Want your son to be a CEO? New study reveals the most powerful male name in the US — and you won't guess what it is
A new study has revealed that Robert is the most powerful male name in America, with a whopping 21 of the Fortune 500 company CEOs bearing the moniker.
The analysis was conducted by Profit Engine, with the company interested in examining whether a person's name had an impact on their professional life.
'The patterns we discovered were quite striking,' Jason Morris, CEO of Profit Engline, proclaimed in a press release. 'While correlation doesn't equal causation, these results definitely make you wonder if there's something to the old saying about names shaping destiny.'
'These findings reveal something notable about representation in American corporate leadership,' Morris said. 'The complete dominance of traditional male names isn't a coincidence.'
New Africa – stock.adobe.com
Powerful Americans bearing the name include Disney boss Robert 'Bob' Iger and Boeing boss Robert Ortberg. Interestingly, however, no US president has ever been named Robert.
'Robert has been a powerhouse name for decades,' Morris declared. 'It projects authority and tradition, both of which are qualities that boards of directors clearly value when selecting leadership.'
Since the year 2000, however, the classic name has fallen far from favor.
That year, it was the 29th most popular name for boys born in the US, according to the Social Security Administration. By 2020, it had fallen to number 80. Last year, it slipped further and is now the 90th most popular boys' moniker in America.
Profit Engine found that Fortune 500 CEOs were far more likely than the general public to possess traditional names.
Dusan Petkovic – stock.adobe.com
If you want your son to be a CEO and you're not a fan of the name Robert, the analysis shows that it's still best to stick to the classics.
Profit Engine found that male Fortune 500 CEOs were far more likely than the general public to possess traditional names.
After Robert, Michael was revealed to be the second most powerful name, with 19 Fortune 500 CEOs bearing the moniker.
James, John, Christopher, William, David, Mark, Timothy, Brian, Andrew, Thomas and Scott followed in that order.
'These findings reveal something notable about representation in American corporate leadership,' Morris said. 'The complete dominance of traditional male names isn't a coincidence. It reflects decades of systemic patterns in who climbs the corporate ladder.'
'What's particularly telling is that we're not seeing the diversity of names that reflects modern America. No Aidens [or] Ethans, despite these being popular baby names in recent decades,' he added. 'This suggests either a generational lag or that certain naming conventions still carry unconscious advantages in professional settings.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs
General Motors, a cornerstone of American industry, is suffering the consequences of President Trump's unconstitutional 25 percent tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. In the second quarter of 2025, GM suffered a $1.1 billion tariff blow to its operating income, slashing the company's profit margin from a healthy 9 percent to just 6.1 percent. Net income plunged by 36.1 percent from the prior quarter and by a staggering 40.7 percent compared to a year ago. Although the estimated tariff impact for the full year of $4 billion to $5 billion is less than 3 percent of GM's overall revenue, that cost represents more than half of the typical annual income for the company over the past decade. The consequences extend far beyond GM's balance sheet. Tariffs, paid by importers to the federal government, are partly absorbed by companies and partly passed to consumers. We've especially seen this in import-sensitive sectors including furnishings, appliances, clothes and toys. Men's shirts and sweaters, for instance, rose 4.9 percent in June alone. When businesses 'eat' the cost, as GM tried to do last quarter, the fallout is no less severe. Diminished earnings mean less capital for investment in better technology or expanded operations, slowing broader economic growth, fewer resources for pay raises or new jobs — hardly the boon for workers that tariff advocates promise. The data confirms this. Nationwide, 14,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the past two months, erasing all gains in 2025. In June, real average weekly earnings dropped by 0.4 percent, an annualized loss of nearly 5 percent. Shareholders are also feeling the pinch. Stock valuations track a company's expected future earnings. Since 2012, GM's stock price increased by more than 200 percent. GM's price-to-earnings ratio today stands at 6.83, almost identical to 2012 levels. Stock prices increased alongside earnings. A sustained $5 billion annual hit, wiping out over half of GM's annual net income, could erase more than $20 billion in market capitalization if valuations adjust. With tariffs eroding profits, is it any wonder that GM's stock has slid 8 percent since its post-2024 election peak and now languishes 13 percent off its 2021 highs? This affects millions of middle-class Americans and retirees with pensions and savings invested. More broadly, lower dividends and diminished returns discourage investment, starving companies of the capital needed to expand. The result: slower growth, fewer jobs and weaker wage gains. GM, to its credit, is fighting to offset 30 percent of this burden by boosting U.S. production, cutting costs and increasing domestic content to comply with the USMCA trade agreement's labyrinthine rules. Yet even if successful, the net impact of $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion will devour a significant slice of GM's already thin margins. Profit margins at GM — as in most other sectors — are far less than conventional wisdom. GM's net profit margin over the past decade has averaged less than 5 percent. In other words, a $30,000 vehicle yields less than $1,500 in profit. GM's plans to shift some production to U.S. plants and rework supply chains is a testament to private enterprise's resilience. But make no mistake: These shifts sacrifice efficiency for compliance. Restructuring operations in a free market in pursuit of efficiency yields more profit, consumer benefit and economic growth. Doing so under duress to escape arbitrary tariffs may result in survival, but without these benefits. Resources that could have fueled innovation or lowered prices are now squandered on navigating artificial trade barriers. As an important sidenote, roughly half the tariff's cost stems from GM's South Korean operations, a stark reminder of the folly of taxing trade with allies. Rather than strengthening ties with democratic partners through bold free-trade agreements, these tariffs risk pushing nations like South Korea toward China, America's chief adversary. Far from economic strategy, it is geopolitical shortsightedness. Politicians sometimes prefer tariffs to other forms of taxation because they are less visible than taxes on income or sales. This makes it easier to dodge accountability by blaming 'greedy' corporations. For this reason, Trump called Jeff Bezos to deter Amazon from listing tariff costs on purchases. The White House press secretary labeled this a 'hostile and political act by Amazon.' Regardless, protectionism is not cost-free. Sustained tariffs will raise prices, shrink profits, erode real wages and slow economic growth. GM's quarterly results are a warning.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The 9 Worst Restaurant Chains In 2025 (According To Customer Satisfaction)
The customer is always right, as the saying goes. So what better way to measure restaurants than through customer satisfaction? We've collected data from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), Consumer Affairs, Yelp, and discussions on Reddit to get a comprehensive conclusion of customer sentiment on fast casual chain restaurants. Based on our research, we've identified the nine worst restaurant chains based on customer satisfaction, and it goes beyond just the food. Fast casual dining is extremely popular in the U.S., and a customer's experience can be swayed by many things, including their experience with the waiter or waitress, the amount of time it takes to be seated, and even the general vibe of the restaurant. It's worth noting that all of these chains have several locations across the United States, and customer experience can vary drastically based on things like franchise ownership and management. However, the restaurants on this list are repeat offenders, with several customers noting the same issues across locations. Considering everything from rude waitstaff and poor food quality to long wait times and unclean restaurants, customer reviews say that these are the worst chains out there. Read more: 10 Steakhouse Chains That Are Going To Take Over The US Denny's It seems the famous Super Slam breakfast plate is not enough to keep customers satisfied with Denny's. According to the American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), Denny's is the worst-rated full-service restaurant chain in 2025, with a rating of 75 out of 100. Its customer satisfaction score has gone down since 2024, which begs the question: What is going wrong at Denny's? According to Consumer Affairs, which has more than 400 ratings and reviews of the 24/7 diner, customers agree on a few main problem areas when it comes to dining at Denny's. In particular, customers take issue with the long wait times and inconsistent service quality. Some customers note that it took more than an hour to be seated, while others claim their waitress all but ignored them, despite the restaurant not being all that busy. Even delivery drivers try to avoid Denny's for their lengthy wait times. One DoorDash driver took to Reddit to say, "I normally don't take Denny's for the simple fact that 9/10 orders there aren't ready. It's only when it's super slow or a really good offer, I'll go there." Buffalo Wild Wings Buffalo Wild Wings is known for its Sports Bar atmosphere, chicken wings, and all-you-can-eat appetizers, but the chain has also earned an unfortunate reputation for having abysmal service and inconsistent food quality. Like any other chain, the service quality varies by location. As one customer explained so eloquently on Reddit, "It all depends on the location. Most are trash. A few are not". According to Comparably, which compares restaurant competitors based on how likely customers are to recommend the place to a friend, this restaurant boasts a low score of -31 (yes, negative) on a scale from -100 to 100. That's lower than Wingstop, Applebee's, and even Hooters. Wing-lovers do not play around when it comes to their chicken wings, and with such inconsistent experiences across the board, it comes as no surprise that customers are not completely satisfied with Buffalo Wild Wings. And to top things off, prices are only going up, adding insult to injury for dissatisfied consumers, with some complaining that prices are excessive for the quality and portion sizes. Chili's Chili's has received a lot of online attention on TikTok for its Triple-Dipper, which accounts for over a tenth of its total sales. Despite the rise, fall, and recent resurgence of Chili's, the chain seems to be dropping in customer satisfaction compared to previous years, proving you can't believe everything you see on TikTok. Based on the ACSI, the chain has dropped a couple of points between 2024 and 2025, and more than half of the customer ratings on Consumer Affairs are 1-star reviews. Many reviews report food quality issues, with customers complaining that many of their meals lacked flavor, were burnt, had unexpected spice, and more. Some have reported issues like potato soup that arrived without potatoes, reminiscent of baby food. Similarly, the restaurant has served chicken quesadillas that were severely lacking in chicken. The overall consensus is that the food quality just doesn't match the price, and with so many other chains to choose from, customers may start turning to more affordable options. IHOP The International House of Pancakes seems to be having a management issue. Since 1958, the family-friendly breakfast chain has been known for its fluffy golden pancakes, but according to customer reviews, it's becoming known for something else entirely. While some customers online have positive things to say about the food, there are several menu items you'll probably want to avoid at IHOP. Not to mention, many reviews from various IHOP locations claim the service is extremely poor and that bad management seems to be at the root of the issue. Of 352 reviews on Consumer Affairs, 60% of them are 1-star ratings, with many of them related to inconsistent food quality. Customers have complained about receiving egg white omelets that were brown, and being served undercooked eggs that were so cold, they didn't even melt the cheese on top of them. Other patrons were met with cold coffee, brown avocado, and incorrect food orders. Several consumers noted an heir of unprofessionalism from management, with little regard for customer satisfaction, despite the company's claims that food will always be served with a smile. Red Robin Red Robin's CEO announced in March 2025 that the burger chain would be considering closing 70 underperforming store locations because of decreased revenue and foot traffic. Perhaps consumer sentiment has something to do with the losses the chain is seeing in recent years. According to more than 99,000 customer reviews on Yelp, Red Robin has a severe customer satisfaction issue, mostly for its food quality, service, and wait time. Customers have recounted experiences where waitstaff didn't check tables while they were dining, and even ignored attempts to get their attention. Some have also noticed a significant decrease in the quality and portion sizes of the food, noting a distinct burnt taste on things like burgers they once enjoyed. In fact, several customers recall the burger served at Red Robin 10 years ago being large and tasty, while it's thinner and drier today. Applebee's Applebee's has a reputation for providing pretty good value compared to some of its fast casual dining competitors, like Chili's, but customers are deeply unsatisfied with wait times, rude staff, and subpar food quality. Customers speculate that shrinkflation is to blame for the change in quality over the years. On Consumer Affairs, one customer from Minneapolis shared their recent 1-star experience, saying, "The last few times the prices have went up drastically and the portions have been really suffering for size," saying that they'd settled for ordering a salad and were still hungry when they left. Multiple patrons recount experiences where they walked into a nearly empty Applebee's and were still met with long wait times and rude waitstaff, contributing to an overall underwhelming and negative dining experience. And it appears the food quality is not up to par either. In a Reddit thread titled, "What is the Worst Chain Restaurant," one commenter said, "I'm convinced their kitchen is comprised entirely of microwaves," while another even suggested that they pick up something better from 7-11. Golden Corral Golden Corral has long been known as the endless buffet with a diverse food selection. With everything from soup, salad, and pastas to steak, seafood, and desserts, there's a little something for everyone. However, the overwhelming consensus online is that the chain is a quantity-over-quality type of dining experience. Most consumers agree that the Golden Corral lost its appeal after childhood, when an all-you-can-eat experience was novel and exciting. Customers lament the mass-produced food and claim the buffet started going even further downhill when they expanded the menu to additional styles of food. One customer on Reddit explained, "It was pretty good before they tried to diversify and add things like Mexican cuisine. The steak, macaroni, sliders, etc. are pretty good, but things like enchiladas sucked". Others were even less charitable, highlighting the poor food quality and lack of seasoning, with one saying, "I just appreciate their honesty in naming the place after a livestock feeding station." Cracker Barrel Cracker Barrel's Southern homestyle comfort food is not enough to satisfy customers, with one patron on Reddit going so far as to say that, "Cracker Barrel isn't really selling good food. It's selling nostalgia," which might explain why some older customers do return to the Southern-style chain. Even the chicken-fried steak, which this chain is known for, is inconsistent, with mushy breading and bland flavor. There are several menu items you should probably avoid at Cracker Barrel, but poor food quality isn't the only problem. The chain has built a reputation for poor service and cleanliness as well, with one customer recounting a time when water was dripping from the ceiling onto their table. Many customers have experienced poor service and extremely long wait times from waitstaff who ignored tables and forgot drink refills. On Yelp, one patron even complained that the "workers did not show proper hygiene" by coughing on the food. Like many other chains, food service varies based on location, but patrons appear to have similar complaints about locations all over the country. TGI Friday's TGI Friday's is credited with popularizing happy hour with its bar-centric casual dining experience and menu with a variety of specialty cocktails. It's often a venue for events like birthday parties, anniversaries, with its casual vibe and lively music. While it has a reputation for welcoming waitstaff and a friendly atmosphere, though, the inconsistent food quality and long waiting times deter many people. Together with the number of restaurants closing, that may actually spell disaster for TGI Friday's. Soggy French fries, bare ribs, old lettuce, over-fried chicken strips, and bitter Alfredo are among the complaints from customers online. Many also find their food being served cold or the waitstaff delivering the entirely wrong order to their table. TGI Friday's is known for being slightly chaotic, but customers who try to subvert the chaos by ordering online don't seem to have luck either. On multiple occasions, customers have received entirely the wrong order when ordering with delivery apps like Uber and DoorDash, likely due to the chaotic atmosphere of the restaurant. Hungry for more? Sign up for the free Daily Meal newsletter for delicious recipes, cooking tips, kitchen hacks, and more, delivered straight to your inbox. Read the original article on The Daily Meal. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
