Ensuring your loved one’s end-of-life wishes are honored.

In no circumstance is end-of-life care an easy conversation, but if you ever find yourself needing to make those tough decisions for a loved one, it’s comforting to know what they want. Advance care planning helps ensure their wishes are clearly understood and respected. By having a series of meaningful conversations and preparing the necessary documents, you can help ease the stress associated with such a responsibility.

Advance care planning documents

The most crucial part of advance care planning is the discussions with your loved one about their choices for medical treatment at the end of their life. It’s also important for them to record their preferences in legal documents that can be shared with medical professionals.

Advance directives are the documents that fall under the advance care planning umbrella, and can include:

• A living will lets you approve or decline specific medical care, even if it means death is imminent. Generally, this document can be used to decline life-prolonging treatments. In some states, it only applies under certain circumstances such as terminal illness or injury, but it’s still valuable to document your wishes.
• A durable power of attorney for healthcare, also known as a healthcare proxy or surrogate, lets you appoint a representative to make medical decisions for you and specify the extent of their authority.
• A do not resuscitate (DNR) order instructs medical personnel not to perform CPR if you go into cardiac arrest or breathing ceases. There are two types of DNRs, one that is effective all the time and another this is only effective while you’re hospitalized.

While a living will might not seem essential if there’s a healthcare proxy, having a written document to help guide specific treatment preferences is ideal. The more information you have about your loved one’s wishes, the better you can ensure those wishes are carried out.

Something to note is that advance directives can always be updated as circumstances change; don’t be afraid to establish them early. A significant medical event or major family change can prompt a reevaluation at any time.

Advance care planning objectives

At the heart of overseeing your family member’s care is respecting their choices regardless of your personal feelings. Even if you have opinions that conflict with theirs, they chose you to implement their plan because they trust you to follow it as they’ve outlined. This also means understanding their religious and cultural preferences, and how these will influence their end-of-life care.

The goals of advance care planning are to respect individual patient autonomy, improve quality of care and reduce overtreatment. “Conversations around aging preferences and advance care should occur early and often. With the prevalence of dementia and cognitive decline, prioritizing discussions are vital to ensure loved ones receive the care they want and need,” says Emily Treasure, senior manager of longevity planning at Raymond James. By partnering with your loved one in preparation, you can strengthen your bond and make them feel at ease about the care they’ll receive as they age.

Sadly, differing opinions about end-of-life care can make it tough for families to reach a mutual agreement about how to care for their loved one. Emily recommends establishing advanced care preferences and finalizing directives early – long before a crisis arises. Putting these plans in place early ensures that the patient’s wishes are clearly documented, reducing the emotional burden on families during difficult times and preventing rushed decisions, helping families to respect their loved one’s wishes.

Doctors may not always start advance care planning conversations with patients, so advance care planning tasks often are left to family members or close friends. Seeking support from others who’ve undergone the planning process may help. Additionally, numerous government, legal and medical resources are available – from conversation starters from the National Institute on Aging to advance directive forms by state from AARP.

Implementing advance care planning

The purpose of advance care planning is to be prepared to make decisions that align with your family member’s values. Even with a living will, some scenarios may not be clearly outlined. If this is the case, decision-making strategies can guide a healthcare proxy’s choices.

Substituted judgement, the preferred decision-making method, involves putting yourself in the place of the person needing care and trying to choose as they would. This may mean remembering your loved one’s strong opinions about a neighbor’s care choices and what types of medical care they’d refuse.

The “best interests” approach, sometimes used in conjunction with substituted judgment, involves considering whether a specific treatment is in your family member’s best interest; in other words, whether it improves quality of life or simply extends a condition of pain and discomfort.

When making these decisions, think about what your family member believed gave their life meaning and purpose, and whether they can still participate in those activities. This intimate knowledge, along with input from medical professionals, should guide your choices.

While the topic is uncomfortable to broach, remember that making care decisions for your family member if they’re unable to do so is a loving act. With thoughtful discussions and thorough documentation, you’ll be prepared to honor your loved one’s requests if the time comes.

Sources: AARP, National Institute on Aging

Raymond James Chief Economist Eugenio J. Alemán discusses current economic conditions.

There is a great deal to unpack from this week’s press conference by the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh. Most striking is his markedly different approach to Fed communications. This was evident not only in the statement accompanying the federal funds rate decision, but also in the abandonment of forward guidance and his reluctance to provide insight into the committee’s internal deliberations.

Even the first line of the press release stood out: “The Federal Open Market Committee approved the following statement for release by a 12–0 vote.” Notably, this unanimity referred only to the release of the statement, not to the policy decision itself. As a result, we are left without visibility into dissent within the committee, including who supported or opposed the policy stance. This represents a meaningful shift in how monetary policy decisions are communicated.

It remains unclear whether this new communication framework will limit Fed members’ ability to express independent views, the practice commonly referred to as “Fed speak.” If those channels remain intact, then such commentary may become the primary way markets gauge the Fed’s policy leanings. For now, however, the degree of openness of Fed speakers is uncertain.

One can reasonably infer that discussions were likely intense and divided, given the more hawkish tone of the dot plot relative to March. Yet the decision to hold rates steady indicates that a majority ultimately aligned around that outcome.

What surprised us most, however, was Chairman Warsh’s assertion that “inflation is a choice.” This is an unusual framing for the head of a central bank. Taken literally, it implies that policymakers knowingly allowed inflation to remain elevated over the past five years rather than bringing it back to target. Such a deterministic view risks oversimplifying the complex forces that drive inflation and, in doing so, raises questions about the Fed’s policy framework.

It is true that the Fed faced criticism for not acting more quickly when inflation began rising in early 2021, likely prolonging the period of elevated price pressures. Still, the chairman’s comment could be interpreted as a veiled critique of prior leadership, including the former chair, board members, and regional presidents, not something you want to do so publicly if you want to lead the institution.

Milton Friedman famously argued that inflation is “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,” meaning it can ultimately be controlled through the growth of the money supply. This may be the intellectual foundation behind Warsh’s statement. However, asserting that inflation is a choice suggests that external conditions – such as the global recovery from COVID – were largely irrelevant. That interpretation is difficult to reconcile with reality.

During the pandemic recovery, households accumulated roughly $2.5 trillion in excess savings and subsequently spent a significant portion of it. Preventing that spending surge would have required extraordinarily restrictive interest rates, levels that would likely have been untenable. It is difficult to imagine any credible policy path that could have fully offset that impulse.

Moreover, the inflationary episode of the past several years was not driven primarily by traditional monetary channels. Rather, it reflected an unprecedented fiscal expansion, with the federal government transferring large sums directly to households and businesses. These funds were not intermediated through the banking system in the usual way; they were injected directly into the economy. In this context, standard monetary tools, including a monetarist view, had limited capacity to immediately counteract those forces.

In that sense, inflation is not a “choice” but the outcome of a confluence of factors, including policy decisions – both fiscal and monetary – household and business choices, as well as external shocks. What is a choice is the response: the commitment to bring inflation back toward target once it deviates. That is the essence of the Fed’s inflation mandate and of today’s inflation targeting.

Could the Powell Fed have acted more quickly? Perhaps. But such judgments are easier in hindsight. Policymakers were operating in an environment shaped by the lessons of the Global Financial Crisis, an episode in which insufficient accommodation was seen as a greater risk. That perspective influenced the decision to allow inflation to run somewhat above target before tightening policy. With the benefit of hindsight, that approach proved costly. But it is also clear that policymakers have learned from that experience.

This raises an important inconsistency. If inflation is indeed a choice, and if the Fed has been making the wrong choice for several years, then why did the Warsh Fed refrain from tightening policy at this meeting? One explanation is that the chairman was unable to build a majority in favor of an immediate rate increase. Alternatively, the committee may be buying time as internal reviews of the inflation framework get underway.

There was also little discussion of the Fed’s balance sheet. Chairman Warsh noted that interest rates appear restrictive primarily for the housing sector, a sector that benefited disproportionately from quantitative easing. How this view evolves, particularly if the Fed resumes tightening as suggested by the dot plot, will be important to watch.

In short, there is still much to be unpacked from this meeting in the weeks ahead as well as from Fed speak, it if is allowed to go uncensored. What is already evident, however, is that the internal debate was likely more contentious than the chairman’s remarks suggested.

Economic and market conditions are subject to change.

Opinions are those of Investment Strategy and not necessarily those of Raymond James and are subject to change without notice. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. There is no assurance any of the trends mentioned will continue or forecasts will occur. Past performance may not be indicative of future results.

Raymond James Chief Economist Eugenio J. Alemán discusses current economic conditions.

Ahead of next week’s May employment report, the summer jobs market is coming into focus as teenagers and students finish the school year. According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, teen hiring from May through July is expected to total just 790,000 jobs this summer, down slightly from 801,000 last summer. If realized, that would be the weakest summer for teen hiring in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which begins in 1948. Last summer was already the prior low; before that, the weakest readings were in 1949, in the post-war demobilization period, and in 2010, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

That historical context is important. Unlike 1949 or 2010, last year’s weak teen hiring did not coincide with a recession, and a recession is not our baseline for this year either. In our view, the weakness in teen summer employment looks less like a traditional recession signal and more like the result of structural changes in teen labor supply colliding with a more cautious hiring environment. Since the early 2000s, teen labor force participation has fallen significantly as shown in the chart below. Although it has recovered somewhat in recent years, it remains well below the levels that prevailed for much of the second half of the 20th century. A large part of that decline likely reflects changing priorities among students and families. Summer jobs now compete with AP coursework, test preparation, college admissions activities, club sports, camps, internships, volunteer work and other structured activities that are often viewed as part of the college and career-building process.

At the same time, summer employment remains an important steppingstone for younger and entry-level workers. These jobs provide early exposure to the workforce, helping teens develop soft skills such as communication, teamwork, responsibility and time management. They also give young workers a better understanding of workplace expectations, professional environments and the day-to-day realities of different industries and career paths. For many, a summer job serves as a first opportunity to build confidence, establish work habits, gain financial independence and develop practical experience that can benefit them later in their careers.

At the same time, demand for teen workers is also under pressure. The industries that typically hire teenagers during the summer like restaurants, retailers, amusement parks, camps, hotels and other leisure operators are still dealing with higher labor, input and fuel costs. For small businesses, that can mean waiting to see actual demand before adding seasonal workers. AI and automation may also be playing a small but growing role, especially in routine entry-level tasks such as ordering, scheduling, inventory checks and basic customer service.

Importantly, weak teen hiring should not be interpreted as a clear sign that the consumer is rolling over. The consumer backdrop still looks bifurcated rather than recessionary. Higher-income households remain relatively resilient, while lower-income and more price-sensitive consumers are showing more strain. That split has also been visible in recent earnings reports, where higher-end companies have generally fared better than lower-tier, more price-sensitive businesses. Similarly, high-frequency services data do not point to a uniform pullback: air travel has softened because of higher airfare prices, but restaurant demand has been growing double digits.

From a broader labor-market perspective, teen employment is too small to move the headline numbers very much. As of April, employment among 16-to-19-year-olds was about 5.4 million, or roughly 3.3% of total employment. The teen labor force was about 6.3 million, or roughly 3.7% of the total labor force.

That means the unemployment rate math is very small. Holding the labor force constant, it would take roughly 170,000 additional unemployed workers to lift the unemployment rate by 0.1 percentage point. Challenger’s forecast implies teen summer job gains fall by only 11,000 versus last summer, from 801,000 to 790,000. Even if every one of those missing jobs translated into an actively unemployed teen, the mechanical impact on the unemployment rate would be only about 0.006 percentage point, far below anything that would move the headline number.

The income effect should also be limited. In the first quarter of 2026, full-time wage and salary workers ages 16 to 19 earned median weekly pay of $603, compared with $1,235 for all full-time wage and salary workers. In other words, teen earnings are less than half the overall median, further limiting the aggregate spending impact from softer teen hiring.

Bottom line

Teen summer jobs still matter a lot to the individuals who get them. They provide income, independence, and early workplace skills that can have long-term benefits. But from a macro perspective, this year’s projected weakness in teen hiring looks more like a structural and sector-specific pressure point than a recession warning or a meaningful driver of the overall employment report.

Economic and market conditions are subject to change.

Opinions are those of Investment Strategy and not necessarily those of Raymond James and are subject to change without notice. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. There is no assurance any of the trends mentioned will continue or forecasts will occur. Past performance may not be indicative of future results.

Raymond James Chief Economist Eugenio J. Alemán discusses current economic conditions.

Yes, this time is different, but not because inflation itself is unprecedented. What has fundamentally changed is the macroeconomic starting point. Unlike the post-Global Financial Crisis period, when persistent disinflation and repeated downside surprises dominated policy decisions, the economy today is operating in a world where structural disinflation is no longer the default backdrop. That shift has important implications for monetary policy and, ultimately, for markets.

In the decade leading up to the pandemic, the Federal Reserve (Fed) adopted a deliberately patient approach to inflation, allowing price pressures to overshoot the target for extended periods before responding. That framework was a rational response to nearly twenty years of disinflationary forces ranging from globalization to technological change that continually pushed inflation below target. However, that same framework proved ill-suited for the post-pandemic recovery. With hindsight, the Fed should have begun tightening policy earlier as inflation emerged in 2021. But even if the Fed had increased rates immediately as it should have, it is highly unlikely that they would have been able to prevent the increase in inflation and contain Americans as they rushed to “living la vida loca” after years of sheltering in place and postponed consumption. In that environment, it is difficult to imagine an interest-rate level capable of meaningfully restraining spending without causing severe collateral damage to growth and employment. Policy was behind the curve, but the curve itself was unusually steep.

Standard policy benchmarks reinforce this point. Taylor Rule estimates suggest that monetary policy during the recovery was materially more accommodative than warranted, with implied policy rates at times approaching double digits (see graph below). Even under more conservative assumptions, prescribed rates were well above the levels actually in place, underscoring how far policy lagged shifting inflation dynamics. By the time liftoff finally began in early 2022, inflation had already surged close to 8% year over year, forcing the Fed into a far sharper tightening cycle than markets had anticipated.

Fast forward to today, and the policy landscape looks very different. The Fed is no longer constrained by the zero lower bound, and global disinflation can no longer be taken for granted. While fiscal expansion remains an upside risk to prices, the more immediate concern is that inflation has lost its pre-pandemic anchoring. Even setting aside tariffs and recent oil price increases tied to geopolitical tensions with Iran, inflation is no longer gravitating back toward the stable sub-2% environment that characterized the prior cycle. That reality sharply reduces the Fed’s room for patience.

Recent CPI, PPI, ISM price indices, and import price reports underscore this point. While April’s CPI included some one-off distortions – most notably in shelter costs linked to last year’s government shutdown – broader price pressures were evident across multiple categories. The PPI data are even more concerning, suggesting pipeline pressures that could bleed into consumer prices over the coming quarters. ISM prices indices, which are important forward-looking indicators, reached three-year highs in April, showing that input prices are affecting both manufacturing and service industries. Lastly, import prices experienced their largest monthly increase since March 2022, the period immediately following the onset of the Russia–Ukraine conflict. These reports do not demand an immediate rate hike, but they materially raise the odds that the policy discussion shifts from when cuts begin to whether further tightening may be required.

From a market perspective, this matters less for the next meeting and more for the trajectory of expectations. The longer inflation remains above target, the harder it becomes for the Fed to credibly signal an easing cycle, particularly in an environment characterized by expansionary fiscal policy, resilient growth, a gradual recovery in labor markets and sustained capital investment tied to artificial intelligence. Add continued energy price risks to that mix, and the bias of policy risk tilts meaningfully in one direction.

Bottom line

The rate conversation is set to intensify over the coming months. Markets are once again being forced to confront a world in which policy rates may stay higher for longer – or even move higher – rather than glide lower as soon as growth moderates. The arrival of a new Fed chair this month adds another layer of uncertainty, as shifts in leadership can influence both communication and policy direction. Taken together, the policy outlook is becoming more uncertain with fewer clear signals on the path forward.

Economic and market conditions are subject to change.

Opinions are those of Investment Strategy and not necessarily those of Raymond James and are subject to change without notice. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. There is no assurance any of the trends mentioned will continue or forecasts will occur. Past performance may not be indicative of future results.