The 109 years since may render some of Ms Goldmans reasoning irrelevant, but with new economic environments come an altered balance of romances and finances.

And that is the topic of Money and Love, a book from Professor Emerita at Stanford University Myra Strober and social innovatorand Strobers former studentAbby Davisson.

The self-professed roadmap for lifes biggest decisions chronicles everything from dating to marriage, to having children and where to live, through to housework, finances and even divorcewhile providing a framework and exercises to help readers make informed decisions with (hopefully) positive outcomes.

The books origins are grounded in Strobers ground-breaking class at Stanford University titled Work and Family, which from its inception in the 1970s has explored the economic, professional and domestic implications of romantic relationships.

One of the books aims is to help readers establish long-term goals with their partner, but the pair believe theres some resistance to acknowledging the economic impact of having a partner.

Falling in love or making a decision?

One of the contributing factors to strained relationships is what some would call falling in love, but what Davisson might describe as the slide versus decide issue.

Such situations might arise from a couple deciding to live together to save money, having not discussed important matters such as financial goals, household expectations, religion and more.

By not having those conversations you risk being on different pages about what that move-in means, Davisson explained.

One person might think youre on the path toward marriage, the other person truly just thinks you want to save on rent. Its better to make a conscious decision, talk about it, know where the other person stands, and then all of the negative outcomes go away.

Its the same with choosing a life partner, not to say Oh weve been together so long we might as well get married, instead make the conscious choice and make sure that you both want the same things in the long run.

Davisson took Strobers class in 2008 with her then-boyfriendnow husbandand added: These topics, if you dont talk about them, can come out down the road in ways that might cause you to realize youre not that compatible and you might have to get divorced.

Back to Elizabeth Bennett

Once upon a time the idea of a love match seemed far-fetched and whimsical (think Netflix sensation Bridgerton).

Now, its standard to be expected to be head-over-heels for your partnerwith consumers told that love conquers all.

Strober and Davisson suspect that a truly successful marriage neither sits entirely in the realm of just romance, or just finance.

The fact that money disagreements are one of the most common reasons for couples to divorce suggests that open and honest discussions about personal finances is key, the pair said.

These two sets of decisions, which society has taught us to keep apartone comes from the head and one comes from the heartreally is not the case and its not helpful to think about it in that way. Thinking about your life as a whole, with important money and love decisions to be made constantly in conversation with your significant other, is the main point of the book, Strober said.

The labor economist and founding director of the Stanford Center for Research on Women (now the Clayman Institute for Gender Research), continued: One of the topics in the book is writing a prenup before you get married, and pros and cons of that. In one of my classes one of the women said, a la Pride and Prejudice: I just broke up with my fiancee, his family wanted me to sign a prenup and I told him that if he wouldnt share his money with me, I wont share my life with him.'

I dont think well ever fully get back to Pride and Prejudice times, Davissonwho previously worked at Gap Inc where she served as president of the Gap Foundationechoed. But I do think that people have an awareness that money is an issue to talk about before getting married, so Im hopeful that even if people dont sign a prenup theyll go through the conversations because they set you up as a couple for all the things you have to deal with after the wedding day.

+1 on your resume

Anecdotal evidence from survey respondents is also featured in the book, detailing conversations couples had about living locations for job prospects vs quality of life, moving to be close to family vs education opportunities, and a need to choose between having children or unencumbered travel freedoms.

Careers and life partners are intertwined not only because of opportunity and perhaps offspring, but also timewith womens capabilities when working from home drastically shifting since the pandemic.

While families were forced to work from a single network, research from three experts at The University of Washington Bothell, The University of Minnesota and University of Connecticut found that women reported a greater increase in interruptions than their male counterpartsparticularly nonword interruptions, as well as work-based intrusions and the need for multitasking and surprise intrusions.

A recent study from Ohio State Universitys Fisher College of Business found that similarly when both husbands and wives work from home, husbands will do far fewer family-related tasks if their partner is in the house versus if their wife is in the office.

For wives, irrespective of whether their husband is home or not, their family tasks are the same, but reported increased feelings of guilt for completing professional tasks through work-family conflicts.

Both Davisson and Strober highlighted how dynamic the home and economic environment has become because of the pandemic, with Davisson adding: Whoevers at home is, of course, going to meet the repair person who comes in the middle of the day, or pick up the kids who are nearby at school, but what we also see is that theyre penalized in terms of needing to do more chores and also by not having those interactions with managers at work.

As a result of shifting remote work policies, couples also need to check in not only on how their significant other is finding remote or hybrid working, but also the impact of being called back to work.

Things are really shifting right now, and that means that couples and individuals need more and more to think about and clarify what it is theyre trying to achieve, Strober added.

There has to be a lot of conversation going on between partnersthe world is changing fast and so last weeks priorities may not be this weeks priorities. There just needs to be a lot more conversation in this time of dynamic change.

Exercising the conversation muscle

Of course, the positive benefits Strober and Davisson are hoping their readers will discover can only be achieved if both partners are willing to talk.

Its like developing a muscleyou need to develop the joint conversation muscle, Strober said.

As well as directing couples to the exercises in the book, Strober encouraged readers struggling to initiate such conversations to go slowly and give the other person grace.

Yelling at your partner about issues is not going to help anything, Strober added. Whether youre talking to your parents about considering stopping driving or to your partner about doing more childcare, all of these conversations are big time and going slowly, giving grace and being loving are all critical.

Davisson had practical advice: take a walk, get out in nature in a neutral environment and have an incentive at the end.

Although sometimes a conversation might bring two parties togethersometimes it may help couples decide to split for good.

Strober said after taking her class multiple students had contacted her to say theyd called off relationships, adding: I would write back and say: Sorry for the pain, but better to find this out now than after youre married.'

For the past decade, California officials have pursued the water projects in the drought-prone state. One would construct a giant tunnel to carry large amounts of water beneath the natural channels of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to drier and more populous Southern California.

The other would be a massive new reservoir near the tiny community of Sites in Northern California that could store more water during deluges like the series of atmospheric rivers that hit the state earlier this year for delivery to farmers.

But neither project has been built, despite promises from multiple governors and legislative leaders. Environmental groups have sued to block the tunnel project, arguing it would decimate threatened species of fish, including salmon and the Delta smelt. The Sites Reservoir is still trying to acquire necessary permits to begin construction.

Newsom is seeking a slew of changes to make it much faster for these projects to gain the required permits and approvals. Other projects that could be eligible include solar, wind and battery power storage; transit and regional rail; road maintenance and bridge projects; semiconductor plants; and wildlife crossings along Interstate 15, Newsoms office said. His efforts to speed projects would not apply to building more housing.

One key proposal is to limit the amount of time it takes to resolve environmental lawsuits to about nine months. Newsom said his administration is not looking to roll over anybody, including what he called the fierce champions of environmental stewardship.

I mean, nine months, you can have a kid, OK? I mean thats a long time, Newsom said Friday while visiting the site of a future solar farm in Stanislaus County.

Still, some environmental groups were furious. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the advocacy group Restore the Delta, said Newsom wants to do away with standard environmental protections to build the Delta tunnel.

We have never been more disappointed in a California governor than we are with Governor Newsom, she said. How is perpetuating environmental injustice, which harms public and environmental health, really any different than red state governors perpetuating social injustice in their states, which Governor Newsom likes to criticize vigorously?

Newsom says California has hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on infrastructure projects over the next decade, the result of voter-approved bonds, bountiful budget surpluses during the pandemic and an influx of federal cash from President Joe Bidens infrastructure bill.

But he said the state is often too slow to approve those projects and that the federal money is going to other states that are moving more aggressively. Newsom said his proposals could shorten how long it takes to build projects by more than three years.

His office said the legislation would allow various state agencies, including the Department of Transportation, to more quickly approve projects and issue permits. Newsom also signed an executive order on Friday creating what he called an infrastructure strike team to identify fast-track projects.

Jerry Brown, executive director of the Sites Project Authority that is overseeing the new reservoir, said he thinks Newsoms proposals could allow construction to start a year early, saving about $100 million.

That saves a lot of money and gets a lot of jobs in the pipeline, he said.

Newsom wants the legislation to be part of the states budget, which must be passed before the end of June. That means, if approved, it could take effect sooner and would only require a majority vote of the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Toni Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego and the leader of the state Senate, said the climate crisis requires that we move faster to build and strengthen critical infrastructure, adding that lawmakers will ensure we can do so responsibly, and in line with Californias commitment to high road jobs and environmental protection.

Some Republicans cheered Newsoms proposal, with Republican Senate Leader Brian Jones saying the governor is finally taking action. Others were more skeptical, with Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher saying Democrats in the Legislature are the biggest obstacle to Newsoms proposals.

Gavin Newsom loves to brag that he can jam Democratic lawmakers. Lets see it, Gallagher said. Republicans are ready to work with him towards real reforms.

People followed in a study saw their 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease decline by 18%, said Andres Acosta, an associate professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic. Researchers used a standardized survey of heart risk to assess about 100 people, mostly White women, who took Wegovy over the course of a year at clinic sites around the US. 

The study took place in the real world rather than a clinical trial, meaning there was no control group, so researchers couldnt say for sure whether the improvement was due to Wegovy, known generically as semaglutide, or whether other factors could have been at play. But the outcome is a positive sign as doctors await results from a larger, more rigorous trial being run by Novo, Acosta said in an interview. 

The results are a great sign that the Select trials that are ongoing for cardiovascular overall mortality hopefully will be successful, Acosta said in an interview, using the name assigned to Novos study. But we need to wait for those studies. He presented the findings at the European Congress on Obesity in Dublin.

The larger trial follows 17,500 patients with obesity and a history of cardiovascular disease, and its results are due this summer.  

Though the much smaller Mayo Clinic study wasnt randomized, its authors did observe positive impacts on blood pressure, blood sugar level and liver function and less use of other drugs, said Grace OMalley, leader of the Obesity Research and Care Group at Irelands RCSI University of Medicine and Health Science, who wasnt involved with the trial. 

Uncontrollable Vomiting

Hearing about outcomes other than body weight alone is crucial, OMalley said, noting the frequency of side effects. Access to obesity medicines should be protected for those with complications related to obesity and should not be used in an attempt to change body size for aesthetic reasons.

The Mayo Clinic team also looked at the weight patients shed and at side effects. Weight loss averaged around 13% of body weight among about 300 patients the group followed, mirroring what had been seen in randomized clinical trials. About half experienced side effects, mostly nausea, as well as diarrhea, abdominal pain and constipation.

As many as 5% of the Wegovy patients required hospitalization or a visit to the emergency room due to severe side effects, a larger number than had been seen in clinical trials, according to Acosta. The hospital visits were a result of patients becoming dehydrated due to uncontrollable nausea and vomiting, he said, a sign that doctors will need to monitor patients closely as weight-loss drugs are more widely prescribed.   

The real-world trial mirrored the constrictions on supply that patients with obesity are experiencing. The clinics doctors had prescribed the drug to about 1,000 people, but only about 300 were able to start taking it, Acosta said. Patients had difficulty accessing the medicine because of shortages as well as a lack of insurance coverage.