by the Visa report, which suggests real spending growth of 2.2%, indicating that fewer items are being purchased despite revenue increases. What’s different about this year compared to previous holiday seasons? There have been several fairly unique situations. First, we’ve had the recently ended government shutdown, which impacted a lot of people and created a large degree of financial pain. Whether and when missed paychecks are made may still be unclear, and that has added a lot of concern for consumers. Additionally, the extensive but confusing levying of various tariffs has put the U.S. at an overall effective tariff rate of nearly 18%, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. That adds substantial amounts to consumer costs and concerns, with 74% expecting tariffs to impact their shopping, according to Nerdwallet. We’re also seeing decreased enthusiasm for the holiday sales, particularly within certain demographic groups. How might the current economic climate affect consumer spending this holiday season? This is where we start to see the effects of what some might call a “two-tier economy.” The higher spending might be driven by the more affluent consumers who are more financially sound, while other data suggest that as many as 1 in 4 households are living paycheck to paycheck, making increased spending for them unlikely. We’re also seeing projections for certain demographic groups at much lower spend projections. Nearly 20% of the population intends to spend less, according to Visa. PWC is projecting spending declines of 5%, and GenZ responses indicate a 23% drop in planned spending. But there are many ways you split segments. People who are concerned about tariffs are planning to spend 10% less, according to PWC. People with kids will tend to spend more than last year, while people without kids will spend less than last year, according to NRF projections. So, it really does come down to individual-level financial and other factors. This may very much be a situation where the affluent drive the average numbers. Are any new shopping trends emerging for 2025 based on recent NRF or Deloitte data? One that has been picked up on by Deloitte, among others, is the tendency of certain (generally younger demographics like Gen Z in particular) to start using AI-based tools and social media not only for gift ideas, but also to find the best prices. Internet searches for “discount” and “coupon” codes are up 11% according to PWC, suggesting many consumers are concerned about saving money. Link to full story here.

1 min

LSU Marketing Expert Dan Rice Available to Speak on Black Friday 2025

As Black Friday approaches, LSU has an expert available to break down what consumers can expect this year. Dan Rice, professor of marketing can speak on: • Emerging Black Friday consumer behavior and spending patterns • How inflation and economic uncertainty are shaping purchasing decisions • Shifts toward online vs. in-store shopping • Strategies retailers are using to drive demand If you’re working on Black Friday or holiday shopping coverage, Our team would be happy to connect you with Dan for an interview.

4 min

Op-Ed: Stablecoin 'rewards' are a risk to financial stability

Congress has long recognized that stablecoins should not function as unregulated bank deposits. The intent of the recently enacted GENIUS Act is clear: to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, maintaining a distinction between payment instruments and bank deposits which are not only used for payment purposes but also as a store value. Yet loopholes have already emerged. Some crypto exchanges and affiliated platforms now offer “rewards” to stablecoin holders that work much like interest, potentially undermining the stability of the traditional banking system and constraining credit in local communities. Terminology matters. Credit card rewards are funded by interchange fees and paid to encourage spending — you earn points for using your card. Stablecoin “rewards” are different. They’re funded by investing the reserves backing stablecoins, typically in Treasury bills or money market funds, and passing that interest income to holders. You earn returns for holding the stablecoin, not for using it. Economically, this is indistinguishable from a bank deposit paying interest. When a platform advertises “5% rewards” on stablecoin holdings, it’s generally backing those tokens with Treasuries yielding about 4.5%, then passing that yield to users. Whether labeled rewards, yield or dividends, the function is the same: interest on deposits. Banks perform a similar activity — taking deposits, investing in loans and paying depositors a return — but face far higher costs, including FDIC insurance, capital requirements and compliance obligations that stablecoin issuers largely avoid. This dynamic has a precedent. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Regulation Q capped bank deposit rates at 5.25% while inflation and Treasury yields soared above 15%. Money market funds filled the gap, offering market rates directly to consumers. Deposits fled smaller banks, which lost their funding base, while large money-center institutions gained reserves. The result was widespread disintermediation, the collapse of the savings and loan industry and the farm-credit crisis of the 1980s. Stablecoin “rewards” risk repeating that history. Just as money market funds exploited the gap between regulated deposit rates and market rates, stablecoin platforms exploit the difference between what banks can profitably pay and what lightly regulated issuers can offer by passing through Treasury yields with minimal overhead. Some ask why banks can’t just raise deposit rates. The answer lies in structure. Banks operate under a fundamentally different business model and cost framework. They pay FDIC premiums, maintain capital reserves and comply with extensive supervision — costs most stablecoin issuers don’t bear. Banks also use deposits to make loans, which requires holding capital against potential losses. Stablecoin issuers simply hold reserves in ultra-safe assets, allowing them to pass through nearly all the yield they earn. To match 5% “rewards,” banks would need to earn 6% to 7% on their loan portfolios — an unrealistic target in today’s environment, especially for smaller community banks. The consequence is not fair competition, but a structural disadvantage for regulated depository institutions. The Consumer Bankers Association warns this loophole could trigger a massive shift of deposits from community banks to global custodians. Citing Treasury Department estimates, the Association notes that as much as $6.6 trillion in deposits could migrate into stablecoins if yield programs remain permissible. Because the GENIUS Act’s prohibition applies narrowly to issuers, exchanges and intermediaries may still offer financial returns under alternate terminology. This opens the door to affiliate arrangements that replicate the essence of interest payments without legal accountability. Those reserves don’t stay in local economies. The largest stablecoin issuers hold funds at global custodians such as Bank of New York Mellon, in money market funds managed by firms like BlackRock or — if permitted — directly with the Federal Reserve. When a community-bank depositor moves $100,000 into stablecoins, that capital exits the local bank and concentrates at systemically important institutions. The community bank loses lending capacity; the megabank or the Fed gains reserves. The result is disintermediation with a concentrated risk profile reminiscent of the money-market fund crisis. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that community banks — responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide — could be among the most affected. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially relevant. If deposits migrate to unregulated digital assets, community-bank lending could tighten, particularly in rural parishes and underserved communities. Research from the Brookings Institution reinforces the need for regulatory parity. The label “rewards” doesn’t change the fact that these payments are economically interest. Allowing intermediaries to generate yield without deposit insurance or prudential oversight could recreate vulnerabilities similar to those seen during the 2008 money market fund crisis. To preserve financial stability, policymakers should move to close the stablecoin-interest loophole. Clarifying that the prohibition on interest applies to all entities— not just issuers — would uphold Congress’ intent. Regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission and federal banking agencies could also treat “reward” programs as equivalent to deposit interest for supervisory purposes. Stablecoins offer genuine efficiencies in payments, but unchecked yield features risk turning them into unregulated banks. History shows what happens when regulatory arbitrage allows competitors to offer deposit-like products without oversight: deposit flight, institutional instability and capital flowing away from community lenders. Acting now could help sustain stability, protect depositors and preserve the credit channels that support community lending — especially in states like Louisiana, where community banks remain the backbone of Main Street.

View all posts
Powered by