This 40% off Amazon deal on Cushionaire Sandals will make you want two pairs
Time to stash away your winter boots, readers. And hopefully your galoshes, too.
It's summertime, which means it's time to pop on a pair of sandals and hit the park. One issue: Good sandals can be really expensive. Especially if you go with a brand name, like Birkenstock. Luckily for us, you'd have to look twice (or even three times) to distinguish Birks from the CUSHIONAIRE Lane Cork Footbed Sandals, available for 40% off today on Amazon.
Available in a wide variety of colors, these bestselling sandals have garnered over 50,000 5-star reviews on Amazon, and for good reason. They're constructed from high-quality materials, durable, and at under $30, the price is right.
Advertisement
Don't just take our word for it, though. One happy customer writes: 'How could you go wrong? The price is amazing, the footbed is suede, and the straps are leather. '
Sold yet? We know we are.
Amazon
The CUSHIONAIRE Lane Cork Footbed Sandals offer a stylish and affordable alternative to pricier brands like Birkenstock. Featuring adjustable double-buckle straps and a genuine suede footbed, they mold to your feet over time, providing exceptional comfort. The flexible cork footbed and EVA outsole ensure durability and support, making them ideal for all-day wear. With over 45,000 five-star ratings, these sandals are a popular choice for those seeking comfort and value. Best of all? They're available for 40% off today on Amazon.
This article was written by P.J. McCormick, New York Post Commerce Deals Writer/Reporter. P.J. is an expert deal-finder, sifting through endless brands and retailers to deliver only the best savings opportunities on truly worthwhile products. P.J. finds Prime Day-worthy deals all year long on some of our favorite products we've tested and our readers' beloved best-sellers, from Wayfair furniture sales to the lowest prices on Apple AirPods. P.J. has been scouring sales for Post Wanted shoppers since 2022 and previously held positions at Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and Hyperallergic. Please note that deals can expire, and all prices are subject to change.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
35 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The end of the mega-employer
In June, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had a blunt message for his 350,000 corporate employees: There were going to be fewer of them in the near future, thanks to the "efficiency gains" he expected from AI. The proclamation generated big headlines and an uproar from staff. But it struck me as merely honest. He was acknowledging something that pretty much every CEO who sits atop a large white-collar workforce is quietly hoping to achieve sooner or later. After all, Jassy hasn't been the only executive to hint at a future of lower headcount. The head of JPMorgan's consumer and community business predicted in May that AI will reduce the number of employees in its operations division by 10%. That same month, the CEO of Klarna said that the company's investments in AI has already driven the company's headcount to shrink by 40%. And the CEO of Ford — a company that employs tens of thousands of white-collar professionals — declared that AI will wipe out "literally half" of all white-collar jobs. Meanwhile, Kian Katanforoosh, the CEO and founder of the software startup Workera, tells me that he never wants to have much more than the 80 or so employees he has today, no matter how successful his business ends up becoming. "I truly believe we can go super super far without growing more," he says. "I'm an engineer. I don't want to have to manage so many people if I don't need to." It's not like CEOs ever enjoyed shelling out for the salaries or navigating the personnel headaches that come with the sprawling bureaucracies they employ. But for more than a century, armies of office workers were a necessary cost of doing business. To grow from tiny upstarts into titans of industry, companies needed an ever-multiplying number of HR reps, accountants, marketers, engineers, analysts, and project managers. In recent months, that 100-year-trend is starting to come undone. Everywhere you look, AI appears to be helping leaner teams take on work that used to require more people. And executives are talking about their large workforces — once their greatest competitive advantage — as if they're an unfortunate holdover from a bygone, bloated era. If today's corporate giants shrink their ranks, and if tomorrow's giants never need to bulk up in the first place, we may well be witnessing the end of a defining feature of corporate America: the mega-employer. That could give rise to a whole new generation of nimble companies that innovate faster — but also leave workers navigating a world of diminished career paths and fewer jobs. Before the Industrial Revolution, most Americans worked for themselves as farmers or craftsmen. And those who didn't worked for very small operations — say, a few journeymen training under a master shoemaker. The resulting economy was a patchwork of all these tiny businesses. That started to change with the advent of capital-intensive industries like textile manufacturing, which required organizing larger groups of people under a single employer. Then came railroads in the late 19th century. With projects that took many years to realize and stretched over thousands of miles, vast numbers of workers needed to be on the same page. "If you mess it up, there's a big explosion," says Louis Hyman, a historian of work and business at Cornell. "You needed to really coordinate your mechanisms and make sure that people are doing things exactly the same way." As mass production developed, Hyman says, many of the most consequential innovations during this time weren't so much technical breakthroughs: They were social inventions to coordinate the labor of all the people it took to get the most out of the new machines. The assembly line broke down complicated work into simple, repeatable, standardized tasks; scientific management emphasized the importance of monitoring, measuring, and optimizing everyone's performance; and the M-form corporate structure created a blueprint to manage sprawling bureaucracies through a clear chain of command. In the 1930s, about a tenth of the labor force worked for businesses that employed at least 10,000 people. By the end of World War II, that share had surged to about a third. By the 1970s, some of that bigger-is-better ideology started to change. A new management philosophy set in, normalizing layoffs that took aim at bloat. And as robots automated many blue-collar jobs, IBM mainframes and word processors eliminated a whole set of white-collar clerical roles as well. Still, there was plenty of work that technology couldn't automate, which meant that companies needed large teams of college-educated professionals to keep them going. Even the most tech-forward companies saw their people — especially their coders — as mission-critical to their success. "Hiring great people — especially engineers — is one of the biggest challenges that any technology company has," Mark Zuckerberg lamented in 2013. "Our country doesn't produce the volume of engineers that the companies would want to hire." Tech giants often hired more than they needed to make sure they had a steady supply of talent, and to attract and retain the best of the best, they treated their employees like gods. If you were to pinpoint one moment the gods turned mortal, it would probably be November 9, 2022 — the day Meta laid off more than 11,000 employees. From there, virtually every tech company followed suit, with employers across other industries close behind. At first, the cuts were chalked up to overhiring in the pandemic. But two and a half years later, the layoffs haven't stopped and hiring is still down. More and more, AI appears to be driving those austerity measures. In an industry that once hoarded talent like gold, the shift is striking. CEOs no longer seem to view the bulk of their workforce as indispensable, and they say as much: A common refrain among tech leaders from Mark Zuckerberg to Elon Musk to Dara Khosrowshahi now is some version of "If you don't like it here, you should leave." Companies like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Salesforce had reliably increased their headcounts year after year. Now, according to the workforce analytics provider Live Data, all of them employ fewer people than they did at their 2022 peak. J. Scott Hamilton, Live Data's CEO, says this is probably just the beginning. To gauge how much deeper the cuts could go, his team recently analyzed the detailed responsibilities of most roles at Microsoft to estimate the share of tasks that could, in theory, be done by AI. Their conclusion: If Microsoft were to offload all of those automatable tasks to AI, it would eliminate 36% of the work currently done by employees. That would mean the company could lay off some 80,000 employees. On the one hand, that's an aggressive scenario: Companies are rarely able to overhaul their workflows to take full advantage of a new automation technology's capabilities. If they do, that transition takes a very long time. And besides, some work is simply too high-stakes to entrust to error-prone AI — even if it's technically possible. On the other, the estimate may prove conservative: Live Data's predictions assume that AI will remain at 2025-level capabilities. Given how much better the leading large language models have become over the last two years, the best tools will almost certainly be able to handle more than what they can today. "The optimists are saying that the good companies will simply redeploy the assets elsewhere now that they can be more efficient," Hamilton says. "But I think an equal argument can be made that they'll just say, 'We're going to do the same amount with fewer people.'" If Microsoft offloaded all automatable tasks to AI, it could eliminate some 80,000 jobs, Live Data found. If that sounds like a far-off hypothetical future, consider what's already happening today at startups. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says he's making bets with his friends on when we'll get the first "one-person billion-dollar company." And Arthur Kaneko, a general partner at Coreline Ventures, tells me he's noticed that early-stage founders are raising their initial rounds of funding with fewer employees than they would have had in the past — among the AI-fluent founders, perhaps with less than half. "The way companies are being built is just fundamentally changing right now because of AI," Kaneko says. "Through the use of AI coding, AI marketing, AI sales, people are able to do a lot more work with way fewer people." And he thinks these startups will stay lean as they scale into successful businesses. "They just won't hire the people that Meta and Microsoft had to hire to get to where they are," he says. "I do think per-company headcount will permanently be depressed in startups." There are reasons to be hopeful about a new era of smaller employers. If AI makes it cheaper and easier to launch companies, we'll probably see more of them — and that would be great for the long-term health of the economy in all kinds of ways. New businesses tend to employ people with less experience and fewer credentials who get passed up by the bigger companies. They're more willing to try new things, which drives innovation. And they create more competition for the established giants, which is good for consumers. Smaller companies may also be good for the workers inside them. There's a lot that people hate about working at big organizations: the constant turf wars, the endless layers of approval, the meetings before the meetings, the sense that you're just one tiny inconsequential cog in a giant machine. Smaller bureaucracies would minimize that, which is one reason why people often feel more motivated in leaner workplaces. According to Gallup, employees at small companies report the highest engagement, with scores dropping below the national average once organizations hit 500 employees. On the same stage where Altman made his one-person unicorn prediction, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian raved about the benefits of this possibility. "CEOs and founders are going to be so excited to get up and go to work with much smaller, much more performant, much more culturally strong teams," he said. But a world of shrunken employers could also rob workers of something essential: the long-term career paths that big companies used to offer. With so many roles under one roof, big companies made it possible for workers to try new things, move up, and build careers. Smaller firms don't offer the same range of opportunities, which means people will likely need to switch companies a lot more in the future. Smaller firms are also less likely to invest in on-the-job training — a shift that would hit early-career professionals hard, just as their roles face the greatest risk from AI. The big question is what this all means for college-educated workers. If enough startups emerge, they might create new jobs to offset the ones disappearing from big companies. But that would require an unprecedented boom in entrepreneurship — one enormous enough to make up for the retrenchment of the giants. In 2022, 29% of the American workforce worked for an organization that employed at least 10,000 people. Meanwhile, the country's education system is churning out ever more college grads, who studied hard with the expectation of a stable future in white-collar work. If big companies hire less, and small companies also hire less, where will they all go? The usual reassurance is that AI, like every disruptive technology before it, will eventually create more jobs than it destroys. That glosses over an important detail, according to Carl Benedikt Frey, an economist at Oxford. In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, most innovations simply made existing work faster and cheaper — like the loom, which automated the work of skilled weavers but still produced more or less the same fabric. That made a handful of industrialists very rich, but for the average worker, wages barely budged for the first 80 or so years of industrialization. It was only later — with inventions like electricity and the automobile that gave rise to entirely novel industries — that economic growth surged and better, high-paying jobs emerged. Had that second wave never arrived, we'd remember the Industrial Revolution very differently. "Most productivity gains over the long run," Frey says, "come from doing new and previously inconceivable things." Right now, corporate America seems stuck in that first phase. So many executives are laser-focused on using AI to do the same work with fewer people, rather than applying it to problems we couldn't solve before — the kind of breakthroughs that would open up new lines of business and generate more demand for labor, not less. "A real risk is that we're getting leaner organizations, but they're not really creating that much new," Frey says. "That would be a bleak future, and I do worry we're moving in that direction."
Wall Street Journal
5 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Buy Now, Pay Later' Wants to Kill Credit Cards. But They're Becoming Similar
How do the world's most successful companies generate revenue? In this explainer series, we'll dive into the surprising stories behind how businesses work--exploring everything from Costco's "treasure-hunt" model to the economics behind Amazon's AWS.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amazon Stock Slips 10%: Here's Why It Can Still Finish 2025 With a Market Cap of $3 Trillion
Key Points Amazon stock is dipping because of slowing growth in AI. The company can greatly expand its margins in retail and e-commerce. The stock has a chance to grow to a $3 trillion market cap if 2026 earnings hit a level well within reach. 10 stocks we like better than Amazon › Last week, Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) reported its second-quarter earnings. Investors were not enthused. The stock dipped 10% and is now trailing the valuation of its big technology peers, with Nvidia and Microsoft having market caps of around twice the size of Amazon today. Wall Street is concerned about slower growth in cloud computing and Amazon falling behind in artificial intelligence (AI). This pins the stock down on one topic when in reality Amazon has all the ingredients to keep growing its profits over the long term, which is what will drive the share price higher. Here's why Amazon -- with a market cap of $2.3 trillion right now -- can finish 2025 valued at over $3 trillion. More profits arriving in e-commerce The biggest reason for Amazon's profit expansion in its e-commerce division the last few years is advertising. High-margin advertising revenue has grown from $7.4 billion in the second quarter of 2021 to $15.7 billion last quarter, and is still growing 22% year over year. This division has now generated $61 billion in revenue over the last 12 months and has incredibly strong profit margins. Advertising, along with growth in third-party seller services, subscription revenue, and operating leverage over its fixed cost base, has enabled Amazon's North American retail division to expand its profit margin to 7% over the last 12 months. Through the rest of 2025, there is plenty of room for this expansion to keep occurring, which will have a large impact on profitability given how much revenue the division generates ($400 billion over the last 12 months). Even slight profit margin enhancements mean billions of dollars in extra earnings for Amazon. The same thing is happening in international markets, where Amazon has a 3.4% operating margin on $150 billion in revenue. These segments are behind North America but have the same business model at the end of the day, meaning there is even more room for margin expansion over the long haul. Over $500 billion in annual revenue for segments growing revenue in the double digits means Amazon can add tens of billions of dollars in earnings power from North America and international retail in the years to come just by expanding its profit margin slightly each year. Through the rest of 2025, this story will continue to unfold. Sustained cloud computing tailwind A once shining star of Amazon's business, cloud computing division Amazon Web Services (AWS) was the reason for the stock falling after its latest quarterly result. Revenue grew 17.5% for AWS in the quarter, which was well behind competitors Microsoft and Alphabet. Even though AWS is growing slower than its peers, it will still benefit greatly from the AI revolution, especially because of its relationship with Anthropic. The fast-growing AI start-up is seeing booming revenue and is planning to spend a boatload of money at AWS, its key partner. This can drive an acceleration of revenue growth for AWS through the rest of 2025. With over $130 billion in annualized sales, AWS is on a path to hitting close to $150 billion in annual recurring revenue by the end of 2025. Its profit margin is also strong, at 37% over the last 12 months. A strong profit margin and fast revenue growth mean huge earnings gains for AWS, which will lead to consolidated earnings gains for Amazon. The math to a $3 trillion valuation Over the last 12 months, Amazon has generated $76 billion in operating income and $70 billion in net income. Through continued margin expansion in retail and fast growth at AWS, both of these figures can keep chugging higher through the end of 2025. In 2026, it is likely that Amazon's annual earnings will be close to or exceed $100 billion. Today, Amazon trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of 33. The S&P 500 index trades at a P/E ratio of close to 30. A forward P/E ratio of 30 and $100 billion in 2026 earnings means that Amazon would trade at a market cap of $3 trillion by the end of this year. That is the math behind Amazon's potential in 2025, and why the stock is set to surge in the next few quarters. Buy Amazon stock and hold on tight for the long term. Should you invest $1,000 in Amazon right now? Before you buy stock in Amazon, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Amazon wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Brett Schafer has positions in Alphabet and Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Amazon Stock Slips 10%: Here's Why It Can Still Finish 2025 With a Market Cap of $3 Trillion was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
