Connect with us

Technology

Americans Need to Earn 70.1% More Today Than Six Years Ago to Afford the Median-priced Home

Published

on

Americans now need to earn $114,000 to afford the median-priced homePending home sales fall for the fourth straight month YoY, down 3.2%Active listings rise 30.6% YoY, surpassing April 2020 levelsPrice reductions hit 18.0% of listings

AUSTIN, Texas, May 1, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — A U.S. household now needs to earn $114,000 annually to afford a median-priced home. That’s up 70.1% from $67,000 just six years ago according to the Realtor.com® April Housing Trends Report. While it’s clear that buying a home has become significantly more expensive, there are optimistic signs that today’s market is slowly shifting in buyers’ favor. Inventory is climbing, more sellers are adjusting their prices, and buyers are beginning to gain a bit more leverage in the market.

“Even with today’s affordability hurdles, meaningful changes in the market could give buyers a better shot at finding a home,” said Danielle Hale, Chief Economist at Realtor.com®. “The number of homes for sale is rising in many markets, giving shoppers more choices than they’ve had in years. Sellers are becoming more flexible on pricing, underscored by the price reductions we’re seeing, and while higher mortgage rates are certainly weighing on demand, the silver lining is that the market is starting to rebalance. This could create opportunities for buyers who are prepared.”

April 2025 Housing Metrics – National (*For metro stats, see Table 1 and Table 2 below)

Metric

April 2025

Change over

Mar. 2025 (MoM)

Change over

Apr. 2024 (YoY)

Change over
Apr. 2019

Median listing price

$431,250

+1.5 %

+0.3 %

+36.9 %

Active listings

959,251

+7.5 %

+30.6 %

-15.6 %

New listings

471,788

+8.2 %

+9.2 %

-14.6 %

Median days on market

50

-3 days

+4 days

 -4 days

Share of active listings with price reductions

18.0 %

+0.5 percentage points

+2.5 percentage points

+3.5 percentage points

Median List Price Per Sq.Ft.

$233

+1.0 %

+1.1 %

+54.0 %

A $114,000 Homeownership Threshold
Since 2019, the income required to afford the median-priced home has risen $47,000 to $114,00. This figure assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage, a 20% down payment, and no more than 30% of gross monthly income spent on housing. The widening gap is fueled by a combination of rapid home price appreciation and elevated mortgage rates but in some markets, the bar is even higher.

Markets with the Highest Required Incomes to Afford a Home

Metro Area

Required Income to Afford Median Home

Required Income vs Apr. 2019

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

$370,069

+54.3 %

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

$263,023

+30.5 %

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA

$315,892

+86.0 %

San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA

$258,926

+73.4 %

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

$206,777

+54.9 %

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

$232,095

+81.9 %

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ

$208,687

+69.4 %

Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO

$158,462

+42.2 %

Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA

$167,481

+61.7 %

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

$164,682

+59.1 %

Five California markets showed up in the list above. The state, along with many others represented here, are among the lowest scorers in a recent Realtor.com® analysis, which assigned a grade (A+ through F) to each state based on home affordability. And, it’s clear that California has a lot of homework to do – pun intended.

January Set the Tone and April Followed: Pending Home Sales Continue to Drop
From October to December last year, pending home sales were relatively stronger on a year-over-year basis. But since January, the momentum has shifted, and in April, pending home sales declined 3.2% compared with a year ago, marking the fourth consecutive month of annual declines. A renewed rise in mortgage rates, now back to levels seen in early 2024, is likely a key factor behind the slowdown. As borrowing costs climbed again in late April, some buyers who had been waiting for more favorable conditions are hitting pause, injecting new uncertainty into the market as it moves into the typically busy summer season.

Shifts in Pending Home Sales YoY

Month

YoY Change in Pending Home Sales

April 2025

– 3.2 %

March 2025

– 5.3 %

February 2025

– 5.4 %

January 2025

– 4.1 %

December 2024

+ 2.4 %

November 2024

+ 8.2 %

October 2024

+ 4.3 %

Where’s the Silver Lining? 
In light of affordability concerns and more choice for buyers, data suggest that some sellers are meeting buyers in the middle. This month, 18.0% of listings saw price reductions. Additionally, active listings were up 30.6% year-over-year, surpassing April 2020 levels, a notable pandemic-era benchmark.

The West (+41.7%) and South (+33.3%) led the way in active listings growth, while certain markets, including San Diego (+70.1%), San Jose (+67.6%), and Washington, D.C. (+69.3%) saw the biggest local gains.  Despite this, nationwide inventory still sits 16.3% below 2017–2019 norms, meaning buyers have more options but the market hasn’t fully recovered.

The full April 2025 monthly housing trends report with additional findings can be found here.

*Table 1: April 2025 Top 50 Metros Median Listing Price and Income

Metro Area

Median Listing
Price

Median Listing
Price YoY

Median
Listing Price
per Sq. Ft.
YoY

Median Listing
Price vs April
2019

Required
Income to
Afford 
Median Home

Required
Income vs
April 2019

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Ga.

$412,470

-0.8 %

-1.3 %

26.9 %

$109,034

57.7 %

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas

$525,000

-5.9 %

-5.1 %

41.9 %

$138,781

76.3 %

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, Md.

$392,688

11.5 %

4.0 %

19.0 %

$103,805

47.9 %

Birmingham, Ala.

$299,900

1.5 %

0.8 %

18.8 %

$79,277

47.6 %

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Mass.-N.H.

$878,000

0.9 %

1.6 %

46.4 %

$232,095

81.9 %

Buffalo-Cheektowaga, N.Y.

$280,000

-1.7 %

1.2 %

31.8 %

$74,017

63.8 %

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, N.C.-S.C.

$439,500

4.0 %

1.0 %

25.6 %

$116,180

56.1 %

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Ill.-Ind.

$372,450

-4.4 %

-0.5 %

9.8 %

$98,455

36.4 %

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.

$347,725

-7.3 %

2.3 %

23.8 %

$91,919

53.8 %

Cleveland, Ohio

$267,450

7.0 %

8.5 %

34.5 %

$70,699

67.1 %

Columbus, Ohio

$377,450

-4.9 %

1.3 %

24.8 %

$99,777

55.1 %

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas

$430,000

-4.4 %

-0.7 %

19.4 %

$113,668

48.4 %

Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colo.

$599,450

-4.1 %

-1.1 %

14.5 %

$158,462

42.2 %

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Mich.

$253,575

1.4 %

1.8 %

1.3 %

$67,031

25.8 %

Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, Mich.

$397,000

-2.6 %

1.0 %

36.9 %

$104,945

70.2 %

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, Conn.

$453,675

6.8 %

7.0 %

49.7 %

$119,927

86.0 %

Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, Texas

$369,900

0.2 %

-0.6 %

14.7 %

$97,781

42.5 %

Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, Ind.

$329,211

-3.4 %

-0.8 %

18.7 %

$87,025

47.4 %

Jacksonville, Fla.

$399,995

-4.8 %

-2.9 %

28.1 %

$105,737

59.2 %

Kansas City, Mo.-Kan.

$399,450

-5.3 %

0.5 %

23.9 %

$105,593

53.9 %

Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, Nev.

$475,000

0.0 %

0.9 %

50.1 %

$125,564

86.5 %

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif.

$1,195,000

0.3 %

1.4 %

49.7 %

$315,892

86.0 %

Louisville/Jefferson County, Ky.-Ind.

$324,950

-0.6 %

1.9 %

16.2 %

$85,899

44.4 %

Memphis, Tenn.-Miss.-Ark.

$345,495

1.8 %

1.6 %

56.8 %

$91,330

94.8 %

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Fla.

$510,000

-5.6 %

-4.2 %

27.8 %

$134,816

58.8 %

Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wis.

$385,000

2.3 %

5.3 %

26.5 %

$101,773

57.1 %

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minn.-Wis.

$447,400

-0.5 %

-0.2 %

20.4 %

$118,268

49.6 %

Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tenn.

$549,450

-4.0 %

-1.4 %

48.5 %

$145,244

84.6 %

New York-Newark-Jersey City, N.Y.-N.J.

$789,450

1.9 %

-2.3 %

36.3 %

$208,687

69.4 %

Oklahoma City, Okla.

$322,255

-2.3 %

0.4 %

27.4 %

$85,186

58.3 %

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Fla.

$425,000

-3.4 %

-2.1 %

35.8 %

$112,347

68.7 %

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pa.-N.J.-Del.-Md.

$375,000

1.4 %

2.7 %

36.4 %

$99,129

69.4 %

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Ariz.

$525,000

-2.2 %

-0.9 %

41.4 %

$138,781

75.7 %

Pittsburgh, Pa.

$243,724

0.5 %

1.6 %

33.2 %

$64,427

65.6 %

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Ore.-Wash.

$614,950

0.0 %

-0.5 %

29.2 %

$162,559

60.6 %

Providence-Warwick, R.I.-Mass.

$584,900

11.5 %

6.9 %

55.2 %

$154,615

92.8 %

Raleigh-Cary, N.C.

$451,245

-0.5 %

-0.3 %

22.0 %

$119,284

51.6 %

Richmond, Va.

$458,950

0.0 %

2.3 %

37.2 %

$121,321

70.5 %

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.

$602,500

0.4 %

0.3 %

46.8 %

$159,268

82.4 %

Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, Calif.

$633,570

-2.5 %

-1.5 %

30.1 %

$167,481

61.7 %

San Antonio-New Braunfels, Texas

$339,950

-1.3 %

-2.3 %

15.0 %

$89,864

42.9 %

San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, Calif.

$979,500

-6.7 %

-3.0 %

39.5 %

$258,926

73.4 %

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif.

$995,000

-3.1 %

-5.6 %

5.0 %

$263,023

30.5 %

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.

$1,399,947

-4.6 %

-1.8 %

24.2 %

$370,069

54.3 %

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Wash.

$782,225

0.9 %

3.4 %

24.7 %

$206,777

54.9 %

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.

$294,900

0.2 %

-0.9 %

31.1 %

$77,955

62.9 %

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.

$410,000

-2.4 %

-2.3 %

46.5 %

$108,381

82.0 %

Tucson, Ariz.

$396,133

-3.2 %

-0.7 %

32.7 %

$104,716

64.9 %

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, Va.-N.C.

$409,950

3.8 %

4.8 %

39.7 %

$108,368

73.6 %

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-Va.-Md.-W. Va.

$622,983

-0.6 %

-2.9 %

28.1 %

$164,682

59.1 %

*Table 2: April 2025 Top 50 Metros Inventory, Days on Market and Price Reduction 

Metro Area

Active Listing
Count YoY

New Listing
Count YoY

Median Days
on Market

Median Days
on Market Y-Y
(Days)

Price–
Reduced
Share

Price-
Reduced
Share Y-Y
(Percentage
Points)

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Ga.

45.2 %

8.8 %

46

7

20.8 %

3.1 pp

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas

24.5 %

-0.6 %

44

2

25.9 %

1.2 pp

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, Md.

47.7 %

11.3 %

29

-7

13.4 %

1.4 pp

Birmingham, Ala.

18.2 %

-1.9 %

50

4

16.1 %

1.4 pp

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Mass.-N.H.

25.7 %

20.1 %

25

1

12.1 %

1.7 pp

Buffalo-Cheektowaga, N.Y.

3.2 %

8.4 %

35

1

6.5 %

1.2 pp

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, N.C.-S.C.

53.0 %

17.9 %

42

5

21.1 %

4.2 pp

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Ill.-Ind.

11.4 %

1.9 %

33

-1

10.4 %

1.8 pp

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.

24.0 %

9.6 %

34

3

13.2 %

2.5 pp

Cleveland, Ohio

21.0 %

3.6 %

38

-2

13.0 %

2.1 pp

Columbus, Ohio

37.9 %

7.5 %

31

6

18.8 %

3.6 pp

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas

42.8 %

11.1 %

43

3

25.8 %

4.1 pp

Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colo.

65.0 %

24.7 %

36

4

27.2 %

6.1 pp

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Mich.

16.7 %

10.6 %

37

-3

12.6 %

2.7 pp

Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, Mich.

15.4 %

-3.6 %

33

2

9.1 %

-0.3 pp

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, Conn.

15.2 %

10.2 %

30

-1

6.7 %

1.1 pp

Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, Texas

33.9 %

10.7 %

44

1

19.2 %

1.1 pp

Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, Ind.

19.7 %

7.5 %

40

2

19.8 %

1.7 pp

Jacksonville, Fla.

35.2 %

0.4 %

57

7

27.6 %

2.7 pp

Kansas City, Mo.-Kan.

11.8 %

11.1 %

47

0

12.6 %

0.5 pp

Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, Nev.

60.7 %

18.2 %

44

5

21.4 %

7.5 pp

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif.

54.6 %

8.3 %

44

5

14.3 %

5.6 pp

Louisville/Jefferson County, Ky.-Ind.

22.9 %

10.5 %

39

-1

14.7 %

1.0 pp

Memphis, Tenn.-Miss.-Ark.

30.8 %

-7.6 %

56

8

20.6 %

0.4 pp

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Fla.

40.7 %

-1.0 %

72

8

20.1 %

1.2 pp

Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wis.

2.3 %

5.2 %

30

-1

8.7 %

1.8 pp

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minn.-Wis.

8.9 %

8.4 %

33

-3

10.6 %

0.0 pp

Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tenn.

34.3 %

4.7 %

47

16

18.8 %

-0.5 pp

New York-Newark-Jersey City, N.Y.-N.J.

3.2 %

3.3 %

45

-1

7.6 %

0.6 pp

Oklahoma City, Okla.

30.0 %

-0.9 %

43

2

18.4 %

0.4 pp

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Fla.

44.7 %

5.3 %

62

8

23.4 %

2.8 pp

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pa.-N.J.-Del.-Md.

18.2 %

6.2 %

35

-5

12.6 %

1.2 pp

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Ariz.

33.3 %

22.9 %

52

-3

31.3 %

7.6 pp

Pittsburgh, Pa.

16.8 %

8.9 %

47

-5

15.7 %

2.4 pp

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, Ore.-Wash.

30.6 %

8.2 %

44

5

23.3 %

2.5 pp

Providence-Warwick, R.I.-Mass.

33.9 %

10.2 %

29

0

8.2 %

1.5 pp

Raleigh-Cary, N.C.

58.2 %

16.2 %

43

5

20.1 %

6.6 pp

Richmond, Va.

20.6 %

12.9 %

36

-5

9.9 %

1.5 pp

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.

52.4 %

12.6 %

52

7

18.3 %

4.3 pp

Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, Calif.

49.6 %

13.1 %

38

6

17.9 %

3.3 pp

San Antonio-New Braunfels, Texas

20.1 %

9.5 %

58

4

25.6 %

2.4 pp

San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, Calif.

70.1 %

14.4 %

37

4

17.8 %

5.9 pp

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif.

42.6 %

5.5 %

33

6

13.4 %

4.1 pp

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif.

67.6 %

2.4 %

24

3

12.0 %

4.3 pp

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Wash.

50.1 %

7.5 %

30

2

14.4 %

5.6 pp

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.

16.8 %

0.6 %

39

4

13.5 %

1.5 pp

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.

32.1 %

6.0 %

58

6

29.3 %

1.8 pp

Tucson, Ariz.

56.5 %

14.9 %

51

6

23.5 %

4.6 pp

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, Va.-N.C.

32.1 %

9.4 %

35

3

16.0 %

2.2 pp

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-Va.-Md.-W. Va.

69.3 %

16.1 %

25

-5

13.8 %

3.6 pp

Methodology
Realtor.com housing data as of April 2025. Listings include the active inventory of existing single-family homes and condos/townhomes/row homes/co-ops for the given level of geography on Realtor.com; new construction is excluded unless listed via an MLS that provides listing data to Realtor.com. Realtor.com data history goes back to July 2016. The 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB-202301) and Claritas 2025 estimates of household counts. With the release of its January 2025 housing trends report, Realtor.com® has restated data points for some previous months. As a result of these changes, some of the data released since January 2025 will not be directly comparable with previous data releases (files downloaded before January 2025) and Realtor.com® economics research reports.

About Realtor.com®
Realtor.com® pioneered online real estate and has been at the forefront for over 25 years, connecting buyers, sellers, and renters with trusted insights, professional guidance and powerful tools to help them find their perfect home. Recognized as the No. 1 site trusted by real estate professionals, Realtor.com® is a valued partner, delivering consumer connections and a robust suite of marketing tools to support business growth. Realtor.com® is operated by News Corp [Nasdaq: NWS, NWSA] [ASX: NWS, NWSLV] subsidiary Move, Inc.

Media contact:  Asees Singh, press@realtor.com

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-need-to-earn-70-1-more-today-than-six-years-ago-to-afford-the-median-priced-home-302443374.html

SOURCE Realtor.com

Continue Reading

Technology

Aura Q3 2026 Earnings Call and Quarterly Results

Published

on

By

BOSTON, Oct. 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Aura (ASX: AXQ), a global leader in online safety and wellbeing, will release its Q3 2026 financial results on Thursday, 12th November 2026 prior to the ASX market opening. In addition, Aura will also release its Appendix 4C and Quarterly Activities Report for the quarter ended 30 September 2026 on Friday, 30th of October.

The company will host a webcast at 10:30 AM AEDT on Thursday, 12th November 2026 to discuss its financial results for Q3 and business outlook.

Q3 2026 Earnings Call Details

November 12, 2026 10:30am AEDT | November 11, 2026 6.30pm ESTLink to register: https://events.q4inc.com/attendee/159132282

A replay of the webcast will be available on Aura’s investor relations website at investors.aura.com.

The release of this announcement was authorized by William Lundregan, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary at Aura. 

Investor Relations:
ir@aura.com 

Press Contact:
media@aura.com 

About Aura

Aura (ASX: AXQ) is a global leader in online safety and wellbeing. Built on the belief that people deserve a trusted, always-on layer of protection, Aura’s AI-powered platform delivers protection for individuals, families and enterprises– from proactive protection against identity theft, financial fraud and online threats to tools that help schools and parents protect children from cyberbullying, harmful content, and threats to their wellbeing. Aura’s platform spans the environments that matter most– home, school and work– empowering people of all ages with end-to-end protection for every aspect of online life. Learn more at aura.com.

CATEGORY: Financial News

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aura-q3-2026-earnings-call-and-quarterly-results-302912050.html

SOURCE Aura

Continue Reading

Technology

Faith: The Spark Born by the Yudu Riverside

Published

on

By

BEIJING, Oct. 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — An interview from China.org.cn with Wang Xiaohui and David Ferguson on the Long March:

David Ferguson:

This is the Yudu River. One dusk in October, 1934, more than 86,000 soldiers of the Red Army crossed this river and embarked on the Long March, a two-year saga that has left its mark in history.

Yet, lingering here by the river, I am struck by a simple question: If you have faith in a bright future, and reality seems to thwart you at every turn, where do you find the moral strength to keep believing?

Wang Xiaohui:

At dusk on Oct. 17, 1934, an army of more than 86,000 troops gathered along the banks of the Yudu River. Over 800 boats of all sizes floated on the water, bound together with planks collected from villagers’ home gates, timber beams, and even coffin boards reserved for elderly locals. The people of Yudu built this pontoon bridge, determined to help the army led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) cross the river.

At that time, no one knew that the great expedition embarked upon by the banks of the Yudu River would go on to transform China and exert far-reaching influence across the world.

China in the 1920s and 1930s was plagued by chaos and despair.

The Kuomintang (KMT), the ruling party back then, was not capable of unifying the nation, leaving warlords locked in endless fighting. In 1931, Japanese invaders launched an assault on northeastern China, beginning their invasion. Crushed under domestic turbulence and foreign aggression, countless civilians were displaced, with many even starving to death on the streets; in certain regions, severe drought resulted in zero harvests, yet the farmers were forced to pay land taxes assessed for more than a decade into the future.

Amid this turmoil, the only glimmer of hope for the Chinese nation was kindled by the revolution ignited by the Communist Party of China.

The CPC, dedicated to winning liberation for the people and national independence, built contingents of workers’ and peasants’ Red Army troops and revolutionary base areas across the countryside. Impoverished farmers were granted land ownership, as well as unprecedented political dignity. On Nov. 7, 1931, the Chinese Soviet Republic was officially proclaimed in Ruijin, then a small village in southeastern China’s Jiangxi Province, establishing a Soviet system under which workers, peasants and soldiers elected representatives to run regional affairs and make policies.

The communist ideal of a fair society free from exploitation and equality for all blazed like a spark in the darkness; it kindled hopes among impoverished Chinese and became the wellspring of faith that enabled the Red Army — a force made up of poor workers and peasants — to overcome all hardships in the days to come.

Yet, bright as the spark was, it burned thin and fragile at times. Could this flame still endure when the ideals it carried were repeatedly battered by harsh reality?

In September 1933, flocks of warplanes clouded the skies over the Red Army’s revolutionary base areas. By then, Japanese invaders were steadily advancing towards North China, but Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT turned a blind eye to the looming national crisis. They mobilized over a million troops and more than 200 aircraft to launch a massive offensive at the Red Army’s base areas. Over the previous three years, Chiang Kai-shek had mounted four major military “encirclement” campaigns aimed at exterminating the Red Army, but all ended in failure. He was desperate for a pivotal victory to restore his prestige and to wipe out the CPC and the Red Army.

At the time, the commander of the Red Army abandoned mobile warfare tactics pioneered by Mao Zedong and other commanders, opting instead for rigid positional warfare involving conventional head-on clashes. But the reality was, some Red Army units didn’t even possess a single light machine gun; how could they confront the heavily-armed KMT army head-on?

Zhong Ming, a Red Army medic, could never erase the memories of gravely wounded soldiers being carried to his aid station. He remembered how a soldier whose chest was blown open begged his comrades to end his life. At the frontline, a whole battalion of Red Army soldiers religiously followed orders to defend crude earth-and-wood bunkers, but under the constant barrage of KMT artillery and airstrikes, every soldier in the battalion laid down their lives; not a single man survived.

What’s more heart-wrenching is that no matter how fearlessly the Red Army fought, the steep imbalance in military strength, paired with erroneous military command led to irreversible losses. By October 1934, the KMT’s iron-clad encirclement closed menacingly around Ruijin.

Faced with this dead-end, what decision would you make?

This stood as the most agonizing decision for the Red Army. The biggest challenge lay not in sacrificing one’s life for an ideal, but in finding a way to keep the revolutionary cause alive.

To stay meant defeat — the Red Army had no room to maneuver within the Central Revolutionary Base Area. To break through the encirclement, however slim the odds, offered a fighting chance. Preserving the Red Army as a living force mattered much more than clinging to isolated strongholds. Where the spark survives, the path ahead remains lit.

The air already turned chilly in October. Units of the Central Red Army assembled in Yudu to prepare for a strategic shift. The plan was kept strictly classified; none of the soldiers knew they were evacuating the base areas, only sensing an unusual vibe.

At dusk on Oct. 17, crowds lined up at the Yudu riverbank. Tens of thousands of villagers flocked from every corner to see the Red Army off. They walked alongside the marching columns, slipping food like eggs and glutinous rice balls into the soldiers’ pockets, praying for their swift homecoming.

The main force of the Central Red Army set off. Within days, they left behind revolutionary base areas where they had survived, grown and taken root. No one anticipated that the journey they embarked on would become the Long March, a trek spanning over 10 provinces. Still less could anyone imagine that this journey would ultimately pave the way for a brand-new China.

Looking back on this chapter of history, many claim that the Red Army only set out on this expedition because the enemies left them no other choice. To a degree, yes, the Long March was indeed a forced strategic shift, yet this fact does nothing to diminish its greatness and glory.

The ordinary Red Army soldiers had no idea how far they would march, or where they were heading. But they clung firmly to their founding mission: to deliver liberation for the people and independence to the nation. This unswerving conviction kept them from disintegrating through countless perils, sustaining them as they marched into the unknown with resolve.

David Ferguson:

I now realize that faith and ideals untested by harsh reality may have no true substance.

Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has always upheld the realization of communism as its fundamental goal. Despite devastating losses and extreme adversity, the Red Army continued to press forward resolutely and never faltered. Its inner strength came from an unshakable belief in the cause, an unwavering commitment to the founding aspiration, and a profound sense of mission. The Red Army was never fleeing pursuers in search of safety; it was marching forward to a future in which it had a steadfast belief.

Wang Xiaohui:

The Long March went on for two years. The Red Army trekked 25,000 li across some of China’s harshest terrain, but they kept their heads high, seeking hope amid despair and marching towards light through unending darkness. The lofty ideals and sense of mission they upheld have also become the torch that guides generations of CPC members in the following centennial, tempering them into steel as they press forward unswervingly toward national rejuvenation.

That spark lit along the Yudu River has never dimmed since.

China Mosaic
http://www.china.org.cn/video/node_7230027.htm

Faith: The Spark Born by the Yudu Riverside
http://www.china.org.cn/2026-10/16/content_118736835.shtml

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/faith-the-spark-born-by-the-yudu-riverside-302911977.html

SOURCE China.org.cn

Continue Reading

Technology

Linktel Technologies Highlights Breakthrough 1.6T LPO Performance & Strong Market Pull at OCP 2026

Published

on

By

SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — At the recent 2026 OCP Global Summit, Linktel Technologies showcased its cutting-edge optical interconnect portfolios engineered specifically for next-generation AI computing networks. Among the heavy lineup, Linktel’s 1.6T Linear Pluggable Optics (LPO) solutions commanded immense industry attention, drawing heavy customer interest for their unprecedented energy efficiency, ultra-low latency, and supply-chain resilience.

Spotlight: 1.6T LPO Performance & High Customer Traction

AI data centers face immense scaling pressures, demanding higher bandwidth densities with tighter thermal and power budgets. Linktel’s 1.6T LPO solutions—highlighted by the 1.6T LPO 2DR4—delivered standout performance metrics that captured the spotlight at the summit:

Ultra-Low Power Consumption: Operates with power consumption as low as an impressive 10W, drastically mitigating data center cooling and power loads.Minimal Latency: Features a linear optics architecture that cuts down signal processing delays, making it a critical asset for high-performance AI scale-out fabrics.Enhanced Supply-Chain Resilience: Eliminating the optical DSP mitigates component choke points, ensuring robust scalability for mass deployments.Proven Interoperability: Following its breakthrough performance and multi-switch platform interoperability at the early September 2026 1.6T LPO-MSA Plugfest, Linktel has laid a solid foundation for the 200G-per-wavelength ecosystem.

Surging Market Interest

Throughout OCP 2026, Linktel’s live demonstrations of its 1.6T LPO, LRO, and FRO modules drew crowds of data center architects and industry partners. With volume production already in place, Linktel is fully equipped to meet the exploding market demand for energy-efficient, high-density 1.6T connectivity.

Overview of Other Innovations at OCP 2026

In addition to the heavily requested 1.6T LPO lineup, Linktel showcased two other major high-speed architectural pillars:

12.8T Liquid-Cooled XPO:Featured a live thermal demonstration integrating advanced liquid cooling to guarantee stable operations in high-density AI nodes.As a founding member of the XPO MSA, Linktel is actively scaling XPO series with FRO, LRO, and LPO variants for comprehensive scale-up, scale-out, and scale-across frameworks.6.4T/7.2T NPO Modules:Displayed with covers removed to reveal internal architectural designs supporting both ELS and ILS configurations.Combines compact high density with low power and low latency, backed by an established 6.4T/7.2T NPO roadmap.DMD Technology & Executive Presentation:Linktel Engineer Director Dr. Grace Zhang hosted a heavily attended Executive Session titled “Dispersion Managed Transceiver for Next-Gen AI Fabrics,” detailing cost-effective 800G (20km) and 1.6T (10km) solutions for OCS SuperPOD architectures, as well as the feasibility of 400G per lambda (3km).With its DMD product line already in volume production, Linktel actively calls upon ecosystem partners to join forces in collaborative development. To drive ecosystem maturity, Linktel is open to sharing its U.S.-filed patents, paving the way for industry-wide adoption and advancements in next-gen AI fabrics.

About Linktel Technologies

Linktel Technologies is a global leader in optical transceiver development and manufacturing, supplying high-speed optical I/O connectivity—including pluggable transceivers, optical engines, and ODM/JDM services.

For more information, visit www.linktel.com or follow Linktel Technologies on LinkedIn.

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/linktel-technologies-highlights-breakthrough-1-6t-lpo-performance–strong-market-pull-at-ocp-2026–302911973.html

SOURCE Linktel Technologies

Continue Reading

Trending