On Valentine's Day: Only 21% of Couples Use Joint Bank Accounts in Austria
The love of money outweighs the passion, as only 21% of the Austrian Erste bank's married customers have a joint bank account.
The bank said, in a study published today on the occasion of Valentine's Day, that income and assets are usually communicated openly between spouses, but daily financial matters often remain a private matter.
The bank explained in its study that nearly 94% of Austrians know how much income their partner earns, yet a joint account remains the exception, and that young people between the ages of 18 and 29 in particular prefer a mix of joint and individual accounts.
It explained that especially on Valentine's Day, the issue of money in marital relationships is of greater importance, as there is no other issue more important to both parties than financial transparency, noting that anyone who decides to open a joint account cannot carry out any transactions without the consent of both parties, which is considered an impractical solution, to some extent, for everyday life, as card payments and cash withdrawals are also affected.
On the other hand, Americans spent $14.6 billion on partners on Valentine's Day, and a statement from the National Retail Federation said that while consumers may not be feeling good about the economy in general, they still feel fully prepared to spend on what is important to them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mid East Info
2 days ago
- Mid East Info
Too much AI control now can be a risky business - Middle East Business News and Information
Tech entrepreneur Rashit Makhat says the human touch is still vital to reach the best decisions Dubai, UAE, 5 June 2025: As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in everyday business in the UAE, what are the dangers of giving it too much control? While AI is dramatically speeding up workflows and delivering big efficiencies, experts are warning that relying on it too heavily, too soon, could backfire. Recent insights show that AI works best as a support tool, not a decision-maker. When businesses let machines steer strategy, hiring, or customer service without human oversight, the risks are real. Tech investor and entrepreneur, Rashit Makhat, is among those urging caution on the grounds that, while AI can crunch data and offer options in seconds, it doesn't yet understand people, context, or consequences. 'In today's business environment, the human touch matters more than ever,' says Makhat, Director and co-founder of UAE tech venture company, Scalo Technologies. 'AI will transform business, make companies faster, smarter, and more efficient, and no-one wants to be left behind. 'But while AI can draft entire business plans in moments, unlike humans, it doesn't think. It doesn't feel. It doesn't understand people. If businesses forget that, they could be heading for trouble'. The idea of machines running entire industries is not new. But what are the consequences, when we take AI out of the lab and into the boardroom? Harvard Business Review watched a series of executive team meetings at an $85 million revenue Austrian company. They found that what makes AI a valuable team member is that it helps execs see more options. And it provides information quickly to speed up decisions. 'AI worked best when guided by humans, supporting but not replacing, decision-making,' said Makhat. 'The best ideas came when the AI prompted executives to think differently. When they did, they made better choices. AI wasn't the leader – it was the assistant.' The experiment can't disguise AI's broader impact on corporate decision-making. Some experts predict it could soon run entire departments, or even whole companies. But problems can occur when people treat AI like it's already in charge. In February, three lawyers in a lawsuit against Walmart were fined $5,000 by a U.S. judge in Wyoming for citing fake cases generated by AI. The judge said they had a duty to check their sources were real. Reuters also reported that over the past two years, more U.S. judges have raised concerns or disciplined lawyers for using AI-generated cases and quotes in court. 'The most successful companies aren't those that rush to adopt every new technology,' says Makhat. 'They're the ones that mix innovation with human intelligence. Startups, in particular, must be extra careful. AI should sharpen human judgment, not take its place.' Ends
Egypt Independent
3 days ago
- Egypt Independent
Trump's tariff threat exposes China's tight grip on the global pharmaceuticals industry
Hong Kong/New York CNN — It's the most prescribed antibiotic in the United States, used by tens of millions of people every year to treat bacterial infections including pneumonia, stomach ulcers, and strep throat. Yet, it isn't exactly common knowledge that amoxicillin, a relative of penicillin that has been in chronic short supply, has only one manufacturer in the US, or that China controls 80 percent of the raw materials required for its production. That's a major concern as US President Donald Trump threatens to impose tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, throwing a spotlight on America's dependence on critical drug supplies from abroad. 'Increasing trade hostilities or more protracted conflicts could devastate our access to amoxicillin or the ingredients used to make it should Beijing weaponize its supply chain dominance,' Rick Jackson, founder and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, which owns America's sole amoxicillin manufacturer, told CNN. Last year, 96 percent of US imports of hydrocortisone (the active ingredient in the anti-itch cream), 90 percent of imports of ibuprofen (found in common over-the-counter pain relievers), and 73 percent of imports of acetaminophen (in other kinds of pain relievers) all came from China, according to CNN calculations based on trade data from the Census Bureau. With the US already facing shortages of many essential medications, experts warn that Beijing could potentially exploit this reliance as leverage in an escalating trade war. Tensions between the two sides have soared since Trump unleashed his trade assault on the world's second-largest economy. While the two countries have announced a temporary truce that rolled back the three-digit tariffs for 90 days, relations remain tense with ongoing feuding over chip restrictions imposed by the US. Leland Miller, a commissioner at the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said the 'chokepoints' that China holds over the US pharmaceutical supply are 'detrimental to American security.' 'Simply by having this leverage … whether or not they ever pull the trigger, causes us to change our policy positions on a lot of things, and that's not good,' he said. So far, China has made no official public threat about weaponizing its dominant position in this segment of the pharmaceutical industry. But Trump's tariffs on the sector, if imposed, could worsen existing drug shortages and drive up prices for Americans, undermining his promise to lower health care costs. Generic drugs, which are designed to provide the same therapeutic effects as brand-name ones and are released after their patents expire, account for 90 percent of all prescriptions in the US. India produces many of those generics, often from ingredients imported from China. Even though industry insiders and experts widely acknowledge America's heavy reliance on Chinese pharmaceuticals, there is little comprehensive data on the full extent of this dependence across the sector, as major pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to disclose such information. That's part of the reason why last month, the Trump administration launched a probe into pharmaceuticals imports as part of efforts to impose tariffs on the sector on national security grounds. A 'catastrophic' interruption With China making 80 percent of the world's raw materials for amoxicillin, according to Jackson, it's a clear example of just how vulnerable the world could be to 'Chinese political or economic whims.' 'Any interruption by China along the lengthy amoxicillin supply chain could be catastrophic, particularly in the face of a potential bacterial epidemic,' he said. In 2021, Jackson purchased a bankrupt manufacturing site located in Bristol, Tennessee, and renamed it USAntibiotics. The facility, built in the 1970s, used to produce enough amoxicillin for the whole country at the time. After the amoxicillin patent expired in 2002, the Tennessee facility began to make generic equivalents. At that point, it began facing lower-cost competition from overseas and eventually went bankrupt. Concerns about America's dependence on Chinese pharmaceuticals aren't new. As early as 2019, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission recommended that Congress assess America's pharmaceutical vulnerabilities. Two years later, when Jackson bought the amoxicillin factory, he cited national security and the need to ensure a steady supply of antibiotics as a major reason for the purchase. China controls 80 percent of the raw materials required for amoxicillin's production. Fred Tanneau/AFP/Getty Images Still, progress in growing America's pharma supply chain has been slow. In late April, Trump said pharmaceutical companies were 'going to have to' produce drugs in the US or face a 'tariff wall.' A key goal behind Trump's threats of pharmaceutical tariffs is to 'onshore' drug production. An American study in 2021 found that the US imports 72 percent of its essential medicines. But experts said tariffs are unlikely to achieve that goal for generics, which have become commodities, with price being the main differentiator. So-called brand-name drugs, by contrast, are protected by patents and therefore command higher prices and bigger profit margins. Instead, tariffs would not only drive up medical costs for patients, but they could also exacerbate ongoing drug shortages by pushing generic drug makers out of the American market. Even if they are willing to build drug-making facilities in the US, the process could take years. Reliance on China China's dominance in the global drug supply chain is part and parcel of its position as the world's factory. Over decades, the pursuit of lower production costs has prompted drug makers to shift production from Western countries to places like China and India. China plays an outsize role in the drug supply chain for its significant production of the critical chemical compounds, called key starting materials or KSM, which are necessary to produce active ingredients, called active pharmaceuticals ingredients or API. China and India dominate the global manufacturing capacity for API. Together, they account for 82 percent of all API manufacturer filings to the US Food and Drug Administration, according to United States Pharmacopeia (USP), a nonprofit that sets official quality standards for medicines. The filings contain detailed information about the facilities and manufacturing processes submitted by API manufacturers. In the two years after 2021, according to the most recent data, India's share of the filings dropped to 50 percent, while China's surged to 32 percent. Chinese manufacturers have also benefited from Beijing's policy incentives and subsidies for the pharmaceutical sector since the early 2000s, which led to industry clusters springing up in the country, said Qingpeng Zhang, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong's LKS Faculty of Medicine. 'These industry clusters, which help drive down overall costs while maintaining quality … ultimately made China an ideal location for the production of generics and APIs within a free trade environment,' he said. Besides lower costs, the environmental impact of drug production also contributed to China's rise in this sector, as the US and European Union often have stricter environmental regulation, according to Ronald Piervincenzi, CEO of USP. Even India, the world's top supplier of generics, relies on China for APIs and other key ingredients. In fact, 70 percent of India's API imports come from China, according to a 2023 report commissioned by the Indian government. Dinesh Thakur, a public health expert and author of 'The Truth Pill,' a book on Indian drug regulations, said that India's reliance on China for drug materials reflected the 'natural evolution' of the industry. At the time when Indian drug companies moved up the value chain toward higher-margin products like formulations and injectables, China's nascent pharmaceutical sector made inroads with API production at a lower price point, he said. The Indian companies then 'bought the API for a lesser cost from China and focused their money and their capacity in India on building competence for developing more complex finished formulations,' Thakur said. He added that China's well-established chemicals industry, built independently of pharmaceuticals, also gave its manufacturers a head start in producing drug-related chemicals. Major policy push Besides its cost advantage, China's pharmaceutical industry also got a boost from the government. In 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping unveiled his signature 'Made in China 2025' industrial strategy, which identified biopharma and advanced medical products as key sectors for development in its broader push to reduce the country's reliance on foreign technology. The Covid-19 pandemic further exposed global dependence on China for pharmaceutical supplies – and served as a reminder to Beijing of the strategic advantage that that dominance provides. In a state-run magazine in 2020, Xi said China must consolidate its leadership in its advantageous industries, and 'tighten global industrial chains' dependence on China to build strong countermeasures and deterrent capabilities against deliberate external supply cutoffs.' In 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping unveiled his signature 'Made in China 2025' industrial strategy, which identified biopharma and advanced medical products as key sectors for development in its broader push to reduce the country's reliance on foreign technology. Tingshu Wang/Pool/Getty Images In 2021, during the height of the epidemic, China's National Development and Reform Commission, the state planner, highlighted APIs as a 'key strength in China's pharmaceutical industry's participation in global competition.' Li Daokui, a professor of finance at Tsinghua University in Beijing and a Beijing adviser, even suggested that China, given its strategic position in the production of raw materials for vitamins and antibiotics, could limit drug supplies to the US as 'countermeasures' against American sanctions. 'Not effective' While Trump is not the first US president to push for onshoring drug production, he is the first to attempt it through the threat of sweeping tariffs. Some companies have fallen in line. British firm AstraZeneca, for instance, is shifting production of certain medicines from Europe to the US, following a $3.5 billion investment plan announced late last year. Similarly, companies including Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly have pledged to expand their US operations. But these companies primarily focus on patented drugs. Stephen Farrelly, global head of pharma and healthcare at Dutch bank group ING, noted that the US accounted for 44 percent of global pharmaceutical sales in 2023, making it imperative for makers of patented drugs to maintain a presence in the country. The story is different for generics because their margins are often half those of branded ones. 'Given their margin profiles, they can't afford to make long-term investment decisions with so much uncertainty around,' he said. 'If even possible, it would take in excess of five years to begin reshoring.' Tariffs on pharmaceuticals would eventually fall on patients, experts say, widening health disparities in an already strained health care system. Because generics are as much as 85 percent cheaper than branded drugs, low-income patients and those without health insurance rely on them disproportionately. An April study commissioned by the main American pharmaceutical lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, revealed that a 25 percent tariff will increase costs of imported pharmaceuticals by $50.8 billion annually, causing prices to rise by 12.9 percent if passed to consumers. ING also found that a 25 percent tariff on a common generic cancer medication could raise its price by up to $10,000 for a 24-week prescription. Rather than achieving the intended goal of onshoring production, experts said the tariffs could risk pushing generics manufacturers to abandon the US market altogether. Piervincenzi warned that even modest tariffs could disrupt the supply of generics. 'There's very little profit there and any tariff would just result in [generic drug makers] being underwater and just exiting,' he said. Incentives other than tariffs are necessary to create a resilient drug supply chain, Piervincenzi said. And unlike with other industries, drug supply disruption or shortages could have life-threatening consequences. 'Each of these drugs, people's lives depend on them, and a single drug goes into shortage and a child can't get their cancer therapy, and it becomes a disaster, which you don't see if your favorite brand of ketchup's out of stock,' he said. 'You may be annoyed, but your life is not in danger.'
Egypt Independent
4 days ago
- Egypt Independent
Young people are skeptical of the American Dream
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. CNN — There are some striking divides in a new CNN poll, but they aren't necessarily the partisan kind Americans have come to expect: The divides are more gray than red versus blue. The first has to do with the American Dream, which a growing number of Americans feel is out of reach. Most, 54 percent, still agreed with the idea that 'people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard,' in the new poll, conducted by SSRS. What's noteworthy is that when CNN asked the same question back in 2016, more than two-thirds of respondents, 67 percent, agreed with that optimistic idea. Looking at the new poll's results by age, younger Americans are less bullish that they can 'make it.' About half, 51 percent, of those under 45, felt that 'Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people,' compared with 41 percent of those 45 and older. There's likely some partisanship behind those numbers, since younger Americans tend to be more liberal, despite the inroads that President Donald Trump and Republicans have made with young people. But the age divide exists, to a more modest extent, even within the Democratic Party. More than two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents under 45 say that hard work and determination are no guarantee of success. A smaller portion, 62 percent of older Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents feel that way. Read the full report by CNN's Ariel Edwards-Levy. A second question in the poll asks whether the government should do more or whether it is trying to do too many things already. A majority, 58 percent, say the government should do more to solve the country's problems, up from just 51 percent when CNN asked the question nearly two years ago. More young people, 63 percent of those under 45, said they want more from the government, compared with 54 percent of those 45 and older. The government arguably does more for older people: It helps to provide health care in the form of Medicare and retirement benefits in the form of Social Security for a large portion of older Americans. At the same time, the ballooning national debt means those programs' future is on an unsustainable path for younger Americans. Asked about which party they feel represents their views on the economy, three-quarters of people over 45 picked either Democrats (32 percent) or Republicans (42 percent), leaving just about a quarter of older Americans who said neither party represented them on the economy. A larger portion of people under 45, 38 percent, said they did not feel represented by either party on the economy. Another CNN story published Monday might help explain some of the malaise felt by younger Americans. This is from CNN's report on the 'No hire, no fire' economy by Matt Egan: … Even as the overall labor market looks relatively healthy, economists say this is the worst market for new college graduates since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Recent grads are finding that it takes considerable time to get hired, leaving them unemployed and saddled with student debt for a frustratingly long time. For the first time since record-keeping on the topic began in 1980, the unemployment rate for recent graduates (those 22 to 27 years old with a bachelor's degree or higher) is consistently higher than the national unemployment rate, according to Oxford Economics. The unemployment rate for people between 20 and 24 is twice the national average, and there is evidence that companies are adjusting how they make entry-level hires as they adopt AI advancements. All of that could point to a distinct lack of optimism among younger Americans.
