Latest news with #Boomer
CNBC
16 hours ago
- Business
- CNBC
Having a master's degree doesn't make you a better worker, say hiring managers—but you'll still get paid more
A master's degree may not lead to better job performance, but employers are still willing to pay extra for employees who have one, according to a new survey. In a survey of 1,000 hiring managers in the U.S., Resume Genius found that 62% of hiring managers say that employees with master's degrees perform the same — or worse — at work as employees with a bachelor's degree and two years of experience. Despite this, 72% of hiring managers still say they would offer higher salaries to a job candidate with a master's degree than one without. Of those hiring managers, 64% would offer a 10% salary increase, 20% would offer a 15% increase, and 23% would offer a 20% or higher salary increase. So why does a master's degree still command a higher salary? "I think we're in a transition where the symbolic value of degrees still affects salary decisions, even if employers don't actually think the performance of master's degree holders matched the credentials," says Eva Chan, senior PR expert at Resume Genius. According to Chan, having a master's degree is often perceived as a sign of potential by hiring managers. "Even if it doesn't guarantee better performance, it can show that you're very driven, you're disciplined, you're committed, and that you've given your time, money and effort into accomplishing a goal," she says. However, she says, the survey results demonstrated that "more and more employers are realizing experience can show a lot of these same qualities." Skills-based hiring has become increasingly common: JP Morgan Chase has eliminated degree requirements for most jobs at the bank, prioritizing work experience over credentials. Walmart is also moving towards skills-based hiring for their corporate roles by adjusting job descriptions to "factor in the skills people possess, alongside any degrees they hold." Chan says that she and her team were surprised to find that Gen Z hiring managers were twice as likely as Boomer hiring managers to perceive master's degree holders as stronger performers. In her view, this could be because Gen Z may be more familiar with the school system than the workplace. "Some younger managers may still be fresh from school, or they just finished their degree so it's fresh in their minds," she says. "Maybe they view advanced degrees as more relevant or even aspirational." Around 25 million American adults hold master's degrees, according to statistics from the Education Data Initiative, and the number of people pursuing a master's degree doubled between 2000 and 2019. In addition to higher salaries, having a master's degree can provide several potential benefits for employees, such as opportunities career advancement. However, those boosts come at a hefty price: on average, getting a master's degree costs more than $62,000, and the average federal loan debt balance for graduate students is over $94,000. According to Chan, whether or not a master's degree will help your career depends on your individual situation. Having a master's degree can be helpful in professions like education and urban planning that are "heavily tied to pay scales, promotions or credentials," Chan says. However, for fast-moving industries such as tech, media and marketing, prioritizing real-world experience may be a better choice.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Teacher at Oakland's Castlemont High identified as innocent bystander killed after CHP chase
OAKLAND, Calif. - The innocent pedestrian bystander, killed during Wednesday's California Highway Patrol chase of a suspect vehicle in Oakland, has been identified as a Castlemont High School teacher. What we know An Oakland Unified School District board member confirmed the man killed was a teacher at the school. In a letter obtained by KTVU, Castlemont High's principal, Joseph Blasher, addresses the community, sharing the tragic news. In part, the letter reads, "Dr. Marvin Boomer tragically passed away last night. Dr. Boomer was a beloved and vital member of the Castlemont family, having served as a math teacher and pathway coach for the past eight years. His warmth, wisdom, and joyful spirit left a lasting impact on countless students and colleagues." Blasher goes on to acknowledge that Thursday was the last day of school for students and Friday is graduation, but despite their commitment to focusing on the students, there is a profound sense of loss. "Dr. Boomer's absence will impact all of us," the letter reads. The principal has set aside Monday, June 2, to offer space for the community to grieve and honor Dr. Boomer. Blasher said details are forthcoming and Boomer's family will be consulted on those plans. "Dr. Boomer was more than a teacher – he was a mentor, a friend, and a source of strength and inspiration in our halls," Blasher's letter reads. "His legacy will live on in us and in the countless lives he helped shape long after this tragedy." A second version of the letter obtained includes information on emotional support available for the Oakland Unified School District community. Meanwhile, Anti Police-Terror Project, a grassroots group that is critical of law enforcement, posted information for a candlelight vigil in Boomer's honor. That vigil will be held on Friday at 6 p.m. at 12th Avenue and East 21st Street in Oakland. The flyer for the event reads, "An educator, artist, and entrepreneur killed last night by a reckless CHP pursuit." APTP's post on social media said "Bring candles. Community will be speaking out." The backstory We have reported that an innocent bystander pedestrian was killed and at least two others were injured following the CHP pursuit in Oakland on Wednesday. At around 7:45 p.m., CHP was pursuing a car at East 21st Street and Park Boulevard. But the suspect, driving a stolen Infiniti G35, crashed into a woman driving a minivan. That's when CHP called off the chase. However, the suspected stolen car was monitored from above by a CHP plane. Police said the car continued to drive recklessly and crashed at East 21st Street and 12th Avenue without any officers behind him. However, in that crash, a man and a woman, both in their 40s, were struck on the sidewalk by the suspect vehicle. An 18-year-old suspect driver, Eric Hernandez Garcia, was arrested by CHP officers who chased him down. While the woman who was struck was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive, the man, later identified by school officials as Boomer, was pronounced dead at the scene. "Was it worth it to catch that car thief? I don't think so. I think that's just horrible," said Michael Eastwood, who lives at the corner where the man died. He said he's concerned Gov. Gavin Newsom wants Oakland police to relax their pursuit policies so that officers can chase under more circumstances. "Sounds like they want Oakland to do the same thing their CHP officers did last night that resulted in the death of this man," Eastwood said. The California Highway Patrol has looser rules on chasing suspects than Oakland police do. KTVU spoke to a man who said his wife and a friend were in the minivan that was struck in the first crash. William Duarte said his wife suffered injuries to her leg and neck, and she told him that she heard sirens at the time, indicating the pursuit was active. He said he was frustrated his wife was hurt and that an innocent person had died. Many in law enforcement, including the governor, say officers need as many tools as they can to go after people who commit crimes. Recently, the Oakland police chief asked the police commission to loosen one particular aspect of city chase rules, where an officer would no longer have to request permission from a supervisor to drive faster than 50 mph. Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Oakland police can be held responsible when bystanders are injured, or killed, during reckless pursuits. Oakland City Councilmember Charlene Wang said the city is still working to refine its pursuit policy. "We have to be thoughtful, and that's probably why we did have a police chase policy in part, because there have been innocent bystanders that have been killed," Wang said.
The Advertiser
a day ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
This fuss about taxing megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping
Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it. Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it. Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it. Look, I love comfort as much as the next person. I want fancy Boomer holidays. I also wish to spoil my grandchildren rotten (partly because there is nothing more hilarious than incurring the wrath of my actual children). But the fuss about the new tax on megaprofits on super is awful, vulgar and grasping. No one needs to have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts. Anyone who does, can afford to pay more tax than they already do. And maybe taxing the investment income of super funds at a flat rate of 15 per cent before retirement and zero after retirement isn't doing much to stem the tide of wealth inequality in Australia. Here's what's happening. About two years ago, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a plan to increase the tax rate on super annual earnings for balances exceeding $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. The tax would apply only to the earnings of the amount above $3 million. So it's not like these poor darlings will be slugged for earnings on the whole amount. I asked Miranda Stewart, professor of law at the University of Melbourne Law School, about what she thought of the fuss. As ever, calm and clear in her response. "We aren't banning people from having more than $3 million in super. They can keep it. It's only a slice above the three million," she says. Would she be grumpy if she was in that category? "I would be delighted if I had more than three million in my super fund. I'd be happy. This change would not really make me miserable." The existence of superannuation is a gift from god, aka Paul Keating. It was supposed to improve the budget bottom line by reducing age pension costs. They are projected to fall from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years, compared to the OECD, which is predicted to rise to 10 per cent by 2060. But at a high cost - tax breaks for superannuation cost about $50 billion a year and will soon exceed the cost of the pension. Longtime economics guru Ross Gittins was scathing this week about rich men wanting to stay rich. Fair enough and absolutely right. But what I'm missing from this conversation - entirely - is anyone from the richy riches thinking about others. Where are the richy riches when it comes to those on welfare? Where are they when we talk about raising the rate for those on welfare, for example? Why aren't the wealthy championing the cause of the poor? Or as Cassandra Goldie, longtime CEO of ACOSS, told me this week: "We would welcome a greater level of outrage about the failure to fix the adequacy of Jobseeker and Youth Allowance, which condemns people to live in terrible poverty." Me too. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking we are killing their darlings for the fuss that's gone on. The pamphlet for the wealthy, The Australian Financial Review, has had a field day. In summary, it's just plain cruel to tax the rich. It reminds me of the goings-on before the 2019 election, when Labor took real tax reform to the people and was roundly rejected after a successful scare campaign from the then member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and his family member, Geoff, a fund manager. Stewart tells me I'm being a bit mean - the proposed changes then would have affected more people than the one being suggested now. Still, there is always resistance when people think they have something to lose. Now it turns out the Wilsons have joined forces again to do battle on this proposal. Real tax reform is hard because the people who don't want it are self-interested. We all are, to some extent. But being self-interested to the point where you don't care whether some people eat or die, that's shocking to me. MORE JENNA PRICE: For years now, the Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning to raise the rate of payments made to those in need. So I asked the ACOSS team about their response to the complaints made by the uberwealthy. The proposed tax change would very modestly slow the accumulation of riches that would otherwise flow to already wealthy men. Is that me being sexist? By no means. ACOSS tells me that the people with those huge balances are pretty much all men. Also, tax breaks for super cost $50 billion a year, almost as much as the age pension. I'd prefer more of that $50 billion to be in favour of all those payments which help people lead lives that aren't crushed by hunger, freaked out by rental payments. As Goldie says: "This is a modest measure that barely touches the sides of some of the most inequitable and outrageous tax breaks in this country, egregiously generous tax breaks for people who will never need to rely on the age pension." Forgive me if you know this, but superannuation is a tax shelter. You pay less tax on superannuation than you do on normal earnings. Previous Coalition governments allowed Armaguard (OK, maybe not them specifically) truckloads of money to be deposited into super accounts. That's now been stopped, fortunately. Surprisingly, it was the Morrison government that ended the lurk. I'm not exactly sure how people get to be rich. What I do know is that some of them do not exhibit traits such as kindness or generosity (unless it's to a charity of their choice where they can bask in reflected glory). I'm also not sure how we can make the best tax policy in this country and maybe this proposed reform is just tinkering at the edges. But according to Gittins and a whole bunch of others, just 80,000 people will be impacted by these changes. They can live with it.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Forget tariffs, major grocery chain unveils its own cheap wine
The wine industry has faced the same decline in consumer demand that other alcoholic beverage industries have experienced in the last year. While the spirits industry has dealt with economic issues, with spirits supplier sales in the U.S. declining 1.1% in 2024 to $37.2 billion, the wine industry also struggled last year. Don't miss the move: SIGN UP for TheStreet's FREE Daily newsletter Wine industry metrics flattened out after three decades of sustained growth, mainly driven by Baby Boomer consumers, according to Silicon Valley Bank's State of the U.S. Wine Industry Report 2025. Related: Popular Trader Joe's wine brand has bad news, making harsh choice A reduction in wine consumption and a supply imbalance was influenced by a fundamental shift in consumer demographics, along with the resurgence of anti-alcohol campaigns, the report said. The reduction in demand was influenced by a decline in the "wine-friendly" Boomer population and a change in sentiment toward alcohol. The decrease in consumer sales led to bankruptcy filings from some significant wine companies, such as Vintage Wine Estates, which filed for bankruptcy in July 2024. The debtor, which once owned about 60 labels such as Girard Winery, B.R. Cohn, Kunde, Viansa Sonoma, and Windsor Vineyards, on July 24, 2024, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware listing $475 million in assets and $400 million in liabilities. The Santa Rosa, Calif.-based debtor won approval in September 2024 to sell off its wineries and brands to several buyers in a bankruptcy auction for over $140 million. Tariffs on imported and exported wines have not yet taken full effect, leaving the U.S. wine industry in limbo about what to expect in the months ahead. U.S tariffs on imported wine, which include 30% on South African wine, 20% on European Union wine, and 17% on Israeli wine, have been paused for 90 days. But wine is included in the U.S. 10% tariff on all imports. A combination of tariffs and rising prices driven by inflation is bound to increase the cost of wine. The easy answer for consumers is to seek out good-quality wines at reasonable prices. That answer might come from a couple of grocery chains that are in a battle to sell some of the lowest-priced wine on the market. Discount grocery store chain Grocery Outlet Bargain Market launched a challenge to Trader Joe's Charles Shaw line of wines, known as "Two Buck Chuck," as it introduced its private label Second Cheapest Wine. Related: Winemakers uncover a worrisome new problem Grocery Outlet in April rolled out five varieties of Second Cheapest Wine, including Sonoma Valley Chardonnay, Napa Valley Chardonnay, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir, Anderson Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, and Sonoma Sauvignon Blanc, each priced at $4.99 a bottle. The grocery chain's least expensive bottles of wine are usually as low as $3.99, but lower-priced bottles can sometimes be found at the stores. More retail: Popular retail chain to close unprofitable store locationsBankrupt retail chain unloads store leases, key assetPopular discount retailer files bankruptcy, closes all stores The Emeryville, Calif.-based grocery chain embraces the title of "Second Cheapest Wine," as Trader Joe's "Two Buck Chuck" currently sells for $3.49 a bottle, according to its website. Trader Joe's charged $1.99 a bottle when it launched Charles Shaw wines, or "Two Buck Chuck," in 2002, before it raised the price in 2013 to $2.49 a bottle. Charles Shaw wines include Pinot Grigio, White Zinfandel, Shiraz, Sauvignon Blanc, Red Blend, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and Chardonnay. Grocery Outlet's roots date back to 1946, when its founder, Jim Read, opened a military surplus store selling goods at discount prices. The business transitioned into a discount grocery chain with over 400 stores nationwide, according to its website. Related: Struggling wine and spirits company files Chapter 11 bankruptcy The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
The Star
2 days ago
- Business
- The Star
How emojis are shaping the future of work communications
For some, emojis are at odds with the serious world of business. — AFP Relaxnews Gone are the days of cold emails and dry, emotionless exchanges. Emojis are now becoming a common feature of professional messaging. Far from being a mere gimmick, these colorful little symbols are redefining the codes of business communications. This shift divides as much as it fascinates, but it could well make our working relationships feel more human. A recent Atlassian-YouGov* survey confirms that nine in ten Gen Z workers are in favour of using emojis at work. Indeed, this generation, which will account for 30% of the workforce by 2030, is shaking up the rules of the game. While their elders cling to their formal work emails, younger workers are all about expressiveness and responsiveness. But this difference of opinion is not without consequences. At a time when the written word is replacing physical meetings in many companies, a misinterpreted message can be costly. Some 40 hours a year are lost by a third of the workforce due to unclear written communications. In this new context, every word counts. Hence the growing interest in these little symbols. A simple "ok' sounds dry, even hostile. Add a thumbs-up or a wink, and the tone changes completely. Emojis become our virtual gestures: they convey emotion, nuance the message, and humanize the exchange. It's hardly surprising that 65% of employees use emojis to convey their emotions, and that 78% prefer to read a message containing emojis. But not everyone is following suit. Fewer than one in two Boomer and Generation X employees approve of this shift in professional communications. For them, these colorful symbols are at odds with the serious world of business. This discrepancy can create tension when a manager perceives an emoji as inappropriate, whereas a younger employee simply wants to add a human touch to their exchange. Misunderstanding sets in, and there's a growing risk of widening the generation gap within teams. The art of emoji use Yet the benefits of this emoji-based communication are measurable, with greater clarity, stronger social bonds and reduced stress. Some companies are even integrating emojis into their team culture. As a result, employees feel more connected, better understood, and less burdened by the unspoken words that plague productivity. But this new form of expression requires finesse. Not all emojis are created equal, and some can be confusing, depending on the context and the user. A study published in 2024 in the journal PLOS One also revealed significant cultural differences in the interpretation of these pictograms, depending on people's nationality. Experts recommend using simple, universal emojis and adapting their use to each situation. As with any language, it's accuracy that makes the difference between a successful message and a misunderstanding. More than just a passing fad, emojis are a performance lever for tomorrow's workplaces – emotional intelligence condensed into a few pixels. Provided, of course, that you use them wisely. – AFP Relationship *The survey, conducted by Atlassian in collaboration with YouGov from August 8 to 24, 2024, questioned 10,000 employees across five international markets (USA, Australia, France, Germany and India) about their communications and productivity at work.
