#business

[anarchywoofwoof]

Party City is closing down all of its stores, ending nearly 40 years in business, CNN has learned. CEO Barry Litwin told corporate employees Friday in a meeting viewed by CNN that Party City is “winding down” operations immediately and that today will be their last day of employment. Staff were told they will not receive severance pay, and they were told their benefits would end as the company goes out of business. “That is without question the most difficult message that I’ve ever had to deliver,” Litwin said at the meeting, which was held on a video conference call.

16,000 people fired effective immediately. 5 days before Christmas.

well. wait. not immediately. you still need to finish your shift. oh and also, sorry, but no severance. and no continuation of benefits.

Party City’s product development team was recalled two weeks ago from its yearly trip with vendors and told to return home immediately, according to a former Party City corporate office employee, who wished to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The team was told the company believed the trip posed a safety risk, because Party City had stopped paying its suppliers.

oh and uhhh... you're gonna want to get back here immediately because if you stay on that company sponsored trip for another day, someone might break your legs to collect on our debts.

what?? what's your question?? how did this happen?? uhhh.. well.. *shuffling papers frantically* there were a combination of volatile and unpredictable market factors that uhhh... inflation really.... the pandemic....

Forbes reported that Party City was thriving before the pandemic. The company saw a decline in consumer demand, however, after a helium shortage during the pandemic impacted the company's ability to sell its popular party balloons. Steve Mandell, who founded the company back in 1986, blamed the chain's implosion on the lack of deals and variety at its store, claiming that problems began after private equity executives locked the business into a large supply deal, sourcing nearly 80% of its supply from a manufacturer owned by the firm, per The Post.

oh... erm... yeah ok i admit there was a teeny weensy bit of profit seeking. but that's capitalism, right?!

[lovinglifeinspiringothers]

#lovinglife #inspiringothers #llio #life #inspiration #inspiring #luvlife #lovinlife #inspire #luvinlife

[mahrahpalestine]

My account and the accounts of a group of my friends who organize donation campaigns to help their families have been blocked for no known reason

It is clear that the Tumblr platform is against the Palestinians’ livelihood and achieving a better future

Everyone is against the Palestinians from living

But despite this, we will try to live and achieve a better future

@freepaleatine95

@nabulsi @ibtisams @tododeku-or-bust @turian

@paper-mario-wiki @sar-soor @determinate-negation @determinate-negation @sayruq @90-ghost @dykesbat shared

@asexualfromhell @paper-mario-wiki

[grickle14]

Feel its power.

[picsfortheday]

[reasonsforhope]

Federal regulators on Tuesday [April 23, 2024] enacted a nationwide ban on new noncompete agreements, which keep millions of Americans — from minimum-wage earners to CEOs — from switching jobs within their industries.

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday afternoon voted 3-to-2 to approve the new rule, which will ban noncompetes for all workers when the regulations take effect in 120 days [So, the ban starts in early September, 2024!]. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. For all other employees, existing noncompetes are not enforceable.

[That's right: if you're currently under a noncompete agreement, it's completely invalid as of September 2024! You're free!!]

The antitrust and consumer protection agency heard from thousands of people who said they had been harmed by noncompetes, illustrating how the agreements are "robbing people of their economic liberty," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. 

The FTC commissioners voted along party lines, with its two Republicans arguing the agency lacked the jurisdiction to enact the rule and that such moves should be made in Congress...

Why it matters

The new rule could impact tens of millions of workers, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist and president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. 

"For nonunion workers, the only leverage they have is their ability to quit their job," Shierholz told CBS MoneyWatch. "Noncompetes don't just stop you from taking a job — they stop you from starting your own business."

Since proposing the new rule, the FTC has received more than 26,000 public comments on the regulations. The final rule adopted "would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses," the FTC said in a statement.

The agency's action comes more than two years after President Biden directed the agency to "curtail the unfair use" of noncompetes, under which employees effectively sign away future work opportunities in their industry as a condition of keeping their current job. The president's executive order urged the FTC to target such labor restrictions and others that improperly constrain employees from seeking work.

"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," Khan said in a statement making the case for axing noncompetes. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand."

Real-life consequences

In laying out its rationale for banishing noncompetes from the labor landscape, the FTC offered real-life examples of how the agreements can hurt workers.

In one case, a single father earned about $11 an hour as a security guard for a Florida firm, but resigned a few weeks after taking the job when his child care fell through. Months later, he took a job as a security guard at a bank, making nearly $15 an hour. But the bank terminated his employment after receiving a letter from the man's prior employer stating he had signed a two-year noncompete.

In another example, a factory manager at a textile company saw his paycheck dry up after the 2008 financial crisis. A rival textile company offered him a better job and a big raise, but his noncompete blocked him from taking it, according to the FTC. A subsequent legal battle took three years, wiping out his savings. 

-via CBS Moneywatch, April 24, 2024

--

Note:

A lot of people think that noncompete agreements are only a white-collar issue, but they absolutely affect blue-collar workers too, as you can see from the security guard anecdote.

In fact, one in six food and service workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's right - one in six food workers can't leave Burger King to work for Wendy's [hypothetical example], in the name of "trade secrets." (x, x, x)

Noncompete agreements also restrict workers in industries from tech and video games to neighborhood yoga studios. "The White House estimates that tens of millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements, even in states like California where they're banned." (x, x, x)

The FTC estimates that the ban will lead to "the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade." (x)

Clearer explanation of noncompete agreements below the cut.

Noncompete agreements can restrict workers from leaving for a better job or starting their own business.

Noncompetes often effectively coerce workers into staying in jobs they want to leave, and even force them to leave a profession or relocate.

Noncompetes can prevent workers from accepting higher-paying jobs, and even curtail the pay of workers not subject to them directly.

Of the more than 26,000 comments received by the FTC, more than 25,000 supported banning noncompetes. 

[technoturian]

I will not be calling Twitter “X”. I will not be calling HBOMax “Max”. And I will never call Facebook “Meta”.

These names are the branding equivalent of greige. Uninspired, personality-less “minimalist” rebranding die challenge.

[a-really-big-cat]

Do you want to see the most incredible r/wallstreetbets post in history

That says 1 day ago as in literally only a few hours before the outage began lmfao.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What kind of bubble is AI?

My latest column for Locus Magazine is "What Kind of Bubble is AI?" All economic bubbles are hugely destructive, but some of them leave behind wreckage that can be salvaged for useful purposes, while others leave nothing behind but ashes:

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

Think about some 21st century bubbles. The dotcom bubble was a terrible tragedy, one that drained the coffers of pension funds and other institutional investors and wiped out retail investors who were gulled by Superbowl Ads. But there was a lot left behind after the dotcoms were wiped out: cheap servers, office furniture and space, but far more importantly, a generation of young people who'd been trained as web makers, leaving nontechnical degree programs to learn HTML, perl and python. This created a whole cohort of technologists from non-technical backgrounds, a first in technological history. Many of these people became the vanguard of a more inclusive and humane tech development movement, and they were able to make interesting and useful services and products in an environment where raw materials – compute, bandwidth, space and talent – were available at firesale prices.

Contrast this with the crypto bubble. It, too, destroyed the fortunes of institutional and individual investors through fraud and Superbowl Ads. It, too, lured in nontechnical people to learn esoteric disciplines at investor expense. But apart from a smattering of Rust programmers, the main residue of crypto is bad digital art and worse Austrian economics.

Or think of Worldcom vs Enron. Both bubbles were built on pure fraud, but Enron's fraud left nothing behind but a string of suspicious deaths. By contrast, Worldcom's fraud was a Big Store con that required laying a ton of fiber that is still in the ground to this day, and is being bought and used at pennies on the dollar.

AI is definitely a bubble. As I write in the column, if you fly into SFO and rent a car and drive north to San Francisco or south to Silicon Valley, every single billboard is advertising an "AI" startup, many of which are not even using anything that can be remotely characterized as AI. That's amazing, considering what a meaningless buzzword AI already is.

So which kind of bubble is AI? When it pops, will something useful be left behind, or will it go away altogether? To be sure, there's a legion of technologists who are learning Tensorflow and Pytorch. These nominally open source tools are bound, respectively, to Google and Facebook's AI environments:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/18/openwashing/#you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means

But if those environments go away, those programming skills become a lot less useful. Live, large-scale Big Tech AI projects are shockingly expensive to run. Some of their costs are fixed – collecting, labeling and processing training data – but the running costs for each query are prodigious. There's a massive primary energy bill for the servers, a nearly as large energy bill for the chillers, and a titanic wage bill for the specialized technical staff involved.

Once investor subsidies dry up, will the real-world, non-hyperbolic applications for AI be enough to cover these running costs? AI applications can be plotted on a 2X2 grid whose axes are "value" (how much customers will pay for them) and "risk tolerance" (how perfect the product needs to be).

Charging teenaged D&D players $10 month for an image generator that creates epic illustrations of their characters fighting monsters is low value and very risk tolerant (teenagers aren't overly worried about six-fingered swordspeople with three pupils in each eye). Charging scammy spamfarms $500/month for a text generator that spits out dull, search-algorithm-pleasing narratives to appear over recipes is likewise low-value and highly risk tolerant (your customer doesn't care if the text is nonsense). Charging visually impaired people $100 month for an app that plays a text-to-speech description of anything they point their cameras at is low-value and moderately risk tolerant ("that's your blue shirt" when it's green is not a big deal, while "the street is safe to cross" when it's not is a much bigger one).

Morganstanley doesn't talk about the trillions the AI industry will be worth some day because of these applications. These are just spinoffs from the main event, a collection of extremely high-value applications. Think of self-driving cars or radiology bots that analyze chest x-rays and characterize masses as cancerous or noncancerous.

These are high value – but only if they are also risk-tolerant. The pitch for self-driving cars is "fire most drivers and replace them with 'humans in the loop' who intervene at critical junctures." That's the risk-tolerant version of self-driving cars, and it's a failure. More than $100b has been incinerated chasing self-driving cars, and cars are nowhere near driving themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/09/herbies-revenge/#100-billion-here-100-billion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

Quite the reverse, in fact. Cruise was just forced to quit the field after one of their cars maimed a woman – a pedestrian who had not opted into being part of a high-risk AI experiment – and dragged her body 20 feet through the streets of San Francisco. Afterwards, it emerged that Cruise had replaced the single low-waged driver who would normally be paid to operate a taxi with 1.5 high-waged skilled technicians who remotely oversaw each of its vehicles:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/technology/cruise-general-motors-self-driving-cars.html

The self-driving pitch isn't that your car will correct your own human errors (like an alarm that sounds when you activate your turn signal while someone is in your blind-spot). Self-driving isn't about using automation to augment human skill – it's about replacing humans. There's no business case for spending hundreds of billions on better safety systems for cars (there's a human case for it, though!). The only way the price-tag justifies itself is if paid drivers can be fired and replaced with software that costs less than their wages.

What about radiologists? Radiologists certainly make mistakes from time to time, and if there's a computer vision system that makes different mistakes than the sort that humans make, they could be a cheap way of generating second opinions that trigger re-examination by a human radiologist. But no AI investor thinks their return will come from selling hospitals that reduce the number of X-rays each radiologist processes every day, as a second-opinion-generating system would. Rather, the value of AI radiologists comes from firing most of your human radiologists and replacing them with software whose judgments are cursorily double-checked by a human whose "automation blindness" will turn them into an OK-button-mashing automaton:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/23/automation-blindness/#humans-in-the-loop

The profit-generating pitch for high-value AI applications lies in creating "reverse centaurs": humans who serve as appendages for automation that operates at a speed and scale that is unrelated to the capacity or needs of the worker:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenized-reverse-centaurs/

But unless these high-value applications are intrinsically risk-tolerant, they are poor candidates for automation. Cruise was able to nonconsensually enlist the population of San Francisco in an experimental murderbot development program thanks to the vast sums of money sloshing around the industry. Some of this money funds the inevitabilist narrative that self-driving cars are coming, it's only a matter of when, not if, and so SF had better get in the autonomous vehicle or get run over by the forces of history.

Once the bubble pops (all bubbles pop), AI applications will have to rise or fall on their actual merits, not their promise. The odds are stacked against the long-term survival of high-value, risk-intolerant AI applications.

The problem for AI is that while there are a lot of risk-tolerant applications, they're almost all low-value; while nearly all the high-value applications are risk-intolerant. Once AI has to be profitable – once investors withdraw their subsidies from money-losing ventures – the risk-tolerant applications need to be sufficient to run those tremendously expensive servers in those brutally expensive data-centers tended by exceptionally expensive technical workers.

If they aren't, then the business case for running those servers goes away, and so do the servers – and so do all those risk-tolerant, low-value applications. It doesn't matter if helping blind people make sense of their surroundings is socially beneficial. It doesn't matter if teenaged gamers love their epic character art. It doesn't even matter how horny scammers are for generating AI nonsense SEO websites:

https://twitter.com/jakezward/status/1728032634037567509

These applications are all riding on the coattails of the big AI models that are being built and operated at a loss in order to be profitable. If they remain unprofitable long enough, the private sector will no longer pay to operate them.

Now, there are smaller models, models that stand alone and run on commodity hardware. These would persist even after the AI bubble bursts, because most of their costs are setup costs that have already been borne by the well-funded companies who created them. These models are limited, of course, though the communities that have formed around them have pushed those limits in surprising ways, far beyond their original manufacturers' beliefs about their capacity. These communities will continue to push those limits for as long as they find the models useful.

These standalone, "toy" models are derived from the big models, though. When the AI bubble bursts and the private sector no longer subsidizes mass-scale model creation, it will cease to spin out more sophisticated models that run on commodity hardware (it's possible that Federated learning and other techniques for spreading out the work of making large-scale models will fill the gap).

So what kind of bubble is the AI bubble? What will we salvage from its wreckage? Perhaps the communities who've invested in becoming experts in Pytorch and Tensorflow will wrestle them away from their corporate masters and make them generally useful. Certainly, a lot of people will have gained skills in applying statistical techniques.

But there will also be a lot of unsalvageable wreckage. As big AI models get integrated into the processes of the productive economy, AI becomes a source of systemic risk. The only thing worse than having an automated process that is rendered dangerous or erratic based on AI integration is to have that process fail entirely because the AI suddenly disappeared, a collapse that is too precipitous for former AI customers to engineer a soft landing for their systems.

This is a blind spot in our policymakers debates about AI. The smart policymakers are asking questions about fairness, algorithmic bias, and fraud. The foolish policymakers are ensnared in fantasies about "AI safety," AKA "Will the chatbot become a superintelligence that turns the whole human race into paperclips?"

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space

But no one is asking, "What will we do if" – when – "the AI bubble pops and most of this stuff disappears overnight?"

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/19/bubblenomics/#pop

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

--

tom_bullock (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/tombullock/25173469495/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[abdquffa9]

❗️🇵🇸🍉 Please don't skip❗️🍉🇵🇸

This is my little niece 🫂

An indescribable scene, this little girl is trying to get food to feed her younger siblings,❗️❗️ and she is sad because she did not provide them with the appropriate amount, is it the fault of these children that this happens to them? And can the world watch these scenes and remain silent?

Can you stand by us and support🍉 us? Please 🙏🙏do not ignore this appeal🙏🙏🙏🙏🍉🍉🍉🍉🇵🇸

Donation Link go found me ⬇️⬇️

PayPal donation link 🇵🇸 ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️

✅️ Vetting Done ✅️

My campaign vetted by

@a-shade-of-blue ;September 21 link vetted

@autismswagsummit : link vetted

@dlxxv-vetted-donations :

link vetted

@commissions4aid-international :

link vetted

@ibtisams : link vetted

@magnus-rhymes-with-swagness: link vetted

@tododeku-or-bust ; link vetted

@collgeruledzebra : link vetted

@gazavetters my number verified on the list is ( #67)

My brother's and sister account

(@ahmadquffa)

(@mumenquffa)

(@shahdquffa)

@90-ghost @el-shab-hussein @nabulsi @sar-soor @sayruq @queerstudiesnatural @appsa @communistchilchuck @fairuzfakhira @neptunerings @just-browsing1222 @appsa @akajustmerry @feluka @marnota @annoyingloudmicrowavecultist @tortiefrancis @flower-tea-fairies @tsaricides @riding-with-the-wild-hunt @vivisection-gf @belleandsaintsebastian @ear-motif @animentality @kordeliiius @brutaliakhoa @raelyn-dreams @troythecatfish @violetlyra @the-bastard-king @tamaytka @4ft10tvlandfangirl @troythecatfish @skatehan @northgazaupdates2 @northgazaupdates2 @baby-girl-aaron-dessner @friendshapedplant @mangocheesecakes @commissions4aid-international

[lovinglifeinspiringothers]

#lovinglife #inspiringothers #llio #life #inspiration #inspiring #luvlife #lovinlife #inspire #luvinlife

[robertreich]

How Trump Killed Every Business He Touched

Trump’s entire candidacy is based on a lie.

TRUMP: I’m really a good businessman. I’m so good at business.

Not true. Trump is a business failure. Almost every business he’s touched, he’s driven into the ground.

RUBIO: You ever heard of Trump Steaks?

TRUMP: Trump Steaks are the greatest steaks, and I mean that in every sense of the word!

RUBIO: You ever heard of Trump Vodka?

TRUMP: It’s a smooth vodka. It’s a great-tasting vodka.

RUBIO: All of these companies that he’s ruined!

It’s true! Trump had a failed board game…

TRUMP: My new game is Trump the Game.

…a failed bicycle race called the “Tour de Trump”…

TRUMP: I think this is an event that can be tremendous in the future. And it can really rival the Tour de France.

…a failed football team.

TRUMP: It’s gonna stay strong. It’s gonna stay strong for a long time.

Trump decided it was a good idea to start a mortgage company in 2006.

TRUMP: It’s a great time to start a mortgage company.

That failed in less than two years. Let’s see, what else was there?

JOHN OLIVER: Trump Magazine, which folded, Trump World Magazine, which also folded…

ROMNEY: Whatever happened to Trump Airlines?

Oh! That was a good one! One of his planes had a crash landing within the first two months, which he insisted was “the most beautiful landing you’ve ever seen.” The business failed within three years.

Trump has even managed to bankrupt multiple casinos. How do you lose money running a casino?

There’s an old joke that the easiest way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one. And that’s exactly what Trump did. Multiple analyses show that if Trump had simply invested his multi-million-dollar inheritance in an index fund and didn’t touch it, he’d be a lot richer than he is now. Think about that. His entire life’s work has been less successful than if he’d done nothing.

And when he was president, Trump ran the country like he ran his failed businesses. He added $8.4 trillion to the national debt — largely through his tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.

Trump has managed to survive every one of his business failures by leaving other people on the hook — leaving workers unpaid and shafting his investors.

The whole idea that Trump is good at business was a carefully-crafted illusion — concocted for a reality TV show. And like a lot of reality TV shows, we’ve come to learn it was all show, and no reality.

The only business Trump has been successful at is conning people. Now he’s trying to do it again. Don’t fall for it.

[mahrahpalestine]

"One Year After the Al-Aqsa Flood: Revolution Until Victory"

@ibtisams @paper-mario-wiki @turian @butchniqabi @buttercuparry @anneemay

[creelarke]

Can’t stop watching this video of a dude stabbing his boss — the company’s CEO — on stage as a part of their body armor demonstration and how “in character” he was

Source

😭😭😭😭

[prokopetz]

We don't just need to bring back mixed-use zoning, we also need to bring back corner stores where the owner lives on the second floor. Heck, I'm pretty sure that's the only way to prevent mixed-use zones from being cannibalised by corporate horseshit in our present climate: only allow businesses which are also the owner's primary residence.