Connect with us

Published

1 year ago

on

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.

Political partisans are always dreaming of final victories. Each election raises the hope of realignmenta convergence of issues and demographics and personalities that will deliver a lock on power to one side or the other. In my lifetime, at least five permanent majorities have come and gone. President Lyndon B. Johnsons landslide triumph over Barry Goldwater in 1964 seemed to ratify the postwar liberal consensus and doom the Republican Party to irrelevanceuntil, four years later, Richard Nixons narrow win augured an emerging Republican majority (the title of a book by his adviser Kevin Phillips) based in the white, suburban Sun Belt. In 1976, Jimmy Carter heralded a winning interracial politics called the Carter coalition, which proved even shorter-lived than his presidency. With Ronald Reagan, the conservative ascendancy really did seem perpetual. After the Republican victory in the 2002 midterm elections, George W. Bushs operative Karl Rove floated the idea of a majority lasting a generation or two.Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.View More

But around the same time, the writers John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira published The Emerging Democratic Majority, which predicted a decades-long advantage for the party of educated professionals, single women, younger voters, and the coming minority majority. The embodiment of their thesis soon appeared in Barack Obamaonly to be followed by Donald Trump and the revenge of the white working class, a large plurality that has refused to fade away.

Recent American history has been hard on would-be realigners. The two parties are playing one of the longest deuce games since the founding. Even with the structural distortion of the Senate and the Electoral College favoring Republicans, the American people remain closely divided. The Democratic presidential candidate has won seven of the last eight popular votes, while the national vote for the House of Representatives keeps swinging back and forth between the parties. Stymied by a sense of stalemate, both now indulge in a form of magical thinking.

Neither side believes in the legitimacy of the other; each assumes that the voters agree and will soon sweep it into power. So the result of every election comes as a shock to the loser, who settles on explanations that have nothing to do with the popular will: foreign interference, fraudulent ballots, viral disinformation, a widespread conspiracy to cheat. The Republican Party tries to hold on to power by antidemocratic means: the Electoral College, the filibuster, grotesquely gerrymandered legislatures, even violence. The Democratic Party pursues a majority by demography, targeting an array of identity groups and assuming that their positions on issues will be predictably monolithic. The latter is a mistake; the former is a threat to democracy. Both are ways to escape the long, hard grind of organized persuasion that is politics.

From the January/February 2022 issue: Barton Gellman on how Trumps next coup has already begun

Two other jarring features define our age of deadlock. One is a radical shift in the two parties center of gravity. The signature of elections today is the class divide called education polarization: In 2020, Joe Biden won by claiming a majority of college-educated white voters, the backbone of the old Republican Party. Trump, with a lock on the white working class, lost despite making gains among nonwhite, non-college-educated voters, yesterdays most reliable Democrats. Meanwhile, on the political stage, cultural and social issues have eclipsed economic issueseven as every facet of American life, whether income or mortality rates, grows less equal and more divided by class.

These two trends are obviously related, and they have a history. From the late 1970s until very recently, the brains and dollars behind both parties supported versions of neoliberal economics: one hard-edged and friendly to old-line corporate interests such as the oil industry, the other gentler and oriented toward the financial and technology sectors. This consensus left the battleground open to cultural warfare. The educated professionals who dominate the countrys progressive party have long cared less about unions, wages, and monopoly power than about race, gender, and the environment. In the summer of 2020, millions of young people did not come out of isolation to protest the plight of meatpackers laboring in COVID-ridden processing plants. They were outraged by a police killing, and they called for a racial reckoninga revolution in consciousness that ended up having little effect on the lives of the poor and oppressed.

For their part, Republicans have spoken the traditionalist language of the working class ever since Nixons silent majority; Trump dropped the mantra of low taxes and deregulation that used to excite the party when it was more upscale, and directed his message to a base that votes on issues such as crime, immigration, and what it means to be an American. More recently, Republican candidates have turned to anti-woke rhetoric. In losing its voice as the champion of workers, the Democratic Party lost many of the workers themselves, and during the past half century, the two parties have nearly switched electorates.

This remapping helps explain the outpouring of new books that pay political attention to those overlooked Americans of all races who lack a college degree, many employed in jobs that pay by the hourfactory workers, home health aides, delivery drivers, preschool teachers, hairdressers, restaurant servers, farm laborers, cashiers. During the pandemic, they were called essential workers. Now theyve been discovered to hold the key to power, giving rise to yet another round of partisan dreaming of realignment, this time hinging on the working class. But these Americans wont benefit from their new status as essential voters until the parties spend less effort coming up with what they think the working class wants to hear, and more effort actually delivering what it wants and needs.

The economic decline and political migration of the American working class receive the most compelling treatment in Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream, by the New York Times writer David Leonhardt. He describes the rise and fall, from the New Deal to the present, of what he calls democratic capitalismnot a neutral phrase, but a positive term for a mixed economy that benefits the many, not just the few. By now, the story of growing inequality and declining mobility is familiar from the work of Thomas Piketty, Gary Gerstle, Raj Chetty, and other scholars. Leonhardt has a gift for synthesizing complex trends and data in straightforward language and persuasive arguments whose rationality doesnt fully mute an undertone of indignation. He appreciates the power of stories and weaves obscure but telling events and people into his larger narrative: a 1934 strike in the Minneapolis coal yards that showed the political potential of worker solidarity; the mid-century businessman Paul Hoffman, who argued to members of his own class that they would benefit from a prosperous working class; the pioneering computer programmer and Navy officer Grace Hopper, who saw the economic benefits of military spending on technological research.Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American DreamBy David LeonhardtBuy Book

An economy that gives most people the chance for a decent life doesnt arise by accident or through impersonal forces. It has to be created, and Leonhardt identifies three agents: political action, such as union organizing, that gives power to the have-nots; a civic ethos that restrains the greed of the haves; and public spending on people, infrastructure, and ideasa form of short-term sacrifice, an optimistic bet on what the future can bring.The labor movement lost interest in social justice, and progressive politicians lost interest in the working class.

All treepower, culture, and investmentcombined in the postwar decades to transform the American working class into the largest and richest middle class in history. Black Americans, even while enduring official discrimination and racist violence, closed the gap in pay and life expectancy with white Americansprogress, Leonhardt writes, that reflected class-based changes more than explicitly race-based changes. In other words, the right of workers to form unions, an increased and expanded federal minimum wage, and a steeply progressive tax code that funded good schools all reduced racial inequality by reducing economic inequality. But after the 1960s, the economys growth slowed, and the balance of power among the classes grew lopsided. American life became stratified. Wealth flowed upward to the few, unions withered, and public goods such as schools starved. In their rush to cash in, elites knocked over taboos that had once restrained the worst extremes of greed. Metropoles prospered and industrial regions decayed. Despite the end of Jim Crow and the growth of a Black professional class, the gap between Black and white Americans began to widen again as the countrys top 10 percent pulled away from the rest.

This economic analysis comes with a political argument that will not be welcomed by many progressives. Leonhardt places blame for the decline of the American dream where it belongs: on free-market intellectuals, right-wing politicians, corporate money. But he also points to the shortsighted complacency of union leaders, and, even more, the changing values and interests of well-educated, comfortable Democrats. Beginning in the early 70s, they dropped concern about bread-and-butter issues for more compelling causes: the environment, peace, consumer protection, abortion, identity-group rights. The labor movement lost interest in social justice, and progressive politicians lost interest in the working class. Neither George Meany nor George McGovern sang from the New Deal songbook. After the 60s, the country no longer had a mass movement centered on lifting most Americans living standards.

Why did the white working class abandon the party that had been its champion? In the standard progressive telling, Leonhardt writes, the explanation for this political shift is race. Race had a lot to do with it, and Leonhardt affirms that Democrats embrace of the Black freedom movement in the 60s, followed by white backlash (exploited by Republicans with their southern strategy) and persistent racism, is a major cause. But the progressive telling falls short on three counts. Its morally self-flattering and self-exonerating; its politically self-defeating (accusing voters of racism, even if deserved, is not the way to convince them of anything); and it fails to explain too many recent political trends. For example, nearly all-white West Virginia remained mostly Democratic decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and only turned indelibly red in 2000. According to one estimate, almost a quarter of the working-class white voters who gave Trump the presidency in 2016 had voted for a Black president only a few years earlier. The stark polarization of the current college-educated and non-college-educated white electorate shows the key role of class. And what are we to make of an openly bigoted president running for a second term and increasing his share of the Black and Latino vote?

Leonhardts subtler account is rooted in the working classs growing cultural and economic alienation from a Democratic Party ever more dominated by elites and activists, and out of touch on the issues that hurt less affluent Americans most, especially crime, trade, and immigration. The financial crisis of 2008 was a pivotal event, leaving large numbers of Americans with the sense that the countrys upper classes were playing a dirty game at the expense of the rest.

That fall, I reported on the presidential campaign in a dying coal town in Appalachian Ohio. To my surprise, its white residents were giving Obama a close hearing, and he ended up doing better in the region than John Kerry had. But at a local party gathering, an older white man told me that neither party had done anything to reverse the decline of his town, and that he would no longer vote Democratic, for one reason: illegal immigration. I listened politely and discounted his grievanceI didnt see any undocumented immigrants in Glouster, Ohio. Why did he care so much?

Leonhardt provides an answer. In a comprehensive analysis, he shows that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which liberal politicians sold as nondiscriminatory but still restrictive, opened the gates to mass immigration. The result put downward pressure on wages at the lower end of the economy. Again, racial resentment partly explains hostility to large-scale immigration, but Leonhardt shows that rapid demographic change can erode the social bonds that make collective efforts for greater equality possible: Low immigration numbers in the mid-1900s improved the lives of recent immigrants by fostering a stronger safety net for everybody. As Democrats were reminded in 2022s midterms, immigration is less popular among working-class Americans of all races than among college graduates. The mayor of my very progressive city, a son of the Black working class, recently sounded like that working-class white ex-Democrat in Ohio when he warned that the arrival of more than 100,000 migrants will destroy New York.

David Leonhardt: The hard truth about immigration

These positions reflect class differences in approaches to morality. Drawing on social-science research, Leonhardt distinguishes between universal values such as fairness and compassion, which matter more among educated professionals, and communal values such as order, tradition, and loyalty, which count more lower down the class ladder. It shouldnt be surprising that working-class Americans of color sympathize with migrants but dont necessarily want an open border, that they fear crime at least as much as police misconduct. But their views confound progressives, who see these issues through the almost metaphysical lens of group identitythe belief that we think inside lines of race, gender, and sexuality, that these accidental and immutable traits dictate our politics.Illustration by Mike McQuade. Sources: Brooks Kraft / Corbis / Getty; Leif Skoogfors / Getty; Cynthia Johnson / Getty; Bettmann / Getty.

This worldview provided a sense of meaning to a generation that came of age after 2008, amid upheaval and disillusionment. Because the new progressivism flourished among younger, educated Americans who lived online, its cultural reach was disproportionate, making rapid inroads in universities, schools, media, the arts, philanthropy. But its believers badly overplayed their hand, giving Republicans easy wins and driving away ordinary Democrats. Americans remain a wildly diverse, individualistic, aspirational people, with rising rates of mixed marriage, residential integration, and immigration from all over the world. Any rigid politics of identitywhether the lefts obsession with marginalized communities, or its sinister opposite in the reactionary paranoia of white replacement theoryis bound to shatter against the realities of American life.

Identity politics has been a feverish interlude following the demise of the neoliberal consensus that prevailed from Reagan to Obama. What will take its place? Leonhardt hopes for a Democratic Party that learns how not to alienate the nearly two-thirds of Americans without a college degree. He believes that education can be a force for upward mobility, but that the current version of meritocracybuilt-in advantage at the top, underfunding belowhas created a highly educated aristocracy. He advises a renewed emphasis on economic populism, a hard line on equal rights for all but reasonable compromise on other controversial social issues, and a general attitude of respect. His hero is the martyred Robert F. Kennedy, whose 1968 presidential campaign was the last to unite working-class Amerians of all colors.

Yascha Mounk: Where the new identity politics went wrong

A version of the same argument, with less historical depth and feeling but more charts and polemics, can be found in John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeiras Where Have All the Democrats Gone? The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes. Judis and Teixeira have been explaining their earlier books thesis for two decades even as the majority of its title kept failing to emerge. Now they diagnose their error: What began happening in the last decade is a defection, pure and simple, of working-class voters. Thats something that we really didnt anticipate. Like Leonhardt, they call on Democrats to embrace New Dealstyle economic liberalism (but not Green New Dealstyle socialism) and to reject todays post-sixties version of social liberalism, which is tantamount to cultural radicalism. In a series of scathing chapters, Judis and Teixeira show how far left the Democrats shadow party of activists, donors, and journalists has moved in the past 20 years on immigration, race, gender, and climate.Where Have All the Democrats Gone? The Soul of the Party in the Age of ExtremesBy John B. Judis and Ruy TeixeiraBuy Book

The authors want a return to the partys cultural centrism of the 90s. Instead of decriminalizing the border, which most 2020 Democratic presidential candidates advocated, they call for tighter border security, enforcement of laws that prohibit hiring undocumented immigrants, and a way for those already here to become citizens. They show that middle-ground policies like these and othersthe pursuit of racial equality that focuses on expanding opportunity for individuals, not equity of group outcomes; support for equal rights for trans Americans without insisting on a gender ideology that denies biological sexremain majority views, including among nonwhite Americans. Judis and Teixeira are less persuasive on climate change: Although their gradualism might be politically helpful to Democrats, the country and the planet will be at the mercy of extreme weather thats indifferent to such messaging.

Joshua Greens fast-paced, sober, yet hopeful The Rebels: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Struggle for a New American Politics argues that a Democratic renewal is already under way. Like Leonhardt, Judis, and Teixeira, Green traces the Democrats estrangement from working Americans back to the 70s; he begins his story with a moment in 1978, when Jimmy Carter abandoned unions for Wall Street. The narrative reaches a climax in 2008, when the financial crisis destroyed home values and retirement savings while taxpayer dollars rescued the banks that had triggered it, convincing large numbers of Americans that the system was rigged by financiers and politicians. Because of policy choices by the Obama administrationDemocrats last spasm of neoliberalismmuch of the blame fell on the former party of the common people.The Rebels: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Struggle for a New American PoliticsBy Joshua GreenBuy Book

Yet out of the wreckage rose a new group of Democratic stars who sounded like their New Deal predecessors, many of whom were every bit as radical. Taking aim at corporate elites, Greens protagonists want to increase economic equality through worker power and state intervention. Though Sanders and Warren failed as presidential candidates, Green argues that their populism transformed the party, including the formerly moderate Joe Biden, who has pushed a remarkably ambitious legislative agenda with working-class interests at its center.

Green is a first-rate journalist, but his book suffers from a blind spot: It ignores the role of culture in the partys struggles with the working class. His analysis omits half the story until the 2016 election, when, he acknowledges, Trump reshuffled Democratic priorities. As he moved cultural issues to the center of national political conflict, race, gender, and immigration eclipsed populist economics as the focus of the liberal insurgency. In the face of Trumps bigotry, Democrats felt compelled to adopt the maximalist positions of activists, assuming that these would align the party with the groups on the receiving end of Trumps ugliest barbs, such as Latino immigrants. Instead, the partys working-class losses began to extend beyond white voters. Greens answer is to double down on economic populism: Rather than fear the Republicans culture warsor respond to them by racializing policies that benefit everyoneDemocrats should take the opportunity to reestablish the party as serving the interests of working people of every race and ethnicity.

None of these books offers a shortcut to a new Democratic majority. The erosion of working-class support is too old and too severe to be easily reversed. In fact, its the Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini, in Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP, who imagines a coming realignmentfor Republicans. Ruffini cant resist making the case that, in addition to transforming the party, this coalition could become the next permanent majority. To do so, he breezes through some of the same history, and reaches a similar conclusion: Democrats have fallen into a cosmopolitan trap, losing their hold on a key constituency in the process.Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOPBy Patrick RuffiniBuy Book

Ruffinis most original contribution is to apply close statistical analysis to the past few election cycles as he builds his case for a Republican multiracial coalition. He supplies strong evidence of the moderate social views of most Black, Latino, and Asian American voters. On that basis, Ruffini doesnt think Democrats can win back their lost supporters just by changing the subject to class. Democrats may calculate that, simply by focusing on economic issues, they can keep cultural issues from eating into their base, but theyre wrong, he writes. When voters economic views and social views are in conflict, ones social stances more often drive voting behavior Cultural divides are what voters vote on even if politicians dont talk about them. Ruffini offers no data to support this conclusion, but it underpins his counsel for a politician like Biden. Never mind his legislative accomplishments that benefit the working class; what he really needs, Ruffini advises in political-operative mode, is a hard pivot against the cultural lefthe seems to have in mind a Sister Souljah momentto neutralize Republican attacks.

Though Ruffini doesnt spend much time on economic policy, its worth noting that a few high-profile Republicans have recently discovered that monopolistic corporations can be oppressors, that capitalism tears communities apart. Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Marco Rubio of Florida, as well as other politicians, limit this insight to their partisan enemies in Silicon Valley, but a few conservative writers, such as Sohrab Ahmari, the author of Tyranny, Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American LibertyAnd What to Do About It, are open to ideas of social democracy. This internal party battle between the old libertarians and the new egalitarians doesnt seem to interest Ruffini; oddly, given his populist ambitions, he remains unmoved by the anti-corporate critique. Nor does he have much to say about the Republican Partys descent with Trump into authoritarian nihilism.Social issues arent manufactured by power-hungry politicians to divide the masses. They matterthats why theyre so polarizing.

Ruffinis formative years as a professional Republican came during the George W. Bush presidency, and his thinking hasnt kept up with the America of fentanyl and Matt Gaetz. The populist future of Ruffinis desires is a wholesome mixture of culturally conservative, pro-capitalist families and low taxes. His commonsense majority would combine white people who didnt graduate from college and nonwhite people of all classes, because the education divide makes a much bigger diffeence in the attitudes of whites than it does among nonwhites. It sounds like a twist on the Judis-Teixeira emerging majority of two decades ago. Demography as destiny seduces realigners on both sides.

Ruffini recognizes that Republicans are a long way from attracting enough nonwhite voters to achieve his majority. But, he argues, if the party battles job discrimination based on a college degree, makes voting Republican socially acceptable among Black Americans, and apologizes for the southern strategy, his goal could be realized by 2036. By then, the Democratic Party would presumably be a pious rump of overeducated white people demanding open borders and anti-racist math.

These writers are all trying to solve a puzzle: One party supports unions, the child tax credit, and some form of universal health care, while the other party does everything in its power to defeat them. One president passed major legislation to renew manufacturing and rebuild infrastructure, while his predecessor cut taxes on the rich and corporations. Yet polls since 2016 have shown Republicans closing the gap with Democrats on which party is perceived to care more about poor Americans, middle-class Americans, and people like me. During these years, the energy on the left has been fueled by an identity politics that resisted Trump and became the orthodoxy of educated progressives, with its own daunting lexicon. Many Democrats fell silent, out of fear or shame or confusion.

Now, encouraged perhaps by the excesses and failures of a professional-class social-justice movement, and by the relative success of Bidens pro-worker agenda, they seem to be finding their voice. Judis and Teixeira cite polling data from Wisconsin and Massachusetts as evidence that Americans are less divided on cultural issues than activists on both sides, who benefit by stoking division, would like: If you look at the countrys voters, and put aside the culture wars, what you find are genuine differences between the parties voters over economic issues. The real disagreements have to do with taxation, regulation, health care, and the larger problem of inequality. Democrats way forward seems obvious: emphasize differences on economics by turning left; mute differences on culture by tacking to the middle. If the party can free itself from the moneyed interests of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and the cultural radicalism of campus and social media, it might start to win in red states.

I want Leonhardt, Judis, Teixeira, and Green to be right. Having long held the same views, Im an ideal audience for these books and other new ones making related arguments, such as Yascha Mounks The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, Susan Neimans Left Is Not Woke, and Fredrik deBoers How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement. Yet the solutions that some of them propose for the Democrats working-class problem leave me with a worrying skepticism. In an age of shredded social bonds and deep distrust of institutions, especially the federal government, we cant go back to New Deal economics. If Ruffini is right, the culture wars arent easily put aside. Guns and religion, in Obamas unfortunate phrase, are genuinely held values, not just proxies for economic grievance; conservative politicians manipulate them, but they arent inauthentic. Race and gender are more important categories than class for millions of Americans, especially younger ones. Illegal immigration legitimately vexes citizens living precarious lives. Social issues arent manufactured by power-hungry politicians to divide the masses. They matterthats why theyre so polarizing.

The working class is immense, varied, and not all that amenable to being led. Its more atomized, more independent-minded, more conspiracy-minded and cynical than it was a couple of generations ago. Although unions are gaining popularity and energy, only a tenth of workers belong to one. Abandoned to an unfair economy while the rich freely break the rules, bombarded with images of fame and wealth, awash in drugs, working-class Americans are less likely to identify with underdogs like Rocky and Norma Rae or the defeated heroes of Springsteen songs than to admire celebrities who pursue power for its own sakenone more so than Trump.

The argument over which matters more, economics or culture, may obsess the political class, but Americans living paycheck to paycheck, ill-served by decades of financial neglect and polarizing culture wars, cant easily separate the two. All of itwages, migrants, police, guns, classrooms, trade, the price of gas, the meaning of the flagcan be a source of chaos or of dignity. The real question is this: Can our politics, in its current state, deliver hard-pressed Americans greater stability and independence, or will it only inflict more disruption and pain? The working class isnt a puzzle whose solution comes with a prizeit isnt a means to the end of realignment and long-term power. It is a constituency comprising half the country, whose thriving is necessary for the good of the whole.

This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline What Does the Working Class Really Want?

?When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Sports

From health to depth to the entire offense: One thing that must change for all 30 MLB teams

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 5, 2025

By

From health to depth to the entire offense: One thing that must change for all 30 MLB teams

  • Bradford DoolittleMay 5, 2025, 07:00 AM ET

    Close

      • MLB writer and analyst for ESPN.com
      • Former NBA writer and analyst for ESPN.com
      • Been with ESPN since 2013

Something has to change.

Of course, much has already changed since we last convened with our final preseason projections. But for each MLB team, playing five weeks of a new season will inevitably expose additional shifts that are needed. Every team, no matter how splendid or how dreadful the start, has something.

One thing the forecasts suggested that has borne out so far is the relative levels of stratification between the leagues. The National League, led by the champion Dodgers, looked top-heavy, and while not all of the teams we thought would make up that elite tier are a perfect match with the forecasts, the overall dynamic is very much one of dominance. Meanwhile, the American League figured to be a whole bunch of teams in spitting distance of break even, with little separation among the top 12-13 teams in the circuit.

How will these dynamics hold up until we Stock Watch again in June?

Each team’s ability, or lack thereof, to make the following changes might determine that.

Win average: 104.5 (Last: 102.4, 1st)
In the playoffs: 98.8% (Last: 97.7%)
Champions: 28.5% (Last: 28.4%)

What must change: Rotation health

There were actually some bumpy moments in the early weeks of the season for the Dodgers but nothing has happened to really knock them out of the favorite’s perch as we think ahead to late October. One thing that could change that is L.A.’s ever-growing injured list, especially its collection of 60-day IL assignments. For all the depth the Dodgers seemed to build up in their rotation over the winter, they’ve still gone with two bullpen games already. And this doesn’t even include Shohei Ohtani, who’s still building up so he can take his turns in the rotation. Given their recent history of starter injuries … maybe he shouldn’t? Including the two openers, the Dodgers have already had 10 different pitchers start games.

Win average: 96.0 (Last: 90.2, 3rd)
In the playoffs: 88.6% (Last: 73.5%)
Champions: 10.5% (Last: 6.0%)

What must change: Middle relief instability

There hasn’t been much to complain about with the Mets. Though New York hasn’t overtaken the Dodgers in the simulations from a going-forward perspective, the Mets have probably been the better team to this point. The Dodgers have the better winning percentage, but the Mets’ Pythagorean pace (109.7) is the National League’s best. With not much to nitpick about, the relief contingent in front of Edwin Diaz needs to coalesce a little more. Ryne Stanek has the pen’s second-highest average leverage index but has struggled, and the two top lefties (A.J. Minter and Danny Young) have already been lost to injury. Still, if this is a team’s biggest worry at the beginning of May, it’s in a good place.

Win average: 95.8 (Last: 84.3, 13th)
In the playoffs: 92.7% (Last: 51.2%)
Champions: 7.8% (Last: 1.5%)

What must change: Ninth-inning drama

The Cubs have mostly bludgeoned their opposition so far with a breakout offense that ranks among baseball’s best in pretty much every major category. Assuming Chicago won’t average over six runs per game all season, eventually its thin bullpen is going to move into the spotlight. The Cubs have blown seven of their first 15 save opportunities. Closer Ryan Pressly has managed to white-knuckle his way through most of his outings but has struck out fewer than four batters per nine innings, with more walks than K’s. Overall, Chicago’s relievers rank 28th in swing-and-miss percentage, underscoring the general lack of dominance in that unit. The Cubs have been strong in every other facet but for them to establish themselves as a true front-runner, the relief leaks will need to be shored up.

Win average: 93.7 (Last: 83.0, 16th)
In the playoffs: 91.7% (Last: 41.2%)
Champions: 10.1% (Last: 1.8%)

What must change: Shortstop play

You hate to pick on Trey Sweeney, who accounts for most of Detroit’s starts at shortstop, but there just aren’t many shortcomings for the Tigers so far. No team has improved its forecast more since the start of the season. Detroit is now landing a No. 1 playoff seed more often than any other AL team in the simulations, though the Yankees’ pennant odds are still a tick better because of a higher baseline. (New York has a lower regular-season win forecast because of schedule differences.) Sweeney hasn’t hit (.234/.317/.355)* and the Tigers’ shortstop defensive rating, per FanGraphs, ranks 20th. It’s the most obvious blemish on what is shaping up as a pristine season in Detroit.

* These numbers were .202/.282/.303 entering Sunday, but Sweeney must have had spies watching over my shoulder. Against the Angels, he went 4-for-5 with a homer and six RBIs. That’s more like it.

Win average: 92.9 (Last: 84.5, 12th)
In the playoffs: 76.9% (Last: 44.4%)
Champions: 4.0% (Last: 1.8%)

What must change: Lineup depth

The Padres are off to a great start, largely on the strength of a bullpen that has been off the charts. The relievers have racked up 14 saves (they’ve blown only one) and 27 holds while compiling a collective 1.73 ERA. Those numbers are both unbelievable and unsustainable. When some regression sets in, a top-heavy lineup will need to get production from spots like catcher (21st in OPS) and left field (27th) to offset the difference. We kind of knew this was how the Padres were constructed, but still — San Diego has given too many plate appearances to too many players in what we’ll call the post-productive phases of their careers.

Win average: 91.4 (Last: 84.3, 13th)
In the playoffs: 85.4% (Last: 46.8%)
Champions: 8.1% (Last: 2.5%)

What must change: First base production

Generally speaking, the more specific the issue we choose to worry about, the better off the team. For Seattle, the primary concern the past couple of years has been more wide-lens than specific: offense. For now, that problem has apparently been largely solved. The Mariners’ offense has been one of the hottest in baseball and over the past couple of weeks, with its hitters even managing to mash at T-Mobile Park. So rather than worrying about the offense, writ large, we can point out that at first base, the Rowdy Tellez–Donovan Solano combo is mostly responsible for Seattle’s .518 OPS (tied for 29th in MLB) at the position. This projected to be a major hole before the season, so the chances of self-correction are limited. Now, the stakes are higher to shore up the weak spots, since the Mariners have emerged as the early front-runner to win the AL West.

Win average: 90.8 (Last: 88.7, 5th)
In the playoffs: 84.5% (Last: 68.3%)
Champions: 9.3% (Last: 6.5%)

What must change: Rotation depth chart

For a first-place team, there is plenty to worry about when it comes to the Yankees. They’ve had the best position player (Aaron Judge, by far) and arguably the best pitcher (Max Fried) in baseball. The relief staff has dealt with the struggles of demoted closer Devin Williams, but the bullpen still ranks sixth in relief ERA and with only 14% of inherited runners scoring. But the rotation has been below average (4.07 ERA and only eight quality starts) despite Fried’s great beginning. Even worse, with Gerrit Cole out for the season and Luis Gil and Marcus Stroman currently on the shelf, it’s not immediately clear how this is going to get better. This issue might really start to mushroom if and when Fried regresses from his hot start.

Win average: 90.3 (Last: 89.2, 4th)
In the playoffs: 66.2% (Last: 68.9%)
Champions: 4.1% (Last: 4.8%)

What must change: Slumping stalwarts

The Phillies’ roster was constructed on star power, not depth, and while that has worked well enough the past few years, they need the stars to produce. The “it’s still early” caveat applies, but so far, Bryce Harper hasn’t hit like Bryce Harper, Alec Bohm‘s production has gone missing, Aaron Nola just earned his first win but remains under league average (91 ERA+) and key bullpen acquisition Jordan Romano has gotten shelled. If the Phillies don’t want to lose sight of the front-running Mets in the NL East race, they’ll need their main cogs to start firing.

Win average: 89.7 (Last: 79.9, 20th)
In the playoffs: 59.7% (Last: 24.6%)
Champions: 2.5% (Last: 0.6%)

What must change: Team batting average

The Giants have inserted themselves into a top-heavy NL postseason chase that they didn’t figure to be a part of when the season began. The pitching and defense has been stellar, but the offense hasn’t kept up. San Francisco ranks eighth in walks percentage but 24th in batting average. That can work in a take-and-rake general approach to offense, but the Giants are only middle of the pack in homers. Since they aren’t very athletic and rarely steal bases, this leads to uneven production. The Giants can hang in contention with a league-level batting average, but they simply don’t hit enough homers to do so if they continue to hover around .230. That puts the onus on low-average hitters such as Matt Chapman (.198), LaMonte Wade Jr. (.141, ouch) and Willy Adames (.230 and now four homers after hitting two on Sunday) to up the ante.

Win average: 87.1 (Last: 87.1, 8th)
In the playoffs: 44.2% (Last: 58.4%)
Champions: 1.7% (Last: 3.0%)

What must change: Bullpen health

In what’s shaping up as a historically good NL West (save for the Rockies), little problems can quickly become big ones. For the Diamondbacks, a shiny start has lost its luster a bit as they have battled bullpen problems in both the performance and health categories. The unit scuffled badly during a 5-9 stretch, posting a 5.61 collective ERA while blowing six of 10 save opportunities. Closer A.J. Puk (elbow) is on the 60-day IL and Justin Martinez (shoulder) hit the 15-day IL after two concerning outings with diminished velocity. Both are expected to help later this season but for that to matter, the likes of Kevin Ginkel, Shelby Miller and Ryan Thompson need to step up in high-leverage spots.

Win average: 86.8(Last: 88.7, 5th)
In the playoffs: 66.6% (Last: 68.7%)
Champions: 3.7% (Last: 5.4%)

What must change: Homer count

It has been a mixed bag for the Astros. Hunter Brown has been one of the game’s best pitchers and Josh Hader is having a vintage season at the back of the bullpen. The relief staff, in general, has been strong. But the lineup has been below average with a lack of power at the root of the issue. No Astro has homered more than four times and Houston ranks 21st in home run and overall slugging percentage. It’s an issue up and down the lineup but things would look a lot more promising if Christian Walker and Yordan Alvarez were going deep at their usual rates.

Win average: 86.7 (Last: 96.5, 2nd)
In the playoffs: 43.5% (Last: 91.1%)
Champions: 2.2% (Last: 14.4%)

What must change: IL roster

An 0-7 start threatened to sink the Braves’ season before it began. They recovered — nearly climbing to .500 at one point — but they have a lot of work to do. Hopes that the Braves can still reach their ceiling hinge on the longed-for returns of Spencer Strider and Ronald Acuña Jr. In the meantime, they need underperforming stalwarts such as Matt Olson, Michael Harris II, Chris Sale and Raisel Iglesias to hit their stride. Atlanta can’t keep plodding along under .500 in this year’s NL while waiting for its stars to get healthy, but if the Braves can stay above water until then, they might be able to really take off. Considering what we’ve seen so far, the fact that they won’t see the Dodgers again during the regular season certainly helps.

Win average: 83.6 (Last: 84.6, 11th)
In the playoffs: 47.4% (Last: 48.8%)
Champions: 1.3% (Last: 2.3%)

What must change: Outfield production

The Royals’ offense, in general, has been missing, with only Bobby Witt Jr. producing all season. But the outfield ranks 29th in bWAR as a group — the continuation of a problem that hovered over the roster last season. MJ Melendez was sent to the minors to find himself. His initial results in Omaha suggest he’ll be searching for some time. Hunter Renfroe has produced less than a good-hitting pitcher. Mark Canha has helped in a big role and Drew Waters has had some nice moments. But the Royals need some stable offense from the corner outfielders, making this a must-get as the trade deadline starts to loom.

Win average: 82.9 (Last: 77.7, 22nd)
In the playoffs: 40.9% (Last: 19.0%)
Champions: 0.9% (Last: 0.5%)

What must change: Emmanuel Clase

You figured the Guardians’ bullpen would fall off a bit after last season’s off-the-charts showing. That has happened even though set-up relievers Cade Smith and Hunter Gaddis have been every bit as good as they were in 2024. No, the problem has been a mystifying start by Clase, who has already given up more runs (11) than he did all of last season (10). He already has won four games, matching a career high, but of course that’s not necessarily a good sign for a closer. Clase’s dominance was the biggest differentiator on last year’s team. The 2025 squad, which has been outscored by 23 runs despite a 20-14 record, needs him to approximate that performance.

Win average: 82.8 (Last: 84.1, 15th)
In the playoffs: 43.6% (Last: 45.6%)
Champions: 1.8% (Last: 2.5%)

What must change: Bullpen depth

Despite an elite offense, the Red Sox have hovered around .500 because of a thin bullpen. The relievers have blown as many saves (eight) as they’ve converted and only one team has seen a higher rate of inherited runners score. Closer Aroldis Chapman has been fine, but he hasn’t had enough situational help. Boston ranks in the middle of the pack with a 4.11 relief ERA and its 10 holds are tied for the fewest of any bullpen. The rotation has been solid, but it’ll need more support to remain that way.

Win average: 81.9 (Last: 87.1, 8th)
In the playoffs: 38.1% (Last: 61.0%)
Champions: 1.1% (Last: 5.2%)

What must change: The offense

Even after an eight-run outburst against the division-leading Mariners on Sunday, Texas ranks 29th in run scoring. Only the Rockies have scored fewer. It’s a stunning turnaround for an offense that kept scoreboards spinning in 2023 on the way to a World Series title. Last year’s falloff was steep, and based on what we’ve seen so far, hopes for positive regression are fading. Adolis Garcia is having another down season. Marcus Semien is below replacement. And the key additions from the winter — Joc Pederson and Jake Burger — have hurt more than they’ve helped. Pederson is hitting a remarkable .094 with a .334 OPS, and Burger (.561) was sent to the minors. Not good. The Rangers’ brass has taken note: Offensive coordinator Donnie Ecker, who was with the club during its 2023 run, was fired after Sunday’s game.

Win average: 79.5 (Last: 85.1, 10th)
In the playoffs: 25.7% (Last: 52.4%)
Champions: 0.7% (Last: 2.7%)

What must change: Carlos Correa

For once, we don’t have to cite the availability of the Twins’ stars as their primary problem. That’s still an issue, too, as Royce Lewis has yet to make his season debut — but the larger problem has been the star who has stayed on the field, Correa, is off to a miserable start. He’s hitting .216 with a lone homer and a .560 OPS to begin the season, hamstringing a Twins lineup that has struggled. Everything is off, even Correa’s plate discipline, as he has walked at a rate less than half his career norm. The Twins need more to turn around than just Correa, but no one else on the roster has fallen as far below expectation as he has.

Win average: 79.4 (Last: 82.9, 17th)
In the playoffs: 25.0% (Last: 39.2%)
Champions: 0.6% (Last: 1.6%)

What must change: Powerless stars

After the formerly punchless Royals hammered seven homers in Baltimore on Sunday, the Blue Jays sank to last in the majors with 23 homers. The power trio of Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Anthony Santander and Bo Bichette have hit nine of those dingers between them — and that’s just not enough. Guerrero will be fine. Bichette has recovered most of the batting average he lost during last year’s .225 season, but he has homered only once. This is a player in his age-27 season who topped 20 homers in each season from 2021 to 2023. Finally, Santander has flailed during his first Toronto season, hitting four homers with a 67 OPS+. This can’t continue if the Jays are to contend.

Win average: 79.1 (Last: 79.9, 20th)
In the playoffs: 11.4% (Last: 28.9%)
Champions: 0.1% (Last: 0.5%)

What must change: The pitching

The Brewers are built to win on pitching and defense. Every year, they overperform their projections because of an organizational ability to find, or produce, quality pitchers. But so far, they just haven’t found enough of them in 2025. The overall run prevention has been off. In the first season after Willy Adames’ departure, the team defense has been more decent than elite. The rotation has received good work from Freddy Peralta, Jose Quintana and upstart Chad Patrick, but the falloff after that has been steep. Brandon Woodruff might return to the mix soon and that will certainly help. More troubling is Milwaukee’s normally airtight relief staff, which has struggled to finish games and strand inherited runners.

This all needs to turn around — and fast. With the Cubs emerging as a potential powerhouse in the NL Central, being an above-average team is no longer the bar to clear in the division. And it’s unlikely the Central’s second-place club is going to have a chance at a wild-card slot — not in this league.

Win average: 78.8 (Last: 80.3, 19th)
In the playoffs: 22.3% (Last: 27.1%)
Champions: 0.5% (Last: 0.8%)

What must change: Home-field disadvantage

No matter what happened, this was going to be a strange season for the Rays. Playing in a minor league facility owned by a division rival was going to take some getting used to. The problem for the Rays is that they need to get used to it quickly, because of a schedule heavy on early home games. When the Rays depart for a six-game trip on June 8, they will have played nearly twice as many games in Tampa (43) as on the road (22). That means, of course, that the Rays will have a road-heavy schedule after that, which would be fine if the Rays were playing well at George M. Steinbrenner Field — but they aren’t. When the Rays return to Florida on Tuesday, they’ll be 9-13 at their temporary venue. With a lot more games in Tampa coming up, it’s an issue they need to fix fast. If they don’t, they’ll be looking at an uphill battle for playoff contention, and most of those hills will be confronted away from home.

Win average: 78.8 (Last: 75.9, 23rd)
In the playoffs: 10.6% (Last: 14.6%)
Champions: 0.2% (Last: 0.2%)

What must change: Lead protection

The Reds might be good. The pitching staff (122 ERA+) ranks third in the NL. The rotation and the bullpen have contributed even though presumed closer Alexis Diaz floundered so badly that he was sent to the minors. Emilio Pagan has been OK in Diaz’s place, but he’s better suited for set-up work. Diaz’s trouble started last season, so it’s hard to say where his trajectory is headed. Recently recalled Luis Mey has electric stuff, but he’s unproven and prone to lapses of command. However it happens, manager Terry Francona needs someone to step up to lock down the ninth because the overall pitching is contention-worthy. The lineup … well, it’s another reason why the Reds can’t afford back-of-the-bullpen inconsistency.

Win average: 77.5 (Last: 73.5, 26th)
In the playoffs: 16.1% (Last: 8.4%)
Champions: 0.2% (Last: 0.1%)

What must change: The defense

This is shaping up as an exciting first season in Sacramento for the Athletics. The offense has been productive and looks legit, especially if rookie Nick Kurtz hits the ground running. The pitching is going to be more of a scramble, but what would help if the Athletics could field. They rank last or second to last in the leading defensive metrics. Only the Red Sox have committed more errors. Some teams can overwhelm opponents by favoring offense over defense at most positions, but the Athletics aren’t likely to be one of them. Key spots to shore up are second base and third base, positions that aren’t producing at the plate, either, so at the very least the Athletics could favor a glove.

Win average: 76.8 (Last: 81.0, 18th)
In the playoffs: 6.4% (Last: 33.9%)
Champions: 0.1% (Last: 0.7%)

What must change: Ryan Helsley

The Cardinals are perfectly mediocre, owning a run differential that has hovered around break even. Their record is a little worse than the expectation the so-so differential portends, largely because of a 4-5 record in one-run games — two of those coming in Sunday’s doubleheader against the Mets. This is not exclusively because of Helsley, but he has not been on his game so far with two blown saves in seven chances and walking nearly as many batters as he has struck out. The strikeout and walk rates are alarming, as they reflect what Helsley was early in his career before he ascended to All-Star status. If the mediocre Cardinals are going to do better than middling, they need their star closer to help them close out more than their share of close games. The kicker, though, is that if the Cardinals go into offload mode, this version of Helsley isn’t going to look nearly as alluring in the trade marketplace.

Win average: 75.7 (Last: 88.0, 7th)
In the playoffs: 11.7% (Last: 64.7%)
Champions: 0.2% (Last: 5.9%)

What must change: Right-handed hitting

No team has lost more from its preseason projection than Baltimore, so it’s very difficult to boil it down to one big thing. The problem with right-handed hitting could also be framed as a problem with hitting left-handed pitchers. The Orioles rank fifth with a .774 OPS against righties but are dead last against lefties (an anemic .502). Their righty hitters (Tyler O’Neill, Jordan Westburg, Gary Sanchez, et al.) are hitting a collective .200/.261/.319. This of course comes after the Orioles moved in the left-field fence at Camden Yards over the winter. How’s that going? Opposing righty hitters have a .972 OPS there, while their Baltimore counterparts are at .586. The visitors have outhomered Baltimore’s righty swingers 20-8 at Oriole Park.

Win average: 70.5 (Last: 67.7, 27th)
In the playoffs: 0.9% (Last: 1.9%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

What must change: Dylan Crews

The Nationals are competitive already and often fun to watch. Actual contention seems like a longshot, though, especially given the current state of their bullpen. Still, the more long-term questions the Nationals can answer in the affirmative, the better they will be able to set themselves up for a real push in 2026. At some point, infield prospect Brady House should join the big league fray. Until that happens, eyeballs remain on Crews, the touted second-year player whose MLB career has sputtered at the beginning. Crews looked lost early, going 5-for-47 with zero extra-base hits to start. Then came a two-week splurge with four homers and a 1.026 OPS over 13 outings. He’s 1-for-21 since. More than anything, Crews needs to get off the roller coaster and enjoy a nice, prolonged run of good, solid consistency.

Win average: 66.8 (Last: 73.8, 25th)
In the playoffs: 0.9% (Last: 8.9%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.1%)

What must change: Roster make-up

What do I mean by “roster make-up”? Remember the glory days of April 12, when L.A. was 9-5 and it seemed its floor-raising project from the winter was going to work? Since then, the Angels have a minus-65 run differential, 14 runs worse than any other team and, yes, that includes the Rockies. And also, Mike Trout is back on the injured list. The Angels are in the bottom five in OPS, ERA and defensive runs saved. This incidentally isn’t a tanking team. So how to change the roster makeup? Maybe just go young and lose big? The losing might happen anyway and, besides, what the Angels are doing now is not working.

Win average: 66.0 (Last: 74.2, 24th)
In the playoffs: 0.2% (Last: 10.4%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.1%)

What must change: Oneil Cruz‘s defense

According to baseball-reference.com, Cruz’s offense has been nine runs better than average, once you combine his hitting (.243/.377/.505 with eight homers) and baserunning (14 steals). His defensive performance in center field is minus-9 runs, erasing all of that offensive value. His bWAR (0.5) is a product of accounting — positional value and replacement value. Cruz is now minus-12 in fielding runs over the past two seasons in center. His career figure at shortstop was minus-9. Given his speed and arm strength, wherever Cruz plays, this cannot continue to happen. For all that athletic ability and offensive output, to this point he’d have produced almost as much value as a DH.

Win average: 63.6 (Last: 62.9, 28th)
In the playoffs: 0.1% (Last: 0.4%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

What must change: Sandy Alcantara‘s command

It’s great to have Alcantara back after Tommy John surgery. But so far, he has been a little tough to watch. It’s often said that command lags behind stuff for many surgery returnees, and that certainly seems to be the case for the 2022 NL Cy Young winner. His walk ratio (5.9 per nine innings) is more than double his career norm and his strikeout rate (15.8%) is the lowest of his career. Alcantara threw strikes nearly 69% of the time during the three years before he was injured; this season he’s at 62%. His velocity isn’t quite all the way back either, but he’s still averaging 97.4 mph with his fastball. He’s just not putting it where it needs to be.

Win average: 54.9 (Last: 54.1, 30th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

What must change: Fan patience

To paraphrase Timothée Chalamet, now ain’t the time for your tears, Sox fans. That was last year. The White Sox are the team nearest to me — less than two miles from my keyboard — so I get a good sampling of fan feedback as I get out and about, plus plenty from the local media. This isn’t a scientifically-informed observation, but it feels as if many are missing the point. The White Sox tore the team down to the studs — last year — and this is the aftermath. The bounce-back was never going to be immediate. This year’s team stinks, sure, but it’s playing a much better brand of baseball than it did last year. There are players on the roster now who might be around for awhile and more are on the way. The rebuild isn’t even 20% complete and another 100-plus losses is a near certainty, but things are better. They had to be. Watching a team come together required patience, but it’s better than what White Sox fans dealt with a year ago.

Win average: 44.6 (Last: 57.1, 29th)
In the playoffs: 0.0% (Last: 0.1%)
Champions: 0.0% (Last: 0.0%)

What must change: Everything

The Rockies’ saves leader (Zach Agnos with two) has struck out one of the 26 batters he has faced. Their wins leader (Chase Dollander, a legitimately exciting prospect) has a 6.48 ERA. The team OPS+ is 62. Their leader in plate appearances (Ryan McMahon with 136) has an OPS of .574. Did the Rockies tear down? If so, how long have they been rebuilding? It’s really hard to make sense of the last half-decade or so of this franchise, and at this point, there seems to be no relief on the horizon. They did change hitting coaches.

Continue Reading

Technology

From ‘Cockroach Award’ to the Big Board: Hinge Health’s unlikely path to IPO

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 5, 2025

By

From 'Cockroach Award' to the Big Board: Hinge Health's unlikely path to IPO

Hinge Health co-founders Gabriel Mecklenburg (left) and Daniel Perez (right).

Courtesy of Hinge Health

At digital physical therapy startup Hinge Health, CEO Daniel Perez used to recognize hard-working employees with the “Cockroach Award,” a distinction that brought with it a “cockroach squad” t-shirt and a cash payout.

References to the insect were abundant at the company’s old headquarters in London, where a picture of a cockroach was prominently displayed on the wall. For much of Hinge’s 10-year history, the cockroach was the unofficial mascot. Staffers named it Flossy after the viral dance move “the floss.”

Perez relishes the symbolism. In his determination to build a company that will push through adversity, he’s encouraged employees to think of themselves like cockroaches, due to the creature’s grimy resilience and noted ability to survive harsh conditions.

“It was the identity of every individual in the company,” said Joshua Sturm, a vice president at Hinge from 2019 to 2024 and now chief revenue officer at cancer prevention startup Color Health. “We are all in this together, and no matter what happens, we are going to survive together.”

Perez and his 1,400-person workforce now face the ultimate test of their mettle. Hinge, which moved from London to San Francisco in 2017, is trying to go public at a time of such extreme economic uncertainty and market volatility that several companies, including online lender Klarna and ticket marketplace StubHub, have delayed their long-awaited IPOs.

Hinge filed its prospectus on March 10, announcing plans to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “HNGE.” Three weeks later, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping tariff policy that plunged U.S. markets into turmoil after tariff concerns had already pushed the Nasdaq to its worst quarter since 2022.

But Hinge. led by its 39-year old co-founder and CEO, appears determined to power through the chaos. Hinge declined to comment or make Perez available for an interview. 

Lightning Round: I can't play enterprise software, too much money being lost, says Jim Cramer

Going public was already going to be a risky endeavor for Hinge. The IPO market has been mostly dormant since late 2021, when soaring inflation and rising interest rates pushed investors out of risky assets. Within digital health, it’s been almost completely dead.

Health-tech companies have struggled to adapt to a more muted growth environment following the Covid pandemic, and many once promising business models haven’t panned out as planned.

The starkest example is virtual health company Teladoc, which has a market cap of just over $1 billion less than five years after buying digital health provider Livongo in a deal that valued the combined companies at $37 billion. Teladoc’s BetterHelp mental health unit has been a particularly troublesome business as paying users dropped off in the years following the pandemic.

Over time, Hinge’s Cockroach Award transitioned from a monthly prize to a quarterly distinction. The company phased it out entirely about a year ago in preparation for its next public-facing chapter, but the survive-at-all-costs mentality persists, according to current employees. Now, staffers are recognized with the “Movers Awards,” a nod to the company’s focus on movement.

“We have many decades of work ahead,” Perez wrote in a letter to investors in March. “We hope you join us on this journey.”

CNBC spoke to 13 current and former Hinge employees, investors, and people close to Perez for this story, some of whom asked not to be named in order to provide candid commentary.

‘I gave him terrible advice’

Hinge uses software to help patients treat acute musculoskeletal injuries, chronic pain and carry out post-surgery rehabilitation remotely. Large employers like Target and Morgan Stanley cover the costs so their employees can access Hinge’s app-based virtual physical therapy, as well as its wearable electrical nerve stimulation device called Enso. 

The company says its technology can help users manage pain, cut down health-care costs and reduce the need for surgery and opioids. Revenue increased 33% to $390.4 million last year, while its net loss narrowed to $11.9 million from $108.1 million a year earlier, according to the prospectus.

Hinge’s roster of clients expanded by 36% last year to 2,256, and the number of individual members jumped 44% to over 532,300, the filing said.

Hinge has raised more than $1 billion from investors including Tiger Global Management and Coatue Management, and it boasted a $6.2 billion valuation as of October 2021, the last time the company raised outside funding. The biggest institutional shareholders are venture firms Insight Partners and Atomico, which own 19% and 15% of the stock, respectively, according to the filing.

Daniel Perez, CEO of Hinge Health

Courtesy: Hinge Health

Perez and Gabriel Mecklenburg, Hinge’s executive chairman, started the company in 2014. The pair met while they were both pursuing PhDs in the U.K. — Perez at the University of Oxford and Mecklenburg at Imperial College London. They were distracted students, according to Perez’s twin brother, David. 

By the time they launched Hinge, Perez and Mecklenburg had already co-founded two other ventures together. One was the Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable, an organization that connected academics and industry experts. The other was Marblar, which worked to commercialize academic intellectual property.

Perez took a leave of absence from Oxford while working on Marblar and never returned. His brother wasn’t a fan of the decision initially.

“I gave him terrible advice,” said David Perez, a graduate of Yale Law School and partner at Perkins Coie in Seattle. “I was like, ‘I think you’re an idiot, I think you should focus on your PhD. Only an idiot would not finish a PhD at Oxford.'” 

The twins have two older siblings. Their mother immigrated from Cuba in 1968, followed 12 years later by their father. Their parents met in Miami, got married after just three dates, and are still together after more than 40 years. 

The family moved from Miami to Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1990. Perez’s mother was a substitute teacher and his father worked at restaurants as a dishwasher and busboy. David Perez said their father “worked around the clock” and used to call out orders in his sleep. 

“It wasn’t a lot of money, I think combined they made about $19,000 a year,” David Perez said. “But they stitched it together and raised four kids.” 

The twin boys were competitive, particularly when it came to academics and playing basketball in the driveway. David said his brother got “great grades” and always had an inclination toward science and medicine, graduating from high school at age 16 and then starting college at Westminster University, a small liberal arts school in Utah.

“I swear,” David Perez said, “there were times where the only punishment that my mom could issue that would have the sting was restricting our ability to do homework.”

Hit by a car

Perez was a student in the Honors College at Westminster, and he graduated with a degree in biology. Richard Badenhausen, dean of the Honors College, described Perez as an independent thinker and an ambitious student, especially for his age. 

“He didn’t care too much what people thought about him, which is a strength in my book,” Badenhausen said in an interview. 

When Perez was 13, he was hit by a car. He broke an arm and a leg, and had to be airlifted to a nearby hospital. After three surgeries and 12 months of rehab, he had a newfound interest in orthopedics and physical therapy. 

Mecklenburg had a serious injury of his own, tearing his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) during a judo match, which also required a year of rehab, according to Hinge’s website.

One day in October 2014, the pair put their heads together and outlined the tools they wished were available while undergoing physical therapy. Musculoskeletal conditions affect as many as 1.7 billion people worldwide, according to Hinge’s prospectus, so there was no shortage of opportunities.

They had the early concept of Hinge within hours and a prototype ready by December of that year.

In Hinge’s early days, Perez and Mecklenburg would meet every Saturday morning to talk shop. Now, as they’ve aged and started families, they meet on Wednesday nights, according to colleagues. Perez welcomed his first child with his wife late last year. 

“Seeing the growth over the last six, seven, eight years has just been unbelievable,” said Jon Reynolds, a tech founder who contributed to Hinge’s seed funding round. “That comes down to the quality of Dan and Gabriel as leaders. They complement each other really well, and they’ve obviously got that mutual respect.”

Perez is a hands-on CEO who expects a lot from his staff. 

He’s direct, detail-oriented, opinionated, competitive and can be intense, according to current and former employees. But he’s committed to the mission and the wellbeing of his employees, they said.

“He’s one of those rare founder CEOs who I think can go all the way,” said Paul Kruszewski, a former Hinge employee who joined the company after it acquired his Canadian computer vision startup, Wrnch, in 2021. 

Hinge Health’s Enso product.

Courtesy: Hinge Health

Employees say Perez is a voracious reader, often finishing two to four books a month. That includes books about business and leadership, an important source of information given that Hinge was his first real job. He’s a fan of “The Innovator’s Prescription,” by Clayton Christensen and others, “Crossing the Chasm,” by Geoffrey Moore and “The Long Fix,” by Dr. Vivian Lee.

He also likes his staffers to read. Executives will often prepare to discuss chapters from a book in their meetings. 

“I’d come home and there’d be a package from Dan, and it’s a book,” said Sturm, who led partnerships and new market development at Hinge. “That was just the norm.”

Sturm, who has worked in the health-care and benefits space for around 30 years, said Hinge was very deliberate with hiring, so there wasn’t a lot of turnover among senior executives. He said Hinge’s recruitment process was the hardest he’s ever experienced. 

Another “Dan-ism,” as Sturm called it, is Hinge’s philosophy around writing. Perez has employees write memos, typically up to six pages long, instead of preparing slide decks or other materials ahead of meetings. Perez was inspired by a similar practice at Amazon, according to current and former employees, and sees it as a way to force employees to think through what they want to say instead of hiding behind bullet points.

Hinge’s memo culture can be an adjustment, particularly for new employees. Sturm said he thought the practice was “insane” at first, but ultimately came to appreciate it and said it improved his pitches.

“When you sort of sit back, you go, ‘You know actually, he wasn’t wrong,'” Sturm said. 

Hinge has come a long way since venture firm Atomico led the $8 million Series A investment in 2017. The London-based firm said in a blog post at the time that it was “extremely impressed by Daniel and Gabriel, and their determination to tackle a big problem in society.”

Carolina Brochado led the round, though she left Atomico a year later and now works at investment firm EQT Group. She said that getting Hinge to the brink of an IPO was a “one in a million chance,” but noted that the company has managed to build a sizable business in digital health despite having so many odds stacked against it.

“Lots of learnings along the way, of course, like a big tech correction in the middle,” Brochado said in an interview. “But it really is one of those rare examples of just an enormous market that was under penetrated.”

For David Perez, whose firm now serves as Hinge’s outside counsel, watching the startup grow has been “fascinating,” he said.

“I’m a partner at a major law firm,” he said, “and I am only the second most successful twin. But I think I’m okay with that.”

WATCH: IPO market likely to pick up near Labor Day

The IPO market is likely to pick up near Labor Day, says FirstMark's Rick Heitzmann

Continue Reading

UK

Royal Family watch flypast from Buckingham Palace to mark 80th anniversary of VE Day

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 5, 2025

By

Royal Family watch flypast from Buckingham Palace to mark 80th anniversary of VE Day

The Royal Family watched an RAF flypast from the balcony of Buckingham Palace to mark the start of four days of celebrations for the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day.

The thousands of people gathered in front of the palace gates and along The Mall cheered, clapped and waved flags as the spectacular Red Arrows red, white and blue display flew overhead.

The King and Queen, who were joined by the Prince and Princess of Wales, their three children Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, and other senior royals waved from the balcony before the band played God Save The King.

Since Queen Elizabeth II’s death in 2022, it is the first landmark VE Day commemoration event without any of the royals who waved to crowds from the balcony in 1945.

The military flypast passes over The Mall and Buckingham Palace. Pic: PA
Image:
The Red Arrows fly over Buckingham Palace. Pic: PA

King Charles, Queen Camilla, the Prince of Wales, Prince George, Prince Louis, the Princess of Wales, and Princess Charlotte on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. Pic: PA
Image:
Members of the Royal Family wave to crowds. Pic: PA

The King earlier stood to salute as personnel from NATO allies, including the US, Germany and France, joined 1,300 members of the UK armed forces in a march towards Buckingham Palace.

Crowds gathered near the Cenotaph – draped in a large Union Flag for the first time since the war memorial was unveiled by King George V more than a century ago in 1920 – fell silent as Big Ben struck 12.

Actor Timothy Spall then read extracts from Sir Winston Churchill’s stirring victory speech on 8 May 1945 as the wartime prime minister told cheering crowds: “This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.”

More on Royal Family

Related Topics:

King Charles takes the salute from the military procession for the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Pic: PA
Image:
King Charles takes the salute from the military procession for the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Pic: PA

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Actor Timothy Spall has kicked off the VE Day celebrations by reading Winston Churchill’s famous speech, first read on 8 May, 1945.

The military parade was officially started by Normandy RAF veteran Alan Kennett, 100, who was in a cinema in the north German city of Celle when the doors burst open as a soldier drove a jeep into the venue and shouted: “The war is over.”

The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery led the march down Whitehall, through Admiralty Arch and up The Mall, while representatives of the Ukrainian military were cheered and clapped by crowds.

More than 30 Second World War veterans are attending celebrations in the capital, which include a tea party inside Buckingham Palace.

William, Prince of Wales, Prince George, Prince Louis and Princess Charlotte. Pic: Reuters
Image:
William, Prince of Wales, Prince George, Prince Louis and Princess Charlotte. Pic: Reuters

King Charles takes the salute from the military procession. Pic: PA
Image:
King Charles takes the salute from the military procession. Pic: PA

The King watched in front of Buckingham Palace along with the Queen, Sir Keir Starmer, other senior royals and Second World War veterans.

It is the monarch’s first public appearance since Prince Harry said his father will not speak to him and he does not know how much longer his father has left.

Members of the Ukrainian military march past the Palace of Westminster, during the VE Day 80th anniversary parade, in London, Monday, May 5, 2025. (James Manning/Pool Photo via AP)
Image:
Crowds cheered members of the Ukrainian military. Pic: AP

The Cenotaph on Whitehall is dressed in the Union flag ahead of a military procession marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Pic: PA
Image:
The Cenotaph on Whitehall is draped in the Union flag. Pic: PA

But a Palace aide insisted the Royal Family were “fully focused” on VE Day events after Harry’s shock BBC interview after losing a legal challenge over his security arrangements on Friday.

The King and Queen were said to be “looking forward” to the week’s commemorations and hoped “nothing will detract or distract” from celebrating.

Members of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment pass down the Mall ahead of the VE Day 80th anniversary parade in London, Monday, May 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali, Pool)
Image:
Members of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment pass down The Mall. Pic: AP

Members of the public make their way down The Mall
Image:
Members of the public make their way down The Mall

Prince Louis fiddled with his hair in the breezy conditions, while Kate sat next to veteran Bernard Morgan, who earlier appeared to show her some vintage photographs.

Monday is the first of four days of commemorations of the moment then prime minister Sir Winston declared that all German forces had surrendered at 3pm on 8 May 1945.

A woman wears British flag sunglasses earrings, hat and ribbons as she takes her place on the Mall to wait for the VE Day 80th anniversary parade. PIc: AP
Image:
Thousands of people lined the streets. Pic: AP

A young boy on the Mall.
Image:
A young boy on the Mall


People line the Mall wearing British flags and memorabilia as they wait for the start of the VE Day 80th anniversary parade. Pic: AP
Image:
People line the Mall. Pic: AP

It marked the end of almost six years of war in Europe, in which 384,000 British soldiers and 70,000 civilians were killed, and sparked two days of joyous celebrations in London.

Sir Keir said in an open letter to veterans: “VE Day is a chance to acknowledge, again, that our debt to those who achieved it can never fully be repaid.”

Residents take part in a street party during bank holiday celebrations commemorating the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, in Seaford, Britain, May 5, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
Image:
A street party in Seaford. Pic: Reuters

Along with the events in the capital, people are celebrating across the UK with street parties, tea parties, 1940s fancy dress-ups and gatherings on board Second World War ships.

The Palace of Westminster, the Shard, Lowther Castle in Penrith, Manchester Printworks, Cardiff Castle and Belfast City Hall are among hundreds of buildings which will be lit up from 9pm on Tuesday.

A new display of almost 30,000 ceramic poppies at the Tower of London will form another tribute.

On Thursday, a service at Westminster Abbey will begin with a national two-minute silence before Horse Guards Parade holds a live celebratory concert to round off the commemorations.

Churches and cathedrals across the country will ring their bells as a collective act of thanksgiving at 6.30pm, echoing the sounds that swept across the country in 1945, the Church of England said.

Pubs and bars have also been granted permission to stay open for longer to mark the anniversary two extra hours past 11pm.

Continue Reading

Trending