(NEW YORK) — Sports Illustrated employees were notified on Friday that their jobs were being terminated.
The Sports Illustrated union posted on X: “This is another difficult day in what has been a difficult four years for Sports Illustrated under Arena Group (previously The Maven) stewardship. We are calling on ABG to ensure the continued publication of SI and allow it to serve our audience in the way it has for nearly 70 years.”
The magazine is owned by Authentic Brands Group.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. Postal Service will increase stamp prices starting Sunday, a USPS representative confirmed to “Good Morning America.”
The cost of first-class stamps will rise from 66 cents to 68 cents for letters weighing one ounce or less.
Package shipping costs will also increase by nearly six percent, with Priority Mail Express costs going up by 5.9 percent, Priority Mail increasing by 5.7 percent, and Ground Advantage going up 5.4 percent.
The price hikes, the fifth increase in two years, are part of the Postal Service’s ten-year “Delivering for America” plan to raise rates and recover from plunging profits – a projected $160 billion loss over the next ten years
Some of the cost-cutting measures have already translated into slower deliveries, while the increased prices will more significantly affect residents in the non-contiguous states and territories, like Alaska and Hawaii. Those areas will see an increase of more than nine percent, prompting lawmakers like Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan to speak out.
“No state, including Alaska, should be punished by our own federal government because of geography,” Sullivan said in part in a statement in December. “These hikes have the potential to severely negatively impact Alaskans – already reeling from inflation – who are more reliant on the USPS for basic goods and services than other Americans.”
(NEW YORK) — U.S. credit card debt has soared over the last couple of years and recently it reached a major milestone.
Americans’ combined credit card balances topped $1 trillion dollars last year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
By comparison, combined credit card balances were $680 billion a decade ago, according to federal data.
While growing online sales have fueled the spike, business experts say the numbers are concerning as more people are not paying off their full balances and facing costly interest payments.
During the pandemic, many Americans used stimulus payments from the government to help pay off their credit card debt, but things drastically changed once the stimulus dollars dried up.
At the end of 2021, 39% of credit card holders carried debt from month to month, but that jumped to 47% in 2023, according to data from Bankrate, a consumer financial services company.
The number of Americans missing payments also has increased as the average credit card balance now stands at just over $6,000, which is the highest in more than a decade, according to TransUnion.
Credit card delinquencies are rising fastest among lower-income borrowers, millennials and people who hold other kinds of debt, like auto or student loans, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Experts say the effects of rising inflation are one of the major factors behind the problem.
With prices rising, consumers have had to spend more on their cards for their goods.
At the same time, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to combat inflation, leaving credit card users with higher payments if they don’t pay off their monthly balance in full.
For example, a credit card user with a balance of $5,000 would have to pay an additional $7,000 in interest with a 21% rate if they paid their bill’s $35 minimum, according to Bankrate. And it would take 16 years to pay off the debt.
Credit card holders do have options to alleviate the debt, according to experts.
They can sign up for a balance transfer credit card, which allows a user to move existing debt to a new card, usually at much lower interest rates for a set amount of time.
Consumers can also call their credit card company and try to negotiate a lower interest rate. Credit counseling services are also a strong option to lower debt, according to experts.
Experts also warn against opening and closing credit card accounts too quickly as it can lower your credit score.
(NEW YORK) — Big Tech companies laid off hundreds of employees in recent days, commanding headlines and confronting workers across the economy with a question: Am I next?
Amazon and Google each imposed cuts, with Apple shutting down a 121-person team in San Diego, Calif., telling workers they must either transfer to Texas or leave the company, Bloomberg reported.
In all, the tech sector has laid off nearly 8,000 workers so far this year, according to layoffs.fyi, a site that tracks tech-sector employment.
The job cuts stem in large part from an ongoing staff reevaluation specific to the tech industry, since sales have retreated from the blistering pace attained during the pandemic, analysts said, noting comparatively scant layoffs across the wider workforce.
However, the recent cutbacks in tech also are due to the rise of artificial intelligence and the persistence of high interest rates, some analysts said, foretelling similar risks for workers across major swathes of the economy.
“I could see some layoffs in other areas of the economy but not as widespread as we’re seeing in tech,” Joshua White, Vanderbilt University finance professor and former economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, told ABC News.
The string of high-profile job cuts arrives at a time when employment in the wider labor force remains robust.
A stronger-than-expected jobs report demonstrated solid hiring growth in December, rebuking fears of a shrinking workforce anytime soon, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The layoff rate for November, the most recent month on record, stands at a near-historic low of 1%, according to BLS data.
Even the job cuts in tech are relatively small compared with tens of thousands of employees laid off at the outset of last year.
This resilience in the labor force has coincided with a prolonged period of high interest rates at the Federal Reserve, which typically slow the economy and increase the risk of job cuts.
“Layoffs and firings are unusually rare throughout the economy,” Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter, told ABC News. “It’s surprising to me that employment hasn’t fallen more.”
Still, the job cuts at Big Tech firms could portend layoffs in other sectors, since the wider economy remains vulnerable to disruption from artificial intelligence, as well as from losses induced by high interest rates, some analysts said.
Layoffs at Google, for instance, affected hundreds of workers focused on the company’s well-known products, such as Google Assistant, as well as Google-owned YouTube.
The cuts came in part from the company’s priority shift toward AI, according to an internal memo from CEO Sundar Pichai, confirmed to ABC News by a Google spokesperson.
Apple did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Neither did Amazon.
“Tech companies are hiring and firing on a small scale very often because they’re still experimenting with how to commercialize and scale AI,” Daniel Keum, a professor of management at the Columbia University Business School, told ABC News.
“Surely AI will spread – it will just spread at an uneven pace across different sectors,” Keum added, noting that he expects AI adoption to ripple through the economy over about 10 years. “People should be concerned.”
Corey Stahle, an economist at job-listing website Indeed, acknowledged a shift toward AI may be responsible for some of the layoffs in tech, but he rejected the notion of imminent cuts in other sectors due to the technology.
“We’re not at that point,” Stahle told ABC News. “These technologies are unlocking human potential and making workers more productive and efficient so far.”
Employees across the economy, according to some analysts, also are at risk of layoffs due to high interest rates, which make it more costly for companies to borrow money.
The tech sector is particularly sensitive to elevated borrowing costs, Chris Kayes, a professor at George Washington University School of Business, told ABC News, pointing out that tech firms often rely on loans for an extended period of time before they turn a profit.
Even Big Tech companies, Kayes added, depend on borrowed funds to support some of their spending.
Despite indications from the Fed of rate cuts later this year, companies economy-wide will need to weather an environment of high borrowing costs for the foreseeable future, leaving their employees vulnerable to cuts.
“That will continue to be something hanging over the job market,” Kayes said.
Reluctant to overstate the risk, however, Kayes downplayed the recent job cuts in tech. “These are fairly small layoffs,” he said.
(NEW YORK) — U.S. economic activity changed little in recent weeks as hiring stalled, prices grew modestly and the private sector feared uncertainty tied to the 2024 election, a Federal Reserve report released on Wednesday showed.
A rosy outlook nevertheless pervaded the findings, since industry officials anticipated interest rate cuts this year, the report said.
On the whole, the report depicts an economy that has downshifted from blistering growth in the middle of last year, slowing hiring and putting the brakes on price increases.
The report, known as the Beige Book, detailed economic conditions in 12 different regions — known as “districts” — based on the results of interviews with businesses by local Fed officials.
The fresh information suggests that a prolonged period of high interest rates has succeeded in cooling the economy, which could reinforce the Fed’s plans to cut rates in the coming months.
Private sector officials nationwide drew hope from the prospect of such an outcome, the Fed report said.
“Districts continued to note that high interest rates were limiting auto sales and real estate deals; however, the prospect of falling interest rates was cited by numerous contacts in various sectors as a source of optimism,” the report said.
The fresh report appeared to contradict some economic data from recent weeks indicating robust performance.
A stronger-than-expected jobs report demonstrated solid hiring growth in December, rebuking fears of an economic downturn anytime soon.
Consumer prices, meanwhile, rose 3.4% in December compared to a year ago, accelerating markedly from the previous month and defying a smooth path down to normal levels, a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics last week showed.
Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said Tuesday the central bank expects to cut rates this year, but that it won’t be “rushed” to make the decision soon.
Those remarks helped send treasury yields soaring and major stock indexes tumbling on Wednesday.
The Fed risks a rebound of inflation if it cuts interest rates too quickly. An additional burst of economic activity for an already robust economy could hike demand and raise prices once again.
While the vast majority of districts reported little or no change in economic conditions, three districts reported modest growth and one reported moderate decline, the Fed report said.
Similarly, the report added, most districts described little or no change in overall employment levels. The slow hiring gave businesses in many districts confidence that wage growth would ease in the coming months, the Fed said.
Those expectations align with forecasts at the Fed of continued progress in the inflation fight over the course of this year.
When facing high inflation, policymakers fear what’s referred to as a price-wage spiral, in which a rise in prices prompts workers to demand raises that help them afford goods, which in turn pushes up prices, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle of runaway inflation.
If wage growth slows, however, policymakers gain assurance the economy will avert a spike in prices.
Inflation stands well below last summer’s peak of over 9%, but remains more than a percentage point higher than the Fed’s target rate of 2%.
Many market observers are expecting interest rate cuts as soon as a Fed meeting in March. As of last week, markets put the probability of a rate cut in March at 75%, said Ellen Zentner, chief U.S. economist and managing director at Morgan Stanley.
However, observers holding such expectations “may be in for a disappointment,” Zentner wrote earlier this month, citing strong job gains that allow the Fed to keep rates high without fear of an imminent recession.
The cushion affords Fed policymakers “room to watch and wait,” Zentner added.
(NEW YORK) — Tens of millions of Americans who overdraft on their bank accounts each year may soon enjoy major relief.
The government agency in charge of protecting consumers’ finances introduced a new rule to rein in overdraft fees charged by banks.
Americans paid a total of nearly $300 billion in overdraft fees over the past two decades, including $9 billion last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau told ABC News in a statement on Wednesday.
Typically, large banks charge $35 per transaction in the event of an overdraft. The proposed rule could drop that charge to as low as $3, the CFPB said.
“This is about the companies that rip off hard-working Americans simply because they can,” President Joe Biden said in a statement about the proposed rule.
The Consumer Bankers Association, an industry trade group, criticized the proposed rule.
“This proposal on overdraft price setting is just the latest in a myriad of unnecessary and costly regulations by this Administration that seems guided by political polling, rather than by sound policy created by what should be independent agencies,” the CBA said in a statement to ABC News.
“The aggregate costs and impacts of these proposals on Americans’ access to essential financial products and services have not been appropriately considered,” the CBA added.
Here’s what to know about bank overdraft fees, how the proposed rule could save consumers money and when it will go into effect:
How overdraft fees work
For decades, banks have charged overdraft fees to customers who spend more than they hold in an account at the time.
Under a law enacted in the late 1960s, banks faced a general requirement to disclose the cost of lending to a borrower.
At the time, customer payments drawing on bank deposits were typically made through checks sent in the mail.
Overdraft fees, the CFPB said, became a significant source of revenue for large banks in the 1990s and 2000s, as consumers underwent a shift from paper checks to debit cards. Nevertheless, firms could charge penalties without the same degree of disclosure as other types of loans.
By 2019, total overdraft fee revenue reached $12.6 billion paid by tens of millions of borrowers. Two megabanks, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, accounted for one third of overdraft revenue reported by banks that reached over $1 billion in fees, the CFPB said.
“Decades ago, overdraft loans got special treatment to make it easier for banks to cover paper checks that were often sent through the mail,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. “Today, we are proposing rules to close a longstanding loophole that allowed many large banks to transform overdraft into a massive junk fee harvesting machine.”
Neither Wells Fargo nor JPMorgan Chase immediately responded to ABC News’ request for comment.
The proposed rule will offer large banks two options in the event that a customer spends beyond the means available in his or her account.
First, large banks would retain the ability to provide a loan to the customer as long as it complies with existing lending law, including disclosure of relevant interest rates, the CFPB said.
Alternatively, the banks could charge a fee at an established benchmark in line with the amount a bank would require to break even on the transaction, the CFPB said. The proposed rule includes recommended benchmarks ranging from $3 to $14, the agency added, noting a request for comment to reach an appropriate amount.
If the agreed-upon overdraft fee lands in that range, it will make up a fraction of the current typical rate of $35 per transaction.
The rule would apply to roughly 175 insured financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, the CFPB said.
When could the new rule take effect?
The proposed rule alerts the public to the agency’s approach on a given topic, inviting public comment that can be incorporated into a final rule, the CFPB said.
Ultimately, a final rule must be published in the federal register to inform the public and other stakeholders.
A rule takes effect on Oct. 1 that follows the final rule’s publication in the federal register by at least six months, the CFPB said.
The proposed rule on overdraft fees, the agency added, is expected to go into effect on Oct. 1, 2025.
Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate, said customers should remain vigilant in the meantime.
“It is far too early for consumers to let their guard down regarding overdrafts,” McBride told ABC News.
(NEW YORK) — Electric vehicle charging stations could spring up at gas stations and grocery stores throughout Wisconsin, after the state Senate passed a proposed bill on Tuesday.
The bill, which passed by a 30-2 vote, would ease restrictions on businesses that install chargers and impose a tax on electricity sold to electric vehicle owners.
The measure would also make Wisconsin eligible for nearly $80 million in federal funds for the installation of charging stations and other electric vehicle infrastructure.
Here’s what to know about the proposed expansion of charging stations and what happens next with the bill:
What does the tax aim to accomplish?
The number of electric vehicles registered in Wisconsin has exploded in recent years.
The state counted roughly 17,000 electric vehicles last year; that was up from some 3,500 electric vehicles registered in Wisconsin four years prior, according to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
In turn, some lawmakers want to expand the state’s network of charging stations in order to accommodate the uptick in drivers.
Currently, businesses that offer EV charging stations fall under a set of regulations that typically apply to utilities.
The proposed bill would exempt the businesses from such rules as long as they sell electricity based on the amount that customer receives instead of the duration of time spent occupying a charger.
This approach would allow the state to impose a tax on the amount of electricity sold to customers.
How would the tax on electric charging stations work?
The tax would slap a 3-cent levy on each kilowatt hour of electricity sold to a vehicle owner.
Electric vehicle chargers are categorized as level 1, level 2 or level 3, meaning a first-level machine charges the slowest while a third-level one charges the fastest. All existing level 1 and level 2 charges would be exempt from the tax, but it would apply to all new chargers, as well as pre-existing level 3 chargers.
A Tesla Model 3, for instance, carries a battery capacity of 50 kilowatt hours. The tax for a full charge of the vehicle would amount to $1.50.
By comparison, the average cost to fully charge a medium-sized electric vehicle in Wisconsin is currently $11.11, according to an analysis by electric infrastructure developer Enel X Way.
If the bill is passed, the tax is expected to generate $3.1 million in fiscal year 2025, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation said. That revenue would go to infrastructure projects like roads and bridges.
State Assembly Rep. Deb Andraca, D-Whitefish Bay, a backer of the measure, said the tax aims to make up for an expected decline in funds generated by the state’s fuel tax, according to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, ABC affiliate WQOW-TV.
The tax, Andraca added, risks burdening electric vehicle drivers with onerous costs.
“I do hope that at some point we will address the problem that we are over-taxing drivers of electric vehicles,” Andraca told WQOW.
What happens next?
After passing in the Wisconsin Senate, the bill will now head to the state Assembly for a vote.
It is unclear whether Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers will sign the bill if it passes both houses. Roughly a year ago, Evers touted ongoing efforts to expand the state’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
“These investments will be critical for bringing our infrastructure into this century,” Evers said at the time.
(NEW YORK) — Several major retailers are re-evaluating self-checkout for customers after analysts have seen inventory loss.
“Retailers are really starting to use technology in order to look at the shrink problem,” Hitha Herzog, chief research officer of H Squared Research, told ABC News’ Good Morning America. “The technology that is powering self-checkout is also layering in other technology like AI that’s monitoring the customer, that’s checking out the products.”
One industry survey found that self-check-out represented 30% of transactions in 2021, and that 96% of food retailers surveyed offered it at their stores.
With cashier-less technology, however, also comes complaints of glitches while scanning items and paying.
One frustrated shopper, Dave Dolphin, told GMA “there’s always, like, one item that doesn’t scan and then all of a sudden — that light goes from green to yellow above you.”
The DIY system also has created an impersonal experience for customers, which many shoppers say they dislike.
“A lot of us want a human being. We want to have that conversation. We want to be able to voice our concerns or ask a question about a product,” Julie Domina, another shopper, told GMA.
Self-checkout is meant to keep things moving, but many times there are unavoidable long lines at self-checkout stations, packed with customers who have varying numbers of products to purchase.
Target stores are currently testing a 10-item limit for self-checkout lanes, as CNN first reported, to help reduce wait times.
Though consumers who spoke with ABC News agreed that self-checkout is convenient for one or two items, they also said they really enjoy having that personal interaction with a cashier.
Dollar General says it plans to ramp up its employee presence at the front of the stores. While it notes the convenience of self-checkout for some customers, a representative for the discount store told GMA that it “does not reduce the importance of a friendly, helpful employee who is there to greet customers and assist while the checkout process is happening.”
“People want that interaction,” said Heather Frye who works at a small grocer, Rivertown IGA, outside of Cincinnati, Ohio.
She told GMA that her store has “two self -checkout stations, but say they pride themselves on their personal ‘check-ins’ from their cashiers.”
“Our self-checkouts [are] just an option,” Frye added. “If you don’t want to use it, please go see the regular cashiers because they’re going to know your family, know what you usually shop for. They’re going to talk about the town gossip. They are friends.”
(NEW YORK) — Tesla CEO Elon Musk is seeking greater voting control of the electric carmaker, threatening to otherwise pursue major projects such as artificial intelligence outside of the company, he said in a post on X.
The Tesla board, Musk said, should grant him 25% voting control, an amount that would nearly double the vote share currently afforded to Musk through his stake in the company.
The move would tie the company’s fate even more closely to its high-profile leader, ensuring Tesla will develop AI in-house at a time when the technology stands poised to shape the auto industry and a range of other sectors, proponents say.
Critics, however, caution of a risky precedent if the company’s board were to comply with the request, empowering Musk in any future dispute with shareholders little more than a year after he sold a large number of Tesla shares to help fund his acquisition of X, formerly known as Twitter.
“Musk is Tesla and Tesla is Musk and AI is a key to the future of Tesla,” Dan Ives, a managing director of equity research at the investment firm Wedbush, who is bullish on Tesla, said in a memo to investors on Tuesday.
Tesla did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
According to Ives, Musk currently owns roughly 13% of Tesla. Before selling shares in 2022 to fund the $44 billion acquisition of X, Musk owned about 22% of Tesla, Ives added.
Musk, who co-founded ChatGPT-maker OpenAI but left the organization in 2018, announced the formation of a new AI company in July.
The possible development of AI outside of Tesla would deliver a significant blow to the company’s prospects, Ives said, citing the critical role of the technology in projects like full self-driving capability.
“If Musk ultimately went down the path to create his own company separate from Tesla for his next generation AI projects this would clearly be a big negative for the Tesla story,” Ives added.
Ultimately, the board and Musk could reach a compensation agreement in as few as three months that leaves both sides satisfied, Ives said, adding that the move would ensure some viewed by many as a tech visionary would lead “the new era of AI technology coming to Tesla.”
Gary Black, managing partner at the Future Fund, who is also bullish on Tesla, echoed the sentiment in a post on X. “Still plenty of time for the [Tesla] Board and Elon to come up with a new comp plan that properly aligns incentives,” Black said.
However, an agreement that expands Musk’s stake in the company could embolden him to assert even greater control down the road.
Such a prospect is especially concerning at a time when Tesla has weathered multiple product recalls and declining profit margins, Gordon Johnson, CEO and founder of data firm GLJ Research, who is bearish on Tesla, told ABC News.
“Musk is holding the company hostage,” Johnson said.
“The prospects for Tesla are dismal,” Johnson added, saying the demand from Musk offers him a pretext for departing the company. “He sees the writing on the wall.”
In December, Tesla agreed to recall about 2 million cars over a safety issue tied to its autopilot system, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said. Earlier this month, the company recalled an additional 1.6 million vehicles exported to China, citing a problem with the car’s assisted steering system.
The request for greater voting control suggests that Musk anticipates a substantial clash with shareholders over the direction of the company, Craig Irwin, an analyst at Roth MKM, who is also bearish on the company, told ABC News.
“He’s obviously worried about something,” Irwin said.
Further, Irwin downplayed the role of AI in the company, disputing the key claim made by Musk about his need for greater voting control.
“Tesla has done a great job with self-driving but it’s mostly a misnomer and cake dressing,” Irwin said. “Is this an AI or robotics company? How much do they really have? In my view, not much.”
(NEW YORK) — In a dispiriting sign of the times, barely more than a quarter of Americans say the American dream still holds true — about half as many as said so 13 years ago.
Defined as “if you work hard you’ll get ahead,” just 27% in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll say the American dream still holds, down sharply from 50% when the question first was asked in 2010. Eighteen percent now say it never held true, up from 4%.
The rest, 52%, say the promise used to hold true but no longer does, up 9 points. Taken together, 69% say the American dream does not hold true today, up 22 points. And that’s in comparison to a poll taken in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Although pessimism about the American dream has grown across groups, the change is sharpest among young adults. Their view that the American dream still holds true has dropped by 35 points, from 56% in 2010 to 21% now.
That compares with a 24-point decline among those ages 30 to 64 and 12 points among those 65 and older.
Differences among other groups also are evident. The survey, produced by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that attitudes of Black Americans towards the concept of the American dream are notably pessimistic.
The share of Black people who say it still holds true has fallen by 34 points, to 21%, compared with a 22-point drop among those of other racial or ethnic backgrounds.
Indeed, 32% of Black people say the American dream never held true, which is up 23 points from 2010, compared with 16% of others, which is up 13 points.
Income also differentiates views. Among people with household incomes less than $50,000 a year, just 18% say the American dream still holds true. It’s 27% in the $50,000- to less-than-$100,000 bracket and 33% among those in $100,000-plus households.
There’s also a gap by education, which correlates with income. Among people who haven’t gone beyond high school, 22% say the American dream still holds true (down 25 points from 2010), compared with 40% of those with a postgraduate degree (down 19 points).
Partisan differences are muted: A third of Republicans and Democrats alike say the American dream still holds true, as do a quarter of independents. Declines since 2010 are largely consistent across these groups.
Economic attitudes, predictably, matter as well. Among those who rate the economy positively, 45% say the American dream still holds true, compared with 22% of those who say the economy is in bad shape.
And it’s 41% among those who say they’ve gotten better off financially since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency vs. 23% among those who are worse off.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Jan. 4-8, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,228 adults. Partisan divisions are 25-25-41 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
