 |
|
|
|||||
A little more than a year ago, Ryan Sprankle welcomed President Donald Trump to one of the three grocery stores his family owns near Pittsburgh. Trump was on the campaign trail; they talked about high grocery prices, and the Republican nominee picked up a bag of popcorn.But these days, Sprankle would have a different message if Trump or any lawmakers visited his store. He wants them to know that delayed SNAP benefits during the government shutdown hurt his customers and his small, independent chain.“You can’t take away from the most needy people in the country. It’s inhumane,” Sprankle said. “It’s a lack of empathy and it’s on all their hands. The Trump administration froze funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at the end of October, impacting food access for some 42 million Americans. On Monday, the U.S. Senate passed legislation that would reopen the federal government and replenish SNAP funds, but the U.S. House of Representatives still must consider the bill. It’s unclear when SNAP payments might resume if the government reopens.In 2024, SNAP recipients redeemed a little more than $96 billion in benefits, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program. The majority 74% was spent at superstores and supermarkets, a category that includes big chains like Walmart and Kroger but also some independent stores like Sprankle’s.Around 14% was spent at smaller grocery and convenience stores, businesses often tucked into neighborhoods and more easily accessible to SNAP beneficiaries. A stalled economic engine Etharin Cousin, a former director of the United Nations World Food Program and founder of the nonprofit Food Systems for the Future, said the cutoff of SNAP benefits had immediate impacts on grocers and convenience stores of all sizes, most of which operate on slim profit margins of 1% to 2%.“SNAP isn’t just a social safety net for families. It’s also a local economic engine,” Cousin said. “SNAP benefits flow directly into neighborhoods, stores, regional distributors and community jobs.”Walmart declined to comment on the impact of the SNAP funding lapse but noted that it has been lowering prices and donating to local food banks. Kroger also declined to comment.Shoppers not receiving their food benefits affects all retailers but becomes “a big problem more quickly” at small chains, Sprankle said. His Kittanning, Pennsylvania, store gets 25% of its revenue from SNAP, but customers who don’t get government assistance also are worried about the shutdown, according to Sprankle. They’re spending less, trading down to cheaper goods or heading to food banks, he said.Sprankle said lower sales cut into the overtime he can offer to the chain’s 140 employees. Many are worried about losing their jobs, he said.“They have families to feed, they have kids for buy gifts for,” he said. “If I have to sell my truck, we’re going to give Christmas bonuses.”Liz Abunaw, the owner and operator of Forty Acres Fresh Market in Chicago, recently saw a customer putting back a full cart of groceries because she couldn’t afford them without SNAP.Abunaw opened the supermarket in September after years spent selling produce at pop-up markets and in delivery boxes. Only about 12% of Abunaw’s revenue comes from SNAP benefits right now, she said. But without it or if SNAP recipients spend less money in her store — it will slow Forty Acres’ growth and make it harder to pay the workers, suppliers and farmers who depend on her, she said.“SNAP is currency. I get money I then use in this economy. It’s not a food box,” Abunaw said. “The economic impact of SNAP is larger than the dollars spent.” From neighborhood shops to food pantries The suspended food aid also had an immediate impact on Kanbe’s Markets, a nonprofit that stocks produce in coolers at 110 convenience stores around Kansas City, Missouri. Kanbe’s distributes a mixture of donated food and food purchased from wholesalers to keep prices low, founder and CEO Maxfield Kaniger said.Kanbe’s also distributes free food to 50 food pantries and soup kitchens around the city.Kaniger said some of the convenience stores he works with saw their sales drop 10% in the days after Nov. 1, when SNAP benefits weren’t paid. At the same time, the food pantries he supplies asked for double or triple their usual orders.Because it’s giving away more food than usual, Kanbe’s has to spend more buying produce for the coolers it stocks. It’s frustrating for Kaniger, who must make decisions quickly before food spoils.“It should be enough that people are going without food. Period, end of sentence. People going without food is wrong,” he said.Babir Sultan sells berries, lemons, potatoes, bananas and other produce from Kanbe’s at his four FavTrip convenience stores in the Kansas City area. His stores are in food deserts, far from other groceries or big retailers, he said, so it’s important to him to stock fresh produce for those neighborhoods.Sultan said foot traffic at his stores fell 8% to 10% in early November after SNAP funding ceased. He decided to offer $10 of free produce to SNAP beneficiaries but said he’s also happy to help out other customers who might be struggling right now.“If you’re in need, just ask, we’ll take care of you,” Sultan said. “Everybody is affected whenever the customer is feeling the pinch.” Durbin reported from Detroit. Associated Press data journalist Kasturi Pananjady in Philadelphia contributed to this report. Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Business Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
Circle Internet Group released its third-quarter earnings on Wednesday, November 12, announcing a 66% jump in revenue and reserve income year-over-year (YOY). The $740 million figure stemmed, in large part, from a 97% increase YOY of average USDC in circulation. USDC, Circles flagship cryptocurrency stablecoin, is pegged to the U.S. dollar. Its also one of the largest stablecoins in the world. In August, Circle announced Arc, a public blockchain designed specifically for stablecoins, such as USDC. In the earnings report, Circle claimed that over 100 companies are taking part in the launch of Arc public testnet. Jeremy Allaire, cofounder, CEO, and chairman at Circle, said the test was met with extraordinary enthusiasm from partners across traditional and digital financeevidence of the deep and diverse ecosystem forming around open, programmable money.” Furthermore, Circle reported a net income of $214 million, a 202% improvement YOY. Notably, this is only Circles second earnings report after going public in June. All YOY figures are reported by Circle based on private earnings during quarter three 2024. CRCL takes a tumble in premarket trading Despite impressive revenue and net income growth, Circle shares (NYSE:CRCL) still took a tumble. After already closing 5.57% down on Wednesday, the drop continued in premarket trading on Thursday, falling more than 5%. One factor could be Circle raising its expected 2025 adjusted operating expenses from between $475 million and $490 million to $495 million and $510 million. Circle blamed the updated outlook on growing investment in building our platform, capabilities and global partnerships to meet the accelerating market interest and opportunity, as well as higher payroll taxes anticipated from option exercises. New York-based Circle Internet Groups IPO was one of the most high-profile listings of the year. After shares were priced at $31, they reached a high of close to $300 less than a month after their market debut. But the stock price has swung wildly since then. It’s down roughly 28% over the last month as of Tuesday’s close.
Category:
E-Commerce
The longest government shutdown in history could conclude as soon as Wednesday, Day 43, with almost no one happy with the final result.Democrats didn’t get the heath insurance provisions they demanded added to the spending deal. And Republicans, who control the levers of power in Washington, didn’t escape blame, according to polls and some state and local elections that went poorly for them.The fallout of the shutdown landed on millions of Americans, including federal workers who went without paychecks and airline passengers who had their trips delayed or canceled. An interruption in nutrition assistance programs contributed to long lines at food banks and added emotional distress going into the holiday season.The agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of governmentfood aid, veterans programs, and the legislative branch, among other things. All other funding would be extended until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish additional spending bills.Here’s a look at how the shutdown started and is likely to end: What led to the shutdown Democrats made several demands to win their support for a short-term funding bill, but the central one was an extension of an enhanced tax credit that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.The tax credit was boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic response, again through President Joe Biden’s big energy and health care bill, and it’s set to expire at the end of December. Without it, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.“Never have American families faced a situation where their health care costs are set to doubledouble in the blink of an eye,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York.While Democrats called for negotiations on the matter, Republicans said a funding bill would need to be passed first.“Republicans are ready to sit down with Democrats just as soon as they stop holding the government hostage to their partisan demands,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, said.Thune eventually promised Democrats a December vote on the tax credit extension to help resolve the standoff, but many Democrats demanded a guaranteed fix, not just a vote that is likely to fail.Thune’s position was much the same as the one Schumer took back in October 2013, when Republicans unsuccessfully sought to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for funding the government. “Open up all of the government, and then we can have a fruitful discussion,” Schumer said then. Democratic leaders under pressure The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term has seen more than 200,000 federal workers leave their job through firings, forced relocations or the Republican administration’s deferred resignation program, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Whole agencies that don’t align with the administration’s priorities have been dismantled. And billions of dollars previously approved by Congress have been frozen or canceled.Democrats have had to rely on the courts to block some of Trump’s efforts, but they have been unable to do it through legislation. They were also powerless to stop Trump’s big tax cut and immigration crackdown bill that Republicans helped pay for by cutting future spending on safety net programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.The Democrats’ struggles to blunt the Trump administration’s priorities has prompted calls for the party’s congressional leadership to take a more forceful response.Schumer experienced that firsthand after announcing in March that he would support moving ahead with a funding bill for the 2025 budget year. There was a protest at his office, calls from progressives that he be primaried in 2028, and suggestions that the Democratic Party would soon be looking for new leaders.This time around, Schumer demanded that Republicans negotiate with Democrats to get their votes on a spending bill. The Senate rules, he noted, requires bipartisan support to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance a spending bill.But those negotiations did not occur, at least not with Schumer. Republicans instead worked with a small group of eight Democrats to tee up a short-term bill to fund the government generally at current levels and accused Schumer of catering to the party’s left flank when he refused to go along.“The Senate Democrats are afraid that the radicals in their party will say that they caved,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Lousiana, said at one of his many daily press conferences. The blame game The political stakes in the shutdown are huge, which is why leaders in both parties have held nearly daily press briefings to shape public opinion.Roughly 6 in 10 Americans say Trump and Republicans in Congress have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown, while 54% say the same about Democrats in Congress, according to the poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.At least three-quarters of Americans believe each deserves at least a “moderate” share of blame, underscoring that no one was successfully evading responsibility.Both parties looked to the November 4 elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere for signs of how the shutdown was influencing public opinion. Democrats took comfort in their overwhelming successes. Trump called it a “big factor, negative” for Republicans. But it did not change the GOP’s stance on negotiating. Instead, Trump ramped up calls for Republicans to end the filibuster in the Senate, which would pretty much eliminate the need for the majority party to ever negotiate with the minority. Damage of the shutdown The Congressional Budget Office says that the negative impact on the economy will be mostly recovered once the shutdown ends, but not entirely. It estimated the permanent economic loss at about $11 billion for a six-week shutdown.Beyond the numbers, though, the shutdown created a cascade of troubles for many Americans. Federal workers missed paychecks, causing financial and emotional stress. Travelers had their flights delayed and at times canceled. People who rely on safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program saw their benefits stopped, and Americans throughout the country lined up for meals at food banks.“This dysfunction is damaging enough to our constituents and economy here at home, but it also sends a dangerous message to the watching world,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas “It demonstrates to our allies that we are an unreliable partner, and it signals to our adversaries that we can’t work together to meet even the most fundamental responsibilities of Congress.” Follow the AP’s coverage of the federal government shutdown at https://apnews.com/hub/government-shutdown. Kevin Freking, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump boasts that his tariffs protect American industries, lure factories to the United States, raise money for the federal government, and give him diplomatic leverage.Now, he’s claiming they can finance a windfall for American families, too: He’s promising a generous tariff dividend.The president proposed the idea on his Truth Social media platform Sunday, five days after his Republican Party lost elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere largely because of voter discontent with his economic stewardshipspecifically, the high cost of living.The tariffs are bringing in so much money, the president posted, that “a dividend of at least $2,000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”Budget experts scoffed at the idea, which conjured memories of the Trump administration’s short-lived plan for DOGE dividend checks financed by billionaire Elon Musk’s federal budget cuts.“The numbers just don’t check out,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.Details are scarce, including what the income limits would be and whether payments would go to children.Even Trump’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, sounded a bit blindsided by the audacious dividend plan. Appearing Sunday on ABC’s This Week, Bessent said he hadn’t discussed the dividend with the president and suggested that it might not mean that Americans would get a check from the government. Instead, Bessent said, the rebate might take the form of tax cuts.The tariffs are certainly raising money$195 billion in the budget year that ended September 30, up 153% from $77 billion in fiscal 2024. But they still account for less than 4% of federal revenue and have done little to dent the federal budget deficita staggering $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.Budget wonks say Trump’s dividend math doesn’t work.John Ricco, an analyst with the Budget Lab at Yale University, reckons that Trump’s tariffs will bring in $200 billion to $300 billion a year in revenue. But a $2,000 dividendif it went to all Americans, including childrenwould cost $600 billion. “It’s clear that the revenue coming in would not be adequate,” he said.Ricco also noted that Trump couldn’t just pay the dividends on his own. They would require legislation from Congress.Moreover, the centerpiece of Trump’s protectionist trade policiesdouble-digit taxes on imports from almost every country in the worldmay not survive a legal challenge that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.In a hearing last week, the justices sounded skeptical about the Trump administration’s assertion of sweeping power to declare national emergencies to justify the tariffs. Trump has bypassed Congress, which has authority under the Constitution to levy taxes, including tariffs.If the court strikes down the tariffs, the Trump administration may be refunding money to the importers who paid them, not sending dividend checks to American families. (Trump could find other ways to impose tariffs, even if he loses at the Supreme Court; but it could be cumbersome and time-consuming.)Mainstream economists and budget analysts note that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who then generally try to pass along the cost to their customers through higher prices.The dividend plan “misses the mark,” the Tax Foundation’s York said. “If the goal is relief for Americans, just get rid of the tariffs.” Paul Wiseman, AP Economics Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
A few years ago, when I was working at a traditional law firm, the partners gathered with us with barely any excitement. “Rejoice,” they announced, unveiling our new AI assistant that would make legal work faster, easier, and better. An expert was brought in to train us on dashboards and automation. Within months, her enthusiasm had curdled into frustration as lawyers either ignored the expensive tool or, worse, followed its recommendations blindly. That’s when I realized: we weren’t learning to use AI. AI was learning to use us. Many traditional law firms have rushed to adopt AI decision support tools for client selection, case assessment, and strategy development. The pitch is irresistible: AI reduces costs, saves time, and promises better decisions through pure logic, untainted by human bias or emotion. These systems appear precise: When AI was used in cases, evidence gets rated “strong,” “medium,” or “weak.” Case outcomes receive probability scores. Legal strategies are color-coded by risk level. But this crisp certainty masks a messy reality: most of these AI assessments rely on simple scoring rules that check whether information matches predefined characteristics. It’s sophisticated pattern-matching, not wisdom, and it falls apart spectacularly with borderline cases that don’t fit the template. And here’s the kicker: AI systems often replicate the very biases they’re supposed to eliminate. Research is finding that algorithmic recommendations in legal tech can reflect and even amplify human prejudices baked into training data. Your “objective” AI tool might carry the same blind spots as a biased partner, it’s just faster and more confident about it. And yet: None of this means abandoning AI tools. It means building and demanding better ones. The Default Trap “So what?” you might think. “AI tools are just that, tools. Can’t we use their speed and efficiency while critically reviewing their suggestions?” In theory, yes. In practice, we’re terrible at it. Behavioral economists have documented a phenomenon called status quo bias: our powerful preference for defaults. When an AI system presents a recommendation, that recommendation becomes the path of least resistance. Questioning it requires time, cognitive effort, and the social awkwardness of overriding what feels like expert consensus. I watched this happen repeatedly at the firm. An associate would run case details through the AI, which would spit out a legal strategy. Rather than treating it as one input among many, it became the starting point that shaped every subsequent discussion. The AI’s guess became our default, and defaults are sticky. This wouldn’t matter if we at least recognized what was happening. But something more insidious occurs: our ability to think independently atrophies. Writer Nicholas Carr has long warned about the cognitive costs of outsourcing thinking to machines, and mounting evidence supports his concerns. Each time we defer to AI without questioning it, we get a little worse at making those judgments ourselves. I’ve watched junior associates lose the ability to evaluate cases on their own. They’ve become skilled at operating the AI interface but struggle when asked to analyze a legal problem from scratch. The tool was supposed to make them more efficient; instead, it’s made them dependent. Speed Without Wisdom The real danger isn’t that AI makes mistakes. It’s that AI makes mistakes quickly, confidently, and at scale. An attorney accepts a case evaluation without noticing the system misunderstood a crucial precedent. A partner relies on AI-generated strategy recommendations that miss a creative legal argument a human would have spotted. A firm uses AI for client intake and systematically screens out cases that don’t match historical patterns, even when those cases have merit. Each decision feels rational in the moment, backed by technology and data. But poor inputs and flawed models produce poor outputs, just faster than before. The Better Path Forward The problems I witnessed stemmed from how these legacy systems were designed: as replacement tools rather than enhancement tools. They positioned AI as the decision-maker with humans merely reviewing outputs, rather than keeping human judgment at the center. Better AI legal tools exist, and they take a fundamentally different approach. They’re built with judgment-first design, treating lawyers as the primary decision-makers and AI as a support system that enhances rather than replaces expertise. These systems make their reasoning transparent, showing how they arrived at recommendations rather than presenting black-box outputs. They include regular capability assessments to ensure lawyers maintain independent analytical skills even while using AI assistance. And they’re designed to flag edge cases and uncertainties rather than presenting false confidence. The difference is philosophical: are you building tools that make lawyers faster at being lawyers, or tools that try to replace lawyering itself? I see this different approach playing out in immigration services, where the stakes of poor decisions are particularly high. Consider a case where an applicant’s employment history doesn’t neatly match historical approval patterns, perhaps they’ve had gaps, career shifts, or worked in emerging fields. A traditional AI tool would flag this as “non-standard,” lowering approval probability and becoming the default recommendation. A judgment-first system does something entirely different: it surfaces the exact factors that make the case atypical, explains why precedent might or might not apply, and explicitly asks the immigration officer, “What do you see here that the algorithm misses?” The officer remains the decision-maker, armed with both AI efficiency and the cognitive space to apply nuanced expertise. The tool didn’t replace judgment; it enhanced it. That’s the difference between AI that makes professionals dependent and AI that makes them sharper. Taking Back Control None of this means abandoning AI tools. It means using them deliberately: Treat AI recommendations as drafts, not answers. Before accepting any AI suggestion, ask: “What would I recommend if the system weren’t here?” If you can’t answer, you’re not ready to evaluate the AI’s output. Build in friction. Create a rule that important decisions require at least one alternative to the AI’s recommendation. Force yourself to articulate why the AI is right, rather than assuming it is. Test regularly. Periodically work through problems without AI assistance to maintain your independent judgment. Think of it like a pilot practicing manual landings despite having autopilot. Demand transparency. Push vendors to explain how their systems reach conclusions. If they can’t or won’t, that’s a red flag. You’re entitled to understand what’s shaping your decisions. Stay skeptical of certainty. When AI outputs seem suspiciously confident or precise, dig deeper. Real-world problems are messy; if the answer looks too clean, something’s probably being oversimplified. The legal professionals who thrive with AI aren’t those who defer to it blindly or reject it entirely. They’re the ones who leverage its efficiencies while maintaining sharp human judgment, and who insist on tools designed to enhance their capabilities rather than circumvent them. Left unchecked, poorly designed AI assistants will train you to make terrible decisions. But that outcome isn’t inevitable. The future belongs to legal professionals who demand tools that genuinely enhance their expertise rather than erode it. After all, speed and convenience lose much of their appeal if they compromise the quality of justice itself.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] next »