Connect with us

Business

Opinion: Recent strikes show the crisis in Americans' working lives

Published

on

Opinion: Recent strikes show the crisis in Americans' working lives

Chances are slim that the dual strikes at Starbucks stores and Amazon warehouses around the country disrupted your holiday season. By most accounts, packages arrived on schedule, while consumers jonesing for Iced Brown Sugar Oat Milk Shaken Espressos almost certainly managed to find sugar and succor elsewhere. Still, the issues at the heart of the strikes offer a way into understanding how fundamentally broken the terms of work are in the United States.

Whether you log shifts behind a counter, work a classroom or factory floor or sit at a desk, the current battles over opportunity have not only ensnared more Americans than ever, but have undercut the social mobility that was once essential to America’s concept of itself.

In 2023, an economic opportunity poll by Gallup found that 39% of Americans believed that they were failing to get ahead despite working hard. That figure in 2002: 23%. The failure of hard work to pay off in America makes our communities wobbly, our faith weak, our lives lonely, our politics toxic and our relationship with work masochistic and unsustainable.

In lobbying for a higher quality of life, for example, one of the top grievances raised by striking Starbucks workers was unpredictable scheduling, a popular practice in which employers don’t set worker schedules more than a few days (or even hours) in advance. “Employees in lower-wage industries are increasingly at the mercy of scheduling algorithms designed to maximize efficiency and minimize labor costs,” Rebecca Plevin noted last year. “When staffing doesn’t match expected customer demand, workers might be called in at the last minute or sent home early.” Anyone with email on their phone knows how work can bleed into off-hours, but for those working second or third jobs, enrolled in training, college or certification courses, providing steady childcare or simply hoping to spend time with family or friends, a lack of predictable hours makes the basic patterns of life erratic.

Problems like these tend to compound quickly. Although some cities, like Los Angeles, have passed predictive scheduling ordinances, that hasn’t solved the problem of workers not knowing how much income they’ll bring in each month. Known as income volatility, the phenomenon of fluctuating paychecks and family incomes has become at least twice as common since 1970 and now affects roughly a third of U.S. households.

Advertisement

Set off in part by the rise of gig work, “perma-lancing” and jobs without a set number of hours, the unreliable nature of wages has all kinds of consequences beyond sending families scrambling to adjust when the bottom of their budget falls out. “I have to beg my manager to ensure I’m scheduled for at least 20 hours of work a week,” Arloa Fluhr, a Starbucks barista in Illinois, wrote of her decision to strike last month. “If I don’t meet those 20 hours every week, I could lose my benefits and the health insurance I rely on to care for my three children, including my 10-year-old daughter, who has type 1 diabetes.”

Beyond the financial stress, unstable wages can make it impossible to save money, make long-term plans and get access to credit. A family with unpredictable earnings might qualify for public assistance one month and then breach the income threshold and be disqualified another. “Families close to the eligibility threshold for food stamps who had more volatile incomes were less likely to utilize this benefit in the years that they qualified for it,” a 2022 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found, adding that nearly 1 in 5 eligible families don’t sign up for food stamps (formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

And while many of the quality-of-life issues may sound academic or abstract, they manifest in fundamental problems of the everyday and in a degradation of experience for everyone, everywhere. Complaints of chronic employee overwork and understaffing aren’t limited to fulfillment centers, chain coffee shops or fast-food restaurants, but also are pervasive at hospitals, schools and air traffic control facilities. For obvious reasons, a staff retention problem at the Secret Service captured headlines last year. One recent workforce survey found that roughly half of all U.S. workers said their workplaces are understaffed, with 43% of workers considering leaving their jobs.

Ultimately, the shortcomings of our work standards hurt everyone, including executives focused on the bottom line. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Gallup put a conservative price tag of a staggering $1 trillion on the replacement cost of employees who voluntarily leave their jobs in the United States each year. Including factors such as low morale and lost worker knowledge, lower productivity and recruitment and training expenses, it estimated that the “cost of replacing an individual employee can range from one-half to two times the employee’s annual salary.”

The context for the Amazon warehouse strikes highlights the absurdity of this dynamic. According to internal company documents made public in 2022, Amazon suffers from a 150% worker-attrition rate annually, roughly double the industry average. In simpler terms, only one out of every three workers hired by Amazon in 2021 managed to stay with the company for more than three months. This level of workforce bleed cost the e-commerce giant a mind-boggling $8 billion in profits. In addition to showing that twice as many workers were leaving voluntarily as would be expected, the documents also highlighted worries that the company might run out of potential hires in certain markets because it had cycled through so much of the workforce.

Advertisement

This brings us back to the strikes. Depending on where you live, the appearance of worker-led protests and work stoppages may seem like constant fixtures of the landscape. They’re not. Despite union visibility and record-high popularity in the U.S., membership in unions currently hovers at an all-time low. With more meaningful protections against wage theft or basic benefits like paid sick leave, guaranteed time off and affordable healthcare elusive, businesses largely maintain the power to dictate the terms of work culture in the United States. And as we’re all seeing, they’re doing a terrible job.

Adam Chandler is the author of “Drive-Thru Dreams” and the forthcoming “99% Perspiration: A New Working History of the American Way of Life,” from which this article is adapted.

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending