Latest news with #BabyBoomer
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business
- Business Insider
No factory experience? No problem. Siemens trains new workers for manufacturing careers.
US manufacturing is set to add 3.8 million jobs, but a talent shortage threatens to leave many unfilled. Siemens is hiring based on soft skills and training workers from all backgrounds. The approach is boosting retention and performance — and Siemens is scaling it nationwide. Manufacturing is having a resurgence in the US — and with it comes a massive demand for talent. The industry is expected to add 3.8 million jobs over the next decade, but because of a wave of Baby Boomer retirements and a widening skills gap, as many as half of those roles could go unfilled. The challenge isn't just filling roles. There is a real need for workforce development and helping employees build skills that support their goals today and into the future. And for manufacturers, investing in talent pays off. According to Deloitte, employees who believe they're gaining valuable skills are 2.7 times less likely to leave their jobs. Rethinking workforce development US manufacturers can't afford to be passive in the wake of such a significant talent shortage. It will take proactive and innovative approaches to cultivate workers for skilled roles. This includes lowering the barrier to entry for people who have never set foot in a factory and rethinking how training is done from day one. Siemens is one company leading that charge. The global technology company recently opened a 500,000-square-foot facility in Fort Worth, TX where it produces switchboards needed to electrify AI data centers. The plant has already brought 480 new jobs to the region, with plans to create more than 800 by 2026. But hiring at that scale requires a new playbook. Siemens knew it couldn't rely solely on traditional on-the-job training, so it took an unconventional route: bringing in educators. "We hired former teachers and school administrators and had our subject matter experts teach them the content so they could build a training curriculum," said Dr. Khourie Jones, Siemens training manager for the Fort Worth facility and former educator. Turning high school grads and pizza delivery drivers into manufacturing leaders To meet hiring needs, Siemens cast a wide net and put less emphasis on manufacturing experience. Instead, the company focused on soft skills: a willingness to learn, a strong work ethic, and a growth mindset. "If you come in with those things, then we're able to equip you with the skills to be successful in the manufacturing plant," Jones said. "We've hired a former chef, someone who was delivering pizzas, and a young person right out of high school. All of them have quickly become high-performers and leaders at the plant." The successes of these individuals is thanks in part to a new training model built around how people actually learn. New hires go through a four- to five-week program that starts with classroom learning, moves into a hands-on lab, and finishes with shadowing on the factory floor. "We were careful to consider all learning styles and make the classroom engaging when building our curriculum," Jones said. "Many employees happen to be hands-on learners, so they thrive in the latter stages of the training when they can apply the book learning." Good training gets results As a result of the new training approach, Siemens has seen growth from day one in each trainee and higher-than-expected retention rates among employees. The new training model has been so successful that the company now plans to roll out similar training programs at other facilities nationwide. But it's not just about curriculum, it's also about culture. "People often think of warehouses as gloomy and boring," Jones said. "We prioritize building a positive and energetic environment that encourages workers to see their career opportunities as endless." The bigger picture? By swapping rigid requirements for teachable skills and designing training that meets workers where they are, Siemens is redefining what it takes to thrive in modern manufacturing. The goal is simple: Make it easier for anyone — from any background — to step into a meaningful career.
GMA Network
2 days ago
- Business
- GMA Network
PSE accounts up 50%, hit 2.86 million in 2024
There were 2.86 million stock market accounts in the PSE in 2024, up 50.1% from the 1.91 million accounts in the previous year. Stock market accounts in the Philippine bourse surpassed the two-million mark in 2024, with millennials and Gen Z making up the majority group of investors as those from Generation X and the Baby Boomer generation declined, data released by the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) revealed. There were 2.86 million stock market accounts in the PSE in 2024, reflecting a 50.1% increase from the 1.91 million accounts in the previous year. The PSA attributed this to the 62.0% increase in online accounts to 2.47 million from 1.53 million. 'This 50% jump in number of accounts is the highest we have recorded since we started tracking the investor count and profile in 2008,' PSE president and chief executive officer Ramon Monzon said in an emailed statement. 'This substantial growth was made possible by the enabling of digital platforms to connect to PSE's trading engine, thereby facilitating the trading by investors in the market. PSE is committed to being true to its advocacy of promoting financial inclusion,' he added. Retail investors accounted for 98.9% of total accounts, while institutional investors made up the remaining 1.1%. Local investors owned 99.0% of accounts, while the rest were owned by foreign investors. Broken down, the biggest age group of retail investors was held by millennials or those aged 30 to 44 with 48.8% of total accounts, up from 45.6% the past year. They also accounted for 51.6% of online accounts, up from 49.0% in 2023. Investors aged 18 to 29, falling under Gen Z, held 26.5% of total accounts, up 19.5% year on year. They also held 28.4% of online accounts, up from 21.5% previously. Millennials and Gen Z accounted for a total of 75.3% of total retail accounts, and 80% of online accounts. The two remaining age groups posted declines—the 45 to 59 age group or Generation X posted a decline to 17.4% of total accounts from 20.2% previously, and 16.3% of online accounts from 18.6%; while those aged 60 and above accounted for 7.3% of total accounts from 14.8%, and to 3.7% from 10.9% of online accounts. Local investors accounted for 99.4% of the total, with those in Metro Manila posting a decline to account for 49.3% of total investors from 68.2% the past year, while other areas in the country posted increases. Balance Luzon accounted for 28.4%, Visayas with 10.8%, and Mindanao with 10.9%. The remaining 0.6% of the total accounts were held by foreign nationalities, with the most number of accounts being Japanese with 19.9%, Chinese with 19.8%, and Americans with 13.0%. Female investors made up 50.7% of total accounts and 50.8% of online accounts, while the male investors shared 49.3% of total accounts and 49.2% of online accounts. The biggest chunk or 82.4% of total retail accounts were made of investors making less than P500,000 yearly. They were followed by investors earning above P1 million with 10.9%, and those earning between P500,000 and P1 million with 6.7%. 'We continue to see the impact of partnerships between PSE-accredited trading participants and digital platforms as we see a younger and more geographically diverse investor base,' Monzon said. — BM, GMA Integrated News
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill lays out options for transferring small businesses
BOSTON (SHNS) – Warning that a 'silver tsunami' of Baby Boomer businessowners looking to sell in the next 15 to 20 years could lead to vanishing local small businesses, advocates asked lawmakers Thursday to provide incentives for employee ownership structures. John Abrams, who said his business was employee-owned for 40 years and has written two books on employee ownership, said about three million American small businesses including about 70,000 in Massachusetts have founders older than 55 and are likely to transition ownership in the next two decades. 'Some of those companies will be passed down in families, but less than in the past. Many will unceremoniously close their doors finding no buyer, leaving holes on Main Street. Others will be targeted by strategic buyers and private equity. They may be absorbed, bundled, relocated, carved up, sold for parts, their mission and culture undone. Jobs will be lost,' he said as part of a panel organized by the Coalition for Worker Ownership and Power. 'While many founders wish to preserve the businesses they devoted much of their life to, they and their advisors, financial planners, succession consultants, business brokers, accountants, know little of the employee ownership options available that can accomplish that.' Coalition members pitched the Joint Committee on Economic Development on a bill (H 503 / S 305) they said would make it easier for employees to buy the businesses they work for during ownership transitions, including by giving employees a right of first refusal, making technical assistance available and incentivizing the selling owner by exempting sales of less than $1 million (or the first $1 million in sales of a greater value) from the state capital gains tax, according to a committee summary. Halsey Platt, the owner of a residential construction business based in Ayer, told the committee that he is in the process of converting his business into an employee cooperative. He said he has been building the business for 33 years. As he begins to think about exiting the business, he said 'the notion of being able to have my employees be able to build generational wealth was incredibly appealing to me.' 'I think by the Legislature enacting these laws, it will make my choice and that business transition more normalized. And I think if the Legislature moves forward with this, part of what happens here in Massachusetts will be that it changes the landscape, that then employees get educated about what an employee cooperative is and they are able to start to think about that,' Platt said. 'This bill is not restrictive in terms of the owner of the business who wants to sell. It is simply giving those employees the opportunity to match that offer.' WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
NZ Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Inside Economics: Should you take New Zealand Superannuation if you don't need it ... plus, is the Reserve Bank's focus too narrow?
This hit home for me since it's a bit of a bone of contention in our family. I'm a Gen X-er and my Baby Boomer parents both get the pension despite owning assets worth millions. It's not a case of the family home skyrocketing in value – they both own very large, very expensive properties (separately; they're divorced), nice vehicles and live very comfortable lives. I'm really happy they're healthy and enjoying life, but I – and my siblings – think it's a bit gross that they draw the pension when they very obviously don't need it. My Dad's a bit embarrassed about it, but says he's asset-rich but cash-poor. My Mum gets defensive and says she's worked all her life and deserves it. Both my parents are smart and socially aware, so I'm surprised by their stance. My question is: how many retirees actually choose not to take NZ Super? Is there a mechanism to opt out? – Name withheld A: Fascinating question, thanks. I was curious about the numbers too and asked at the Ministry of Social Development (which administers New Zealand's pension scheme). There is no specific mechanism to opt out. But the way the scheme works is that you have to sign up (or opt in) when you turn 65. So, essentially, if you don't need the money, you can just do nothing, and you won't get it. I'm also told you that when you do apply, the registration process does point you to various charities you can donate it to if you think you don't need the money. is one such charity organisation purpose-built for the task. The Ministry of Social Development didn't have any numbers to hand as to how many Kiwis over 65 haven't signed up even though they are eligible. So I've put in an Official Information Act request and hopefully someone in the system will dig that out (watch this space). Benefit or right? The bigger question is the one you implicitly raise with your parents: should people take the super payment if they don't really need it? Framed in even more basic terms: is the super payment a benefit or a right? Everyone who is eligible does have the right to claim it. But the money is also part of the consolidated pool of Government revenue. It isn't held in a special fund, like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Crown investment fund with the annoyingly similar name). That fund will be used eventually to help fund the cost of NZ Super as it balloons, based on the ageing population. NZ Super is also very different to KiwiSaver, which is actually your money that you have worked for over the years. Ultimately, the existence of the state pension (and how generous or universal it is) remains at the mercy of Parliament. It is a benefit, but for many Kiwis, especially those of a certain generation, it feels like a right. It has been promised to us by politicians over the years. That's one of the reasons even changing the age limit or means-testing it has been seen as a political no-go zone. But that seems to be changing as the sheer weight of the cost to the economy becomes apparent. According to Budget 2025 data, NZ Super costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person). From the Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. National under Sir Bill English first proposed lifting the age to 67 in the election campaign of 2017. And National campaigned on a similar platform in 2023 with a commitment to keep the age at 65 until 2044, when it will be gradually lifted to 67. This change wouldn't affect anyone born before 1979. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has suggested National will campaign on a similar policy again in 2026. In my view, it will inevitably have to rise. I also understand why people are inclined to accept it as a right. It is free money, right? It will eventually pass through the generations. Perhaps those who want to enjoy the extra cash but feel some guilt could look to spend it with local businesses or support local artists. Does the Reserve Bank need a wider focus? Q: Kia ora Liam, I was reading your column on the future of the Reserve Bank under a new governor. I wonder how the bank can set its policy direction without a clear national economic strategy to work within. New Zealand doesn't seem to have one that I could clearly identify, the closest being the Reserve Bank's inflation target and that's about it. Is this because the nation is happy to muddle along on the global currents of laissez-faire economics instead? After watching a documentary recently on Xi Jinping and his 'China Dream' policy that has seen China become a global economic force, I found myself asking: where is the (suitably less authoritarian) New Zealand equivalent that I think we actually need? A more orderly economy could be highly beneficial in underpinning the woeful state of our physical and social infrastructure, but only if the politicians involved were actually competent enough to plan and execute successfully over multiple decades. Which begs another question: we had decades of stable government in the 20th century that built all the infrastructure, which we have failed to keep updating. If it could be done then, why can't it be done now? Regards, Steve-Tipene Callagher A: Some really interesting thoughts there, Steve. I agree that a more structured and orderly economic approach would benefit New Zealand. But I'll start with your point about the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) and try to explain why it has such a limited scope. The main reason that the central bank primarily targets inflation is that it is the one thing that monetary policy has some real control over. US economist Milton Friedman once said: 'Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.' What he meant was that at some point, we can always trace inflation back to the supply of money in an economy. If we create too much money (unbacked by an increase in real physical wealth), then we always get inflation. By moving the cost of borrowing (and saving) up and down, central banks can control the money supply. When interest rates are low, there is less incentive to save and more incentive to borrow and spend, so the money supply expands. When interest rates are high, there is more incentive to save and it is harder to borrow, so the supply contracts. This has proved to be very effective at controlling inflation over the years. But even the world's top central bankers will admit that monetary policy isn't particularly effective at controlling more nuanced aspects of the economy. It is often described as a 'blunt tool'. Unemployment is sometimes included in central bank mandates because there is seen to be a correlation between unemployment and inflation. But even that is debatable and we've seen the new Government reverse Labour's policy, which had added unemployment to the mandate. The argument is that keeping inflation stable is such an important platform for an economy that central banks should do that one thing and do it well. The rest of the economic equation is left to the Government and/or markets to sort out. I don't want to completely dismiss any criticism of the monetarist approach to central banking. There are alternative ideas out there, like Modern Monetary Theory. I'm not going to do it justice here, but it effectively argues that Governments should focus on real resource constraints rather than financial constraints. It says Governments aren't the same as businesses or households and they can print money and ignore deficits and get away with it. Perhaps it might work in a world where it was universally adopted and well-regulated by efficient Governments around the world. It requires more trust in efficient Government than I have. Regardless, the current system is so deeply embedded in the global economy that even US Presidents are wary of messing with it. So we're kind of stuck with it. I wouldn't like New Zealand's chances of going it alone with a new system. More structure Ultimately, when it comes to the lack of coherent strategy in New Zealand's economic approach, I think a lot of it has to do with the inability of the two major parties to find a bipartisan agreement on big areas like infrastructure. So I agree that it is frustrating, given that we built so much amazing infrastructure in the 20th century, that we seem so bad at it now. Quite why is hard to say. Perhaps it is MMP? There is a lot more trading-off of policy than there used to be under First Past the Post. It also seems to take much longer to get construction started on things, which means we often see Governments change before plans come to fruition. Perhaps we need longer political terms. Or perhaps we just need to streamline the process to get construction under way sooner. I know I'm not alone in wishing we could get some sort of bipartisan accord done on a long-term infrastructure pipeline. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003. To sign up to my weekly newsletter, click on your user profile at and select 'My newsletters'. For a step-by-step guide, click here. If you have a burning question about the quirks or intricacies of economics send it to or leave a message in the comments section.
Sydney Morning Herald
02-06-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
House price rises were meant to ease. So what's happened?
Sure, there are some would-be home buyers who are priced out of the market, but there is another cohort that are not, and for them, the current prices are affordable. There are existing home owners who are able to trade up and high-income earners who are not constrained by higher rates. And given we are at the start of a falling interest rate cycle, there is a brigade of would-be first-time buyers experiencing extreme FOMO (fear of missing out). They see home prices running away again and are keen to get a foothold in the market before that happens. And bear in mind that when rates fall people can afford to pay more. In theory, this stretched affordability should be kicking in about now (or realistically it should have kicked in a while ago). Loading But we know that more than 90 per cent of borrowers opted to retain their monthly mortgage payments at the same level when the last rate cut came through, choosing instead to pay off their borrowings more quickly. We also know that the big banks are not witnessing above-average mortgage arrears rates. Meanwhile, much of the theory of affordability is based on averages – such as the average income relative to average prices and the relationship between them – but overlook the cultural obsession in Australia with home ownership and ignore the distortions to the market. Chief among the distortions is the politics of home ownership, including those that enable the more financially stretched first home owners to get a foothold in the market. We underestimate the tax policy on capital gains that encourages home ownership, and the changing immigration policies that can pervert demand. And we overlook the intergenerational passage of wealth that allows some lucky younger buyers to rely on their Baby Boomer parents to provide them with a home deposit. And if there are two incomes in the household, then affording the interest rate is difficult but doable. To be fair, governments are now focusing much more attention on building the supply of housing stock, but it's a long-term response to a more immediate problem. It won't factor into the current interest rate-led supply/demand situation.
