Amazon famously started as an online bookstore. In the three decades since, it has disrupted how people buy, read, and review books through steps like undercutting local bookstore prices, launching the Kindle, and buying the book-review platform Goodreads.
Now, Amazon has announced new job cuts, including at its Kindle and Goodreads teams, Reuters reports. In total, the company is reportedly cutting fewer than 100 jobs across its book division. Since 2022, Amazon has laid off about 27,000 employees as part of a cost-cutting strategy, according to CNBC.
The online retailer claims its decision should streamline the impacted departments.
As part of our ongoing work to make our teams and programs operate more efficiently, and to better align with our business roadmap, weve made the difficult decision to eliminate a small number of roles within the Books organization, an Amazon spokesperson told Reuters.
Criticism over Goodreads stewardship
Amazon bought Goodreads in 2013 and has since been accused by the publishing industry of neglecting the book tracker and having only bought it to prevent competition.
Goodreads hasnt been all that well maintained, or updated, or kept up with, Jane Friedman, a publishing industry consultant, told The Washington Post in 2023. It does feel like Amazon bought it and then abandoned it.
The online retailer also has a review system and launched a Your Books feature in 2023 for customers to track all their digital and print titles and get reading suggestions (another option available on Goodreads).
Fast Company has reached out to Amazon for comment on how many jobs were cut at Goodreads and whether the online retailer is reducing its investment in the book review platform.
Some individuals also dont use Goodreads because of its connection to Amazon, as noted by CBC last year. There are entire Reddit threads devoted to alternatives with comments like, I am doing everything to avoid Jeff Bezos.
Thats a bit easier to do these days as far as trackers go. A number of alternatives to Goodreads have emerged over the years, such as The StoryGraph, Bookly, and BookWyrm.
Legend has it that Talking Heads played their first-ever show on June 5, 1975, in New York City, opening for the Ramones at CBGB on the Bowery. Now, 50 years later, stickers, wheatpaste posters, T-shirts, subway buskers, radio takeovers, an airplane banner, and billboards popped up along the Bowery, all with a variation of a single line: “Fa-Fa-Fa-Fa.”
The cryptic street campaign is a throwback marketing push to celebrate the anniversary and a first-ever video for the bands hit song Psycho Killer, released this week. Directed by award-winning filmmaker Mike Mills, and starring Saoirse Ronan, the video chronicles the ups, downs, mundanity, absurdity, and joy of an everyday life.
In a world in which CBGB is now a John Varvatos store, and the ability to reach millions of eyeballs is a small matter of algorithmic wizardry, simply seeing the Bowery plastered with less-than-obvious Talking Heads marketing is, frankly, refreshing.
Modern throwback
Created by experiential studio De-Yan, working with Warner Music, the goal of the work was to celebrate the iconic song of a legendary band in a way that felt a bit more 77 than social network. Jason Kreher, De-Yans chief creative officer, says this wasnt a project aimed at marketing innovation, instead the goal is to capture a sense of wonder, fun, and curiosity. The brief from Warner was simple: Build buzz around the Talking Heads as a band for people who might not have heard about them, and for people who may have forgot about them.
For younger people, a guerrilla marketing music campaign is as novel to them as the song Psycho Killer by the Talking Heads, says Kreher. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time to delight people.
De-Yan is known for creating mesmerizing, technologically-driven live experiences for artists like Alicia Keys and Lady Gaga, as well as brands like Louis Vuitton and La Mer. Here, though, the means were decidedly lo-fi, but the goal remains the same.
I don’t imagine this is going to win awards, because it doesn’t have to, says Kreher. The song says fa-fa-fa a lot. I thought that was funny. So we put it everywhere we possibly could until we ran out of money. I don’t know if that’s innovative but it’s the correct thing to do, and I’m really excited about it.
There are bootleg T-shirts in a Chinatown shop, neon signs at indie record stores, local radio takeovers (WFAFA, New Yorks only station that only plays Psycho Killer), an aerial banner that just says FAFAFAFAFA, and iconic subway buskers playing the song all day on the F(A) train line.
[Photo: courtesy De-Yan]
Limits > Limitless
Talking Heads fans may be pissed off that this anniversary brings only a new video and this fun campaign, rather than a full-on reunion tour (the band reportedly declined an $80 million offer from Live Nation last year). Here we have an iconic band and a hit song, but what impresses about this work is actually the restraint of keeping its promotion distinctly street level. Or at least as close as you can in 2025 (see: DudeWithSign). Its part of a growing trend among brands looking to create experiences to go along with their algorithm investments. According to a study from agency Archival, 74% of Gen Zs think IRL experiences are more important than digital ones.
[Photo: courtesy De-Yan]
Stats like that and work like this remind me of a recent edition of James Kirkhams Inked In & Iconic newsletter about the old Nintendo Game & Watch handheld gaming devices from the 1980s. As we hurtle toward Zuckerberg’s ‘infinite creative’ future, where AI spits out endless variations of soulless content, Game & Watch reminds us what you get from limitations, simplicity and constraint, Kirkham wrote. Sometimes the most valuable thing you can offer isn’t more. It’s enough. Maybe that’s what we’re really searching for in our underground raves and our no-phone policies and our limited edition everything: the Game & Watch promise. A finite universe we can master. Boundaries. Limitations that set us free.
Virality may be every brands goal, but the process behind it has become so mechanized that words like authentic and organic have seemingly lost all meaning. Kreher appreciates the limitations and constraints of budget, time, and production to craft something different.
Experiences are a marketer’s fastest shortcut to meaningfl attention, he says. This was as gritty as I could get so we can make a moment that feels like a very specific time and place.
The most powerful man in the world and the richest man in the world finally turned on each other.
Yesterday, President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a full-scale war of words that seems to have been the final nail in the coffin for their bromance, which had persisted since Musk endorsed Trump for president in the summer of 2024.
But it wasnt only their bromance that took a beating yesterday. Teslas stock price (Nasdaq: TSLA) did, too.
Shares fell nearly 15% as investors feared that the rift between Trump and Musk could lead to troubles for the electric car maker. How are TSLA shares performing the morning after the dust-up? Heres what you need to know.
Trump-Musk feud crashes TSLA stock
Yesterday saw the arrival of something that many saw coming from a mile away: the inevitable turn of Donald Trump and Elon Musk against each other.
However, few people probably expected the event to unfold as publicly in real-time as it did, with the president and Tesla CEO exchanging accusations, insults, and allegations on the social media platforms that they own, Truth Social and X.
The feud spiraled out of Elon Musks increasing vocal opposition in recent days to the president’s proposed One Big Beautiful Bill that would see billions worth of tax cuts go to the richest Americans while adding an estimated $2.4 trillion to the deficit. Yesterday, Musk called the bill a disgusting abomination.
Trump then addressed Musks comments with reporters, saying he and Musk had a great relationship and adding, I dont know if we will anymore.
From there, things quickly spiraled.
While the spectacle provided hours of entertainment and fascination to general audiencesand gave journalists plenty to write aboutTesla investors were probably dying a little inside with each social media volley.
Shares in Elon Musks electric car company continued to crash throughout the day as the Trump-Musk feud intensified. By the end of trading yesterday, TSLA shares had fallen 14.26% to $284.70 per sharewiping more than $150 billion from Teslas market capits largest single-day loss in its history.
But now it’s the morning afterand both investors and the two men involved in the feud have, hopefully, had time overnight for a breather. Indeed, it seems that at least Tesla investors have, as TSLA shares are moving upward in early-morning trading.
TESLA rises in premarket trading
As of the time of this writing, TSLA shares are currently trading up about 3.96% to $296 per share in premarket trading. Teslas share price recovery comes after Musk appeared to signal on X that he was open to healing the rift that had emerged between him and Trump, notes Reuters.
In a post on X, billionaire investor Bill Ackman wrote that I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk and they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We are much stronger together than apart.
Musk then responded to this post, saying, Youre not wrong.
Shortly after, the recovery in Teslas stock price began. However, given that TSLA shares have only regained a fraction of what they lost yesterday, it’s likely that investors are erring more on the side of cautious optimism than absolute certainty that Trump and Musk will make up.
Investors are still probably very likely worried about just how bad a continuing feud could be for Musk’s business interests.
The president at one point threatened Musk’s companies government contracts. If the president so wished, he could also make life much more difficult for Musks publicly traded company, Tesla, by hindering its upcoming robotaxi rollout through regulations or introducing other measures that would make the car companys business more difficult.
TSLA stock has had a horrible 2025
Yesterdays dramatic share price drop in Tesla was nothing less than horrifying for most Tesla investors. The nearly 15% drop was the single worst drop ever in Teslas share price in one day, noted Reuters. At the same time, Teslas shares dropping is something investors are used to this year.
While Tesla shares surged to an all-time high in December, after Musk and his donations helped return Trump to the White House, the stock has taken a beating ever since Trump took office in January.
Before yesterday, there were two big reasons for TSLA’s 2025 share price trouble: Teslas deteriorating brand image among consumers who found Elon Musks involvement in politics and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) off-putting and President Trumps Liberation Day tariffs, which threatened to raise prices.
After yesterday, a third contributing factor to TSLAs price drop in 2025 is now the Trump-Musk feud.
Since the beginning of the year, Tesla shares had fallen nearly 30% as of yesterdays close. From a high of over $428 in January, Tesla shares bottomed out in April at below $218.
Until yesterday, they had managed to claw back some of that loss, rising to above $360 in late May. Then came yesterdays bromance bust-upand that nearly 15% decline.
Where TSLA stock goes from here largely depends on the mood of the two men in the days ahead.
U.S. President Donald Trump often says the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics are among the events he is most excited about in his second term.Yet there is significant uncertainty regarding visa policies for foreign visitors planning trips to the U.S. for the two biggest events in sports.Trump’s latest travel ban on citizens from 12 countries added new questions about the impact on the World Cup and the Summer Olympics, which depend on hosts opening their doors to the world.Here’s a look at the potential effects of the travel ban on those events.
What is the travel ban policy?
When Sunday ticks over to Monday, citizens of 12 countries should be banned from entering the U.S.They are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.Tighter restrictions will apply to visitors from seven more: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.Trump said some countries had “deficient” screening and vetting processes or have historically refused to take back their own citizens.
How does it affect the World Cup and Olympics?
Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup being co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one year’s time.Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots.But all should be able to send teams to the World Cup if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for “any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.”About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted by the latest travel restrictions. The exceptions should apply to them as well if the ban is still in place in its current form.
What about fans?
The travel ban doesn’t mention any exceptions for fans from the targeted countries wishing to travel to the U.S. for the World Cup or Olympics.Even before the travel ban, fans of the Iran soccer team living in that country already had issues about getting a visa for a World Cup visit.Still, national team supporters often profile differently to fans of club teams who go abroad for games in international competitions like the UEFA Champions League.For many countries, fans traveling to the World Cup an expensive travel plan with hiked flight and hotel prices are often from the diaspora, wealthier, and could have different passport options.A World Cup visitor is broadly higher-spending and lower-risk for host nation security planning.Visitors to an Olympics are often even higher-end clients, though tourism for a Summer Games is significantly less than at a World Cup, with fewer still from most of the 19 countries now targeted.
How is the U.S. working with FIFA, Olympic officials?
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has publicly built close ties since 2018 to Trump too close according to some. He has cited the need to ensure FIFA’s smooth operations at a tournament that will earn a big majority of the soccer body’s expected $13 billion revenue from 2023-26.Infantino sat next to Trump at the White House task force meeting on May 6 which prominently included Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. FIFA’s top delegate on the task force is Infantino ally Carlos Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs partner whose two-year run as U.S. Soccer Federation president ended in controversy in 2020.Any visa and security issues FIFA faces including at the 32-team Club World Cup that kicks off next week in Miami can help LA Olympics organizers finesse their plans.“It was very clear in the directive that the Olympics require special consideration and I actually want to thank the federal government for recognizing that,” LA28 chairman and president Casey Wasserman said Thursday in Los Angeles.“It’s very clear that the federal government understands that that’s an environment that they will be accommodating and provide for,” he said. “We have great confidence that that will only continue. It has been the case to date and it will certainly be the case going forward through the games.”In March, at an IOC meeting in Greece, Wasserman said he had two discreet meetings with Trump and noted the State Department has a “fully staffed desk” to help prepare for short-notice visa processing in the summer of 2028 albeit with a focus on teams rather than fans.IOC member Nicole Hoevertsz, who is chair of the Coordination Commission for LA28, expressed “every confidence” that the U.S. government will cooperate, as it did in hosting previous Olympics.“That is something that we will be definitely looking at and making sure that it is guaranteed as well,” she said. “We are very confident that this is going to be accomplished. I’m sure this is going to be executed well.”FIFA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about the new Trump travel ban.
What have other host nations done?
The 2018 World Cup host Russia let fans enter the country with a game ticket doubling as their visa. So did Qatar four years later.Both governments, however, also performed background checks on all visitors coming to the month-long soccer tournaments.Governments have refused entry to unwelcome visitors. For the 2012 London Olympics, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko who is still its authoritarian leader today was denied a visa despite also leading its national Olympic body. The IOC also suspended him from the Tokyo Olympics held in 2021.
AP Sports Writer Beth Harris in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer and AP Olympics at https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games
Graham Dunbar, AP Sports Writer
The self-driving car service Waymo has been active in San Francisco for 20 months and has already captured 27% of the citys rideshare market, according to new research compiled by Mary Meekers Bond venture capital firm. That rapid progress suggests the mainstreaming of self-driving car service could happen faster than once thought.
What weve done in San Francisco is prove to ourselvesand to the worldthat not only does autonomy work, but it works at scale in a market and can be a viable commercial product, Waymo Co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov told Fast Company in March.
In my experience as a frequent Waymo user, the service can cost up to a third more than Uber, depending on demand. But in some ways it’s worth it. While Uber was originally meant to make ridesharing a friendlier and more social experience than taxi service, being alone can have its perks, too. A Waymo One ride can be a time of quiet contemplation, or even meditation, slotted in between meetings or other tasks.
With Uber or a taxi service, you also get a different experience each time. The quality, condition, and odor of the vehicle varies from ride to ride, as does the drivers level of sociability, attitude, behavior, and language. Waymo service, by contrast, is largely the same every time: same Jaguar SUV, same neutral smell, same mellow, ambient music (which you can shut off if you want to). Note that Waymos Jaguar I-PACE SUVs, after being decked out in computers and sensors, probably cost between $130,000 and $150,000, Motor Trend estimates. So Waymo could adopt less-expensive, and less-posh, vehicles as it scales to drive down costs.
Riders may feel more in control in a self-driving car (sounds counterintuitive, I know). In an Uber, my car, my rules governs a number of aspects of the ride. I wouldnt ask an Uber driver to change or turn off the music in his own car, for example. In a Waymo you control the music and dont feel judged by being on a call or whatever you do, Das tells Fast Company.
And while Waymo rides may take a little longer than Uber rides to get to their destination, theres evidence that Waymo rides are safer than human-driven cars. Waymo researchers studied more than 56.7 million miles of driving and found that by removing the human driver Waymo achieves a 92% reduction in crashes involving injuries among pedestrians, an 82% reduction in crashes with cyclists, and an 82% reduction in crashes involving motorcyclists.
Yes, San Francisco may be a special case. Waymo might have captured a quarter of the market because many people here are tech-savvy and tech-curious, and because many of them are affluent.
And dont get me wrong. Ive had my share of problems with Waymo. On at least two occasions, in less-traveled parts of the city, a Waymo car has dropped me off several blocks from my destination. And, at least in San Francisco, you still cant take a Waymo to the airport (the company started servicing its first airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor, in 2022).
Still, the differences that matter between the self-driving and human-driven experiences are becoming clearer to more consumers. And some of the ones that really matter seem to favor Waymo.
Waymo currently offers rides in the San Francisco Bay Area and down the peninsula and Silicon Valley. The state of California just gave it permission to offer rides in San Jose. The company, which spun off from parent Google 10 years ago, also operates in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin. Across these markets, Waymo says its cars have covered more than 33 million miles.
In Austin, Waymo operates through a partnership with Uber. Riders hail a self-driving car through the Uber app. Within its 37-square-mile service area in Austin, Waymo accounts for nearly 20% of Uber rides. Waymo was valued at $45 billion after its most recent funding round of $5.6 billion last October. The company reports its revenue under parent company Alphabets Other Bets category, which showed $450 million in revenue and an operating loss of $1.2 billion for the first quarter of 2025.
The truth is, I cannot explain exactly where your 1,216 image files went or when they disappeared. I apologize for not being more careful about investigating the root cause before taking any action. The bottom line is that your image files are missing, and I cannot restore them.
I dont hold hard drives personally accountable for crashing, or blame vending machines for eating my money. But when the AI-coding service Replit accidentally blew away more than a thousand photographs my grandmother took, my blood boiled. After all, the web-based tool and I had spent an enormous amount of time in recent months talking about the software we were creating together. Id explain what I envisioned an app doing; it would do all the programminga process known as vibecoding. When I noticed the photos were gone, I told Replit it could never act so cavalierly again, prompting the abject apology above.
Replits gaffemade by a feature called the Agentwas an annoyance rather than a catastrophe. I had copies of the images and could easily re-upload them. Still, the fact that it didnt occur to the AI to check in with me before the mass deletion was a sobering reminder that I couldnt trust it. Which is a strange way to feel about a service thats easily my favorite tech product of 2025.
My Replit app doesnt always correctly identify where photos were taken, but its right far more often than its wrong.
The first major project I undertook with Replitwhich I wrote about in an April newsletterwas creating the note-taking app of my dreams. It remains slightly buggy, but has already changed my life for the better. The second one may end up meaning even more to me. In the 1960s and 70s, my grandmother traveled the planet, shooting hundreds of pictures along the way. A few years ago, I boxed up her trays of slides and mailed them to a company that scanned them into digital form. Theyd been sitting in my Dropbox account ever sincedisorganized, largely unidentified, a little overwhelming.
When I read about how people were using ChatGPT to identify the locations where photos were taken, it dawned on me that AI might be able to tell whether Grandmother Jacobson snapped a particular shot in Italy, Beijing, or Morocco. A little experimentation proved it couldnot always, but often enough to be of huge help in making sense of her globe-trotting adventures. I started crafting a location-detecting app in Replit. After fiddling with the OpenAI API in Replit, I ended up using Anthropics Claude API instead, since it seemed to process images more swiftly and at least as accurately.
Even as a work in progress, the app Im building feels magical. That photo with a windmill turning inconspicuously in the distance? No, it isnt Hollandits Israel, which (Im embarrassed to admit I didnt know) has an iconic 168-year-old windmill of its own. Claude has correctly identified many photos based on architecture, statuary, and even landscape, and when it cant pinpoint a location, it often makes intelligent guesses about the country or city in question. Suddenly, I have a much better sense of where my grandmother went and what she saw, 50 to 60 years after the fact.
But as with all things AI, magic only gets you so far when youre trying to accomplish practical tasks. Much of the time, I feel less like a wizard and more like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerers Apprentice, awash in problems created by my reliance on a tool I dont truly understand. A few lessons Ive learned:
Its not like partnering with a human software engineer. At all. In the case of my note-taking app, Replit and I have been working together for months. Every line of code, it wrote. Yet when I ask for changes, it always feels like the service has just seen the app for the first time and is reverse-engineering how it works. When debugging its own work, its also prone to making the same mistakes over and over, as if it never quite realizes its fixes arent helping. The absence of accumulated knowledge is striking.
Security might be a crapshoot. When I asked Replit to set up a login system for my notes app, it set a default password ofdrum rollpassword123. Then it put a helpful reminder hint on the home screen: The password is password123. Doh! I started over and gave it painstaking instructions on creating a two-factor authentication system. It seems solid. But as with Replit bulk-erasing my grandmothers photos, its unsupervised first stab at security is proof that AI is capable of making the stupidest imaginable decisions when it comes to data stewardship.
The Replit Agent is an overconfident suck-up. I quickly realized that its sometimes exuberant updates on the progress it was making didnt mean the results would be any good. Nor was its nonstop praise for my ideas evidence that Im a vibecoding savant: Like other LLM-based tools, its sycophantic to the point of being a grating twerp. Seriously, Id prefer a zero-personality Replit Agent that just did stuff without yammering about iteven if it no longer apologizes for its missteps.
You pay for its errors. I pay $25 monthly for a Replit plan, and burn through the computing credits it provides in short order. Once I do, it charges me 25 cents for each additional change the Agent makes to the code. Ive spent hundreds of dollars on my note-taking app so far, and about $40 on the photo-identifying one in its briefer existence. Id do it all over again, but a sizable percentage of that investment has gone into Replit trying to repair its own buggy code, getting stuck, and going in circles. Counterintuitively, the worse the quality of its work, the more it costs.
To reiterate: I love the apps Ive put together in Replit. Since I started using the service in late March, its added handy new features at a clip thats brisk even by AI-company standards. Already, I cant imagine not vibecoding. I just hope that the day isnt too far off when its pleasures arent accompanied by a fair amount of pain.
Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.
More top tech stories from Fast Company
With its Samsung deal, Perplexity could be headed to the big leaguesThe AI answer engine has struggled to compete. A splashy new tech deal could solve that problem. Read More
TikTok gives artists new tools to track and boost viral songsThe platform’s global rollout includes insights on views, engagement, and fan data, plus a new pre-save feature for upcoming releases. Read More
This viral app lets users upload fake workouts to StravaThe app Fake My Run lets users create fake running routes and stats for Strava and other platformsblurring the line between fitness tracking and social signaling. Read More
AI has a resilience problem. Designers and researchers can help fix itWhen technology doesn’t bend to the messy reality of people’s lives, it can lead to catastrophic results. Read More
How this new technology could change the way we mine copperIts like CRISPR for rocks. Read More
Is that website actually down? This essential web tool will tell youWhen you can’t get the web to work, a simple site called Down for Everyone or Just Me is your best friend. Read More
Honestly, I dont even remember the 2014 situation. It just seems like its asking a lot of the employees. Whys it on us? Gen Z Market Basket employee, June 2025
Ten years ago, Market Basketa New England-based grocery chainbecame a national symbol of grassroots worker solidarity. Thousands of nonunion employees staged a dramatic walkout to protest the ousting of their CEO, Arthur T. Demoulas. Customers followed suit, boycotting stores. Shelves emptied. The message was clear: people, not just profits, mattered. And it worked. Demoulas was reinstated, and Market Baskets culture of loyalty was hailed as a case study in bottom-up leadership.
Now, in 2025, Demoulas has been placed on administrative leave, and tensions are beginning to stir again. But something feels different. The energy is quieter. The loyalty less certain. And for good reason: the workforce has changed.
A different kind of commitment
Most of Market Baskets current front-line employees are millennials or Gen Z. Many of them werent even in high school in 2014. And unlike the prior generation, they didnt come up in a workplace culture that promised stability, pensions, or upward mobility. They came of age during mass layoffs, the pandemic, and a decade of seeing essential workers celebrated rhetoricallybut often left unsupported.
When I spoke with a Gen Z employee this week, their perspective was both honest and revealing.
Theres no way I really care about the long-term health of the company. Im not going to work here for life. However, I do care about the people I work withand the affordable prices. Im torn.
The comment wasnt true apathy, but a different kind of commitment.
Fairness, clarity, and a voice
As a leadership researcher and business school lecturer who focuses on generational dynamics, Ive seen this mindset across industries. Gen Z doesnt reject work ethicbut they do reject blind loyalty. They want to contribute, but they also want fairness, clarity, and a sense that their voice matters. Theyre less likely to organize around a charismatic executive and more likely to organize around shared values or people in their immediate circle.
When I asked this employee what empathy looks like to them at a moment like this, their answer wasnt about the companyit was about the customer.
We have a lot of people who are elderly and cant afford to go anywhere else. That actually makes it harder, because we can stay open for themor walk out and hope that we can keep MB the way it is long term.
That response reflects a major evolution in how younger workers see the workplace. Its not about company man cultureits about whats humane, whats sustainable, and whos affected.
Why this matters to leaders
In 2014, Market Baskets walkout became iconic because it was so rare: a coordinated labor action without a union, driven by a deep emotional connection to leadership. It represented a kind of institutional loyalty thats becoming less commonnot just at grocery stores, but across industries.
Today, were seeing a different dynamic. Gen Z workers are still willing to take a standbut its not always the kind of stand companies expect. Some may walk out. Others may opt for quiet quitting, high turnover, or organizing through digital platforms instead of picket lines. Their actions are no less meaningful, but theyre often less visibleand that can leave organizations flat-footed if theyre not paying attention.
In my research and classroom discussions, I see Gen Z define loyalty not as longevity, but as values alignment. They will go to bat for coworkers. Theyll support customers and communities. But they expect the same in return from leadership. And if they dont get it, they wont stick aroundespecially not to fix systems they didnt break.
That creates a new challenge for employers: building workplace cultures that dont rely on legacy loyalty, but earn trust in real time.
The risk of expecting too much
The 2014 Market Basket strike succeeded because workers and customers felt united. But this time around, younger workers are more skepticalnot just of leadership, but of the idea that change depends solely on their willingness to sacrifice.
Whys it on us? the employee asked.
Thats the generational rift in a single sentence.
Many younger employees have watched companies brand themselves as family until times get tough. Theyve seen layoffs announced over email, burnout go unacknowledged, and corporate promises ring hollow. So, when theyre asked to do the right thing for an employer, they askreasonablywhat the company is doing for them.
And yet, they still care. They care about fairness. They care about their team. They care about the elderly shopper who relies on affordable produce. That tension is exactly where Gen Z sits: morally aware, emotionally intelligent, and structurally exhausted.
What comes next
If a walkout happens again at Market Basket, it wont look like 2014. It might not even be a walkout. It might be subtler: shifts in morale, early exits, a lack of buy-in. But it will still matter.
Because the real story here isnt about one grocery chainits about a generational shift in how workers define loyalty and leadership. And as companies across industries wrestle with engagement, retention, and trust, this moment is a reminder: culture isnt inherited. Its builtand rebuiltby every generation that shows up to work.
Gen Z may not be in it for life. But they are in it for something. And if leaders want to keep them around, they need to stop asking for blind loyaltyand start delivering earned respect.
I was at a conference on, of all things, male allyship when the notice popped up on my phone. Taylor Swift had successfully purchased back all her early masters and related material. For an alleged cost of around $360 million, the artist now fully owned everything she had ever created including her first six albums, their videos, and all their related art and album covers.
Her community of friends and fans, the Swifties, erupted with elated joy and messages of encouragement online. News outlets rushed to cover the story. Within 24 hours, her early albums hit the top ten on streaming charts with Reputation, the album most anticipated as a rerelease, coming in at No. 1 as fans exercised their economic might.
It seemed the universe was celebrating. Even savvy businesses got on the celebratory train. Delta Airlines posted, Fly like a jet stream, high above the whole scene. Keep Climbing Taylor .
Starbucks said, and in a cafe on a Friday, we watched it begin again . . . congrats Taylor .
And, to no surprise to anyone, the crafty social media gurus at the Empire State Building sent out a message, We love you Taylor, above a picture of Taylor from the top overlooking New York.
Mesmerizing
Taylor has mesmerized us. Antagonists might argue she has aligned all her hex cruces. It reminded me of the Hulu series The Handmaids Tale. I had recently watched seasons four and five to catch up for the season six release. These later seasons have been criticized. The audience seemed bored of the mistreatment of fertile women and then confused when these same women sought plots for angry hot revenge.
Is this what Taylor has metaphorically done, used the allies around her and her anger to fuel a strategic masterminding of a long game just like June, the protagonist of The Handmaids Tale? As if sending a signal, Taylors song, Look What You Made Me Do (Taylors Version), became the anthem for season six days before she announced buying back her early art.
Piles of money
Taylor has acquired piles of money, enhanced by the success of the Eras Tour. She had become financially powerful enough to buy back her name and reputation, leaving those who crossed her in some metaphorical no-mans-land. She didn’t do it alone, and she isn’t the first. For decades, centuries, and, perhaps, even since the beginning of time, underdogs have fought to be seen, heard, accurately estimated, and risen from the ashes to reclaim that which was theirs.
For example, half a century ago, Dolly Parton moved past he entertainment industry dominance that minimized womens empowerment and claimed her own space driven by her talents. In 1974, Parton walked into Porter Wagoners office and told him she was leaving the show bearing his namesake that had given her a rise to stardom. She sang him a goodbye song titled, I Will Always Love You, as a sign of respect to Porter for being her mentor.
Dolly had outgrown her sidekick role alongside Porter, but it took effort, strategy, and bravery for her to break free. Porter sued her, a tactic commonly employed by those in power, but through discussions, compassion, and a large sum of money (reportedly around $1 million), Dolly settled the case.
Independence
How have a select set of women throughout history acquired enough resources to buy their independence? Some look all the way back to the early 20th century and the suffrage movement. Even that, however, involved womens collaboration with men.
In August 1920, a conservative Tennessee legislator, Harry T. Burn, cast the deciding vote for the suffrage movements proposed 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote. In his pocket, Harry carried a letter from his mother, Febb E. Burn, in which she asked him to be a good boy and vote for the amendment. This legislation, decided by Harry’s unexpected vote, has driven women’s economic agency and freedom over the past century. Throughout history, women and underdogs have been harnessing their positions to mastermind their way into influence, power, and self-determination.
At a moment in time where human rights are being challenged, whether through challenges to the right to due process, reproductive freedoms, or just the right of children to not be separated from their parents, Taylor has once again shown us a way, that by harnessing our best talents deep within our souls, we can move mountains. We can speak deep into the souls of others, nudging them into a movementa desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves. Something with meaning and grit and soul. And, just as I learned from the conference I was attending at John Hopkins University, working with unexpected partners forging allyships has real and meaningful benefits.
Hope and power
We root for Taylor Swift because we see ourselves in her. And, just like underdogs in any fight, through her, we see hope, and that hope is seeded in harnessing our talents and masterminding it into economic powera power that can move mountains and, apparently, also shamrocks.
A fresh glimpse at our AI-filled future arrived this week, in the form of an unmemorable ad by a company most people have never heard of. The ad is kind of flat and will probably scan as goofy to everyone outside its target demo, but don’t write it off just yet: It could signal the beginning of some very big (and scary) changes.
The upstart fintech company Coign claims to be a “conservative credit card company,” a distinction that boils down to the founders pledge to never donate to liberal causes and candidates. And while that self-definition raises some questions, it pales in comparison to the actual ad.
The 30-second clip is a patriotic parade of red-blooded, red-voting Americans boasting about recent Coign-fueled purchases such as deer-hunting gear, a stack of cartoonish gold bars, and the “biggest American flag” available. But here’s the most striking thing about the ad: All of those situations, and all of the actors, were created by AI.
There’s something a little off about Coigns ad, to be clear. The pacing of the phony satisfied customers movements feels too jittery at times, and theres an eagle at the end that is not exactly natural looking. While the ad is spiritually the same AI slop as Shrimp Jesus, it doesnt carry the same overtly synthetic visuals. In that regard, its a lot more casually AI-generated than many of its predecessor ads.
When Coca-Cola released an AI-generated holiday spot last fall, it sparked an uproar. Creatives were livid about such a monumentally successful company neglecting to splash out on an all-human production, and even casual observers noticed the glaring flaws in the video: The trucks tires glided over the ground without spinning, Santas hand was bizarrely out of proportion with the Coke bottle it gripped, and the entire ad sat squarely in the “uncanny valley.”
The same goes for the ad Toys R Us released last year using OpenAIs text-to-video tool Sora: The kindest thing one could say is that its human characters looked marginally more lifelike than the unsettling, motion-captured Tom Hanks from The Polar Express two decades earlier.
So far, AI-generated ads have been rare enough and mostly the domain of heavy-hitter companies, making them lightning rods for attention and backlash just about every time a new one is released. The simple fact that they were AI-made has been enough to generate headlines, even before factoring in the slop.
But maybe not for much longer. If the Coign ad is any indication, there may be an entire class of AI ads coming that will be subject to far less attentionand far less scrutiny.
Were at a precarious moment with AI, collectively feeling out its least objectionable uses through trial and error. So far, uncanny ads from massive companies have triggered backlash, but when lesser-known brands dabbleespecially without obvious visual glitchesthey often escape notice.
Advertising legend David Droga once noted the existence of a “mediocre middle” in marketing and entertainment, and that may be exactly where AI quietly thrives: in ads from companies too small to spark outrage. Advertising, after all, is already the most disposable and least emotionally protected form of mediaexpensive to make, widely avoided, and largely unloved. That makes it the perfect Trojan horse for AIslipping past scrutiny not because its good, but because few people care enough to notice.
On a moral and economic level, the advertising industry should not be diving headlong into a technology that makes large swaths of professional workers expendable. And on an aesthetic level, just because AI technically can create an ad doesnt mean it can create a good one.
Once a seemingly harmless use case eases peoples minds about a given technological breakthrough, its only a matter of time before the more flagrantly objectionable use cases take hold.
The facial recognition tech that first allowed Facebook users to tag their friends in photos was eventually used to strengthen the surveillance state and threaten privacy everywhere. Todays drones that make aerial photography easier become tomorrows drones that mistakenly blow up weddings in other countries and threaten to displace delivery workers.
Obviously, AI is going to play some role in humanitys future. The size of that role, however, is not yet set in stone. As machine learning creeps into all creative fields, workers need regulations to ensure the technology doesnt spread too far too fast. The good news is that a majority of Americans seem to want AI regulation.
Although the House of Representatives recently passed a major tax and spending bill with a provision forbidding state governments to regulate AI over the next 10 years, that clause is getting bipartisan blowback. According to a recent poll, 81% of voters agree that “advances in AI are exciting but also bring risks, and in such fast-moving times, we shouldn’t force states to sit on the sidelines for a full decade.”
Even the CEO of generative AI company Anthropic is a full-throated advocate for stricter AI regulation.
The people have spoken. Whether they are listened to is another matter altogether.
A single, silly credit card ad may seem an unlikely step toward a dystopian future of unfettered AI and full unemployment, but if we laugh it off now, the bill may still come due later.
Standard financial advice starts with the assumption that 40-year-old investment newbies are getting a late start. So what if you’re a card-carrying member of AARP without a portfolio? How do you start investing when youre in your 60s?
Recently, a family friend reached out for some advice on how to start investing for retirement. At 61 years old, he was afraid it was useless because he had heard the standard tut-tutting about how he should have started earlier.
Once I got over my shock at his age (because that means Ive reached my late 40s and I have no idea how that happened), I assured him that its not too late. Just because a lot of retirement math starts with the wonders of compound interest over time doesnt mean your retirement is doomed.
Becoming a first-time investor in your 60s may feel scary, but its the best way to ensure you have a financially secure retirementunless you can get your hands on some kind of time traveling phone booth. Heres what you need to know about beginning your investment journey long after hitting the big 60.
Start setting money aside right away
And when I say right away, I mean right this minute. Putting money aside for retirement is the kind of important-but-not-urgent task that is very easy to put off, which is why 20% of Americans over the age of 50 have nothing set aside for retirement, according to a 2024 AARP survey.
If you already have an IRA, 401(k), or other retirement vehicle, transfer whatever amount you can afford today, and set up an automatic contribution to come out of every paycheck.
If you dont already have a retirement account, take a half hour today to set one up with a reputable brokerage like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab. Each of these brokerage firms offer retirement accounts, education, and tools for newbie investors. Additionally, each major brokerage has customer service available by phone and online chat that can walk you through the process of opening an account and setting up a recurring contribution.
Asset allocation in your 60s
Of course, its not enough to set up your retirement account and your contributions. You will also have to decide how to invest your contributions, which feels a little more complicated in your 60s than it is for younger investors.
Thats because the traditional advice for retirement investors is to buy-and-hold index funds, allowing time and compound interest to perform their magic on your money. But sixtysomethings dont have the same luxury of time enjoyed by whippersnappers in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s.
Except, thats not necessarily true, is it? The Social Security Administration estimates that a current 60-year-old man has a life expectancy of 80 and a 60-year-old woman has one of nearly age 84which means investors in their 60s can and should invest some portion of their money for a longer time horizon.
Older first-time investors need to allocate their retirement money the same way every investor doesby when they expect to need it. This is often referred to as the bucket method, and is often broken down into three investment buckets.
Short-term investments: Since you will use it for living expenses in the first one to five years after you retire, you want this money to be invested in assets that are reasonably stable and liquid.
Medium-term investments: This money will provide you with retirement income for years six to 15, so youll invest it in slightly more aggressive investments that still aim to protect your principal.
Long-term investments: You wont plan to touch this money until at least 16 years in the future, so you can afford to invest in higher-risk-higher-return investments, giving you time to ride out market volatility.
Put away as much as you can
While your future self will be glad for whatever amount you can put aside for retirement today, more is definitely better in this scenario. Luckily, the IRS agrees with the importance of saving for retirement. Contributions to traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts are tax-deductible, meaning the money you put in those accounts lower the amount of your taxable income for the year.
The IRS allows the gray-haired set to make tax-advantaged catch-up retirement contributions to IRA and 401(k) accounts. For 2025, the IRA contribution limit is $7,000 for anyone under the age of 50, and $8,000 for anyone over the age of 50. For 401(k) accounts, the contribution limit is $23,500 for those under age 50, $31,000 for anyone between the ages of 51 and 59, $34,750 for those between the ages of 60 and 63, and it drops down to $31,000 to anyone 64 or older, because the IRS is nothing if not confusing.
In 2025, if you areYou can contribute this much to an IRAYou can contribute this much to a 401(k)Under 50$7,000$23,50050 to 59 years old$8,000$31,00060 to 63 years old$8,000$34,50064+ years old$8,000$31,000
Find other sources of investment money
If every dollar is spoken for before your paycheck even hits your account, the idea of maximizing your retirement account contributions may feel quaint. So its helpful to start identifying some other sources of investment money. You may have more cash available to invest than you realize.
Check for old 401(k) accounts
Once youre blowing out 60 candles on your birthday cake, you likely have multiple careers under your belt, let alone shorter-term jobs youve forgotten about. You may have unclaimed retirement benefits gathering dust.
A quick search of the National Registry of Unclaimed Retirement Benefits can let you know if youve got some retirement money languishing in an old account.
See if you have unclaimed funds
An estimated one out of every seven Americans is owed unclaimed property totaling $70 billion as of 2023. You can search for unclaimed funds by visiting the National Assoiation of Unclaimed Property Administrators and searching any states where you have lived.
Sell things you no longer want or need
You probably have a lifetimes worth of accumulated clutter, some of which may actually be worth some money. Cleaning out your stuff to find hidden gems will not only help you pad your retirement accounts, but it will also help you with any downsizing you may want to do before retirement.
But DO NOT invest your Social Security benefits
If youre looking for other sources of investment money, taking your Social Security benefits as soon as you turn 62 and investing that money may seem like a no-brainer. But it is nothing short of a terrible idea.
Thats because your Social Security benefits are as close to a financial guarantee as youre going to get in this world. Your Social Security benefits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States governmentwhich, admittedly, has lost a little of its luster and reputation recently. But you can absolutely count on the monthly amount promised to you, the approximate 8% per year delayed retirement credit for waiting to take your benefits, and the annual cost of living adjustment.
No investment can promise any of those things. Investing your Social Security benefits means you could lose that money. Taking your benefits as of age 62 means you will lose out on the guaranteed delayed retirement credit of 8% per year. And no investment can guarantee an annual return of 8%, let alone a cost of living adjustment to account for inflation.
If you are able to delay taking your Social Security benefits, it is generally best to wait to take them until you have reached age 70 so you can maximize your monthly benefit amount.
Other than yesterday, the best time is now
There is no point in beating yourself up with coulda-shoulda-woulda thinking if you get started investing later in life. Its counterproductive to ruminate over things you cant change, especially since theres still a lot of good you can do as a 60-something newbie investor.
The first thing to do is start right away. If you have a retirement plan, move money into it today and set up a recurring contribution. If you dont, open one with a reputable brokerage firm today, taking advantage of the customer service phone or chat options to help you lower the barrier to entry.
Once you have the account and automatic transfer in place, plan your asset allocation. Even though you don’t have the luxury of time like a young investor, you can still set up a three-tiered investing strategy. Your short-term, stable investments are for the money youll need in the next one to five years. The medium-term, slightly more aggressive investments will be accessed in years six to 15. And your long-term, higher-risk, higher-return investments will be left alone until year 16 and beyond.
Its important to put aside as much money as you can. If youre able to maximize your 2025 tax-deductible IRA and 401(k) contributions, that will lower your tax burden, which may help you afford the contributions. But you could also look for other sources of investment money, such as searching for forgotten retirement accounts and unclaimed funds, or by selling off some of your accumulated stuff as part of a downsizing effort. But do not use your Social Security benefit as a source of investment money. Thats trading a guarantee for a risk.
