Verizon Plans To Close Call Centers In 5 States, Affecting 3,200 Jobs

Verizon Communications Inc  said on Thursday it plans to close call centers in five states, including its home state of New York, as the No. 1 wireless company trims head count and reorganizes operations in a saturated wireless market.

The move, which will affect 3,200 workers is a part of Verizon’s effort to consolidate customer service operations across the United States.

The company, which has a workforce of about 162,700, recently agreed to buy Yahoo Inc for $4.8 billion as it looks to tap new revenue in areas such as digital media and advertising.

“We are realigning our real estate portfolio and relocating these centers into other centers where we have extra capacity,” Verizon spokeswoman Kim Ancin said.

Verizon is offering affected employees jobs in call centers in other states, she said.

The consolidation involves Verizon call centers near Rochester and Orangeburg, New York; Bangor, Maine; Lincoln, Nebraska; Wallingford and Meriden, Connecticut; and Rancho Cordova, California, the company said.

The proposed call center closures, which will impact 850 jobs in New York, drew a testy response from the office of New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo.

“This is an egregious example of corporate abuse – among the worst we have witnessed during the six years of this administration,” Rich Azzopardi, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement. Verizon’s call center closures will result in job losses for “hard-working” New Yorkers, he added.

Employees who choose to move to other call centers, which handle sales and billing and help customers with technical problems, will be given relocation packages starting at $10,000, Ancin said. Those who leave the company will be given a severance package, outplacement resources and other support.

In April, nearly 40,000 employees of the wireline business, which includes FiOS Internet, telephone and TV services, represented by unions, went on strike after reaching an impasse in talks over a new labor contract. Sticking points included the relocation of employees and offshoring of call center jobs.

The strike, which was one of the largest in recent years in the United States, drew support from Democratic U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. A new deal was reached in May and striking wireline employees got back to work in June.

The Verizon wireless call center closures in five states involve employees who are not represented by unions, Ancin said.

(Note: Verizon owns AOL, the parent company of The Huffington Post.)

3 Costly Investment Mistakes Made By Millennials

The millennial generation -- love them or hate them -- has and will continue to have a tremendous amount of spending power. But will millennials invest their money wisely?

I recently sat down with International financial advisor and CEO of binary trading platform WMoption, Gordon Malcolm to find out what kind of mistakes entrepreneurs typically make when it comes to investing.

The thing that stuck out to me about Malcolm was that he gave sound advice similar to what Tony Robbins says in Money: Master the Game. I knew right then that he was a credible source.

Here are a few of the things that Malcolm said that millennials (Gen Y) should avoid when it comes to investing:

1. Be careful with traditional investments that you don't understand.

Just because it is age old tradition to invest in mutual funds and the market, that might not be the best move for you. Real estate is always good, but, for many young entrepreneurs investing in your own business might be a better move.

"For someone at the other end of the spectrum that is older and not currently working or earning, those people would make more conservative decisions", added Deep Patel," author of A Paperboy's Fable: The 11 Principles of Success. "If you are young and able to work, you can perhaps afford to be a little more aggressive."

Of course, there is a ton of traditional investment options that are good ideas, but avoid getting caught up in investing in things that you don't understand. "If you don't thoroughly under it, don't invest in it," said Malcolm.

2. Putting all your eggs in one basket.

You might think that you found a hot new investment, but the age old adage of "not putting all your eggs in one basket" is exactly what Malcolm told me. Malcolm said, "No matter how lucrative something might appear, looks can be deceiving."

And I think he is totally spot on. Why would you invest everything into any 1 investment? Even if something looks good, markets can turn around in no time on the drop of a dime. And in this fast-paced world with news changed every second, you never truly know what's going to happen next.

3. Not seeking professional help.

Above all else, a lot of millennials are in the do-it-yourself mindset when it comes to many things. And while that may be good for many other areas of your business, investing may not be one of them.

Think about it this way. If you haven't done your homework and don't thoroughly understand the markets, the sharks are going to eat you alive. In fact, many day traders make their living betting against everyone else.

It is advisable under all circumstances to have a professional help you with your investment decisions. Word of mouth is a great way to find a professional in your area, and Yelp is also a great tool. In fact, in Tony Robbin's book Money, he suggests making sure that whoever is advising you has your best interests first, not just their own pockets.

African Nation Slaps Exxon With Fine Nearly 7 Times Its Own GDP

The African nation of Chad has ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to fork over a sum of money that would make Austin Powers villain Dr. Evil proud ― not quite “100 billion dollars,” but close.

As Bloomberg reports, a court in Chad’s capital of N’Djamena announced in a ruling Oct. 5 that it has ordered the oil and gas giant to pay $74 billion in fines ― a figure nearly seven times the country’s 2015 gross domestic product.

The fine stems from a complaint from Chad’s Ministry of Finance that a consortium led by Exxon hadn’t met its tax obligations, Bloomberg reports. In addition to the $74 billion, the country demands $819 million in royalties. 

Quartz pointed out that Chad’s order would be comparable to the United States fining a company more than $100 trillion.

SUSAN LINNEE/AP

Chadian workers guide a pipe down a well in the Doba oil fields in southern Chad.

In Chad, Exxon operates oilfields and a pipeline system that transports crude oil to Cameroon for export. The country produces around 160,000 barrels of oil per day, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Todd Spitler, a spokesman for Exxon, said in a statement to The Huffington Post that the company disagrees with the court ruling and is “evaluating next steps.”

“This dispute relates to disagreement over commitments made by the government to the consortium, not the government’s ability to impose taxes,” Spitler wrote. “Contract sanctity and respect for the rule of law are core principles used to manage our business over the long term. It is vital for all parties to honor the terms of a contract and abide by applicable law in order to achieve the desired long-term benefits envisioned when projects begin.”

Brahim Abbo Abakar, president of the Chadian court, reportedly confirmed the ruling to Bloomberg.

The hefty fine from the landlocked African nation comes amid mounting troubles for Exxon in the U.S. The company faces numerous investigations into whether it lied to investors and committed fraud by covering up the risks of climate change for decades. The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are probing the company, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun an investigation into how Exxon Mobil values future projects amid climate change and plunging oil prices.

Last week, the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, made good on its threat to sue Exxon Mobil, filing what it says is the first U.S. legal action aimed at holding the companyaccountable for its well-documented climate change cover-up. 

Want To Be Innovative - Nurture Your Curiosity

Curiosity is the strong desire to know or learn something. Often we associate the word with children who display a strong and natural tendency to be curious. That's why they inundate us with questions asking How? What? When? and Why?

Society often tells us being inquisitive may get you into trouble. It's what the proverb "curiosity killed the cat" implies. Yet curiosity is a valuable commodity and one that needs to be appreciated as it is vital; particularly for entrepreneurs as:

• Curiosity is a way to challenge the status quo by pushing us out of our comfort zone.
• Curiosity directly helps ideas to emerge.
• Curiosity helps us to make connections and repurpose things, which leads to solution finding.

These are just three of the reasons why curiosity is a key trait of entrepreneurs, as most great innovations were simply the direct result of a curious mind.

Think of any innovative person you know and you will find they are curious by nature, constantly learning, yet learning about diverse things, hence often deemed to be polymaths. And yes they constantly ask questions. How can I make it faster? How can I make it better? Is there another way? Why do I have to do it like this? What if I merged this with that? Some of the biggest companies today commenced simply because the founders asked one of these powerful questions and then created something that addressed it.

Innovators like Steve Jobs always had a sound appreciation of the power of curiosity:

Much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity & intuition turned out to be priceless later on.

Curiosity is a habit and a skill that can be conditioned into your mind the more we work on it. It starts with making simple small changes with everything you do. Asking questions you normally wouldn't, stepping outside of your comfort zone to get out of your old way of thinking. By challenging your current thinking habits you'll eventually create a new and fresh perspective to things that you never had before. But it doesn't just happen overnight, like any new habit you have to work to develop it. And soon you will see things from different perspectives and in doing so be more effective in everything you do.

This is all very well if you're someone who is naturally curious, but what if you're not? Don't worry, here are 5 ways you can nurture your curiosity:

1. Adventure is out there - Travel to different destinations and Google unique or quirky places to stay and things to do there. Be random and pick a destination you haven't been to. There are 197 countries in the world, so it's not like there's not plenty to choose from. And once there, don't do what you always do, try the regions foods, mix with the locals and learn about their lives. Atlas Obscura is a great site for finding curious things to see and do in different countries. And if you're not travelling in the near future, simply take a different route to work.
2. Use your wonder lens - As children we wonder how they got the ship in the bottle and ask how did they make that? Making things can fire up your curiosity. Explore sites such as http://www.instructables.com Make use of potential opportunities to nurture your curiosity on http://www.groupon.com to explore and try new things. Anything from paragliding to macaroon making, because it doesn't matter what you're doing, just that you're doing something different from your norm is what stokes curiosity.
3. Create curiosity by taking action - As humans we have a tendency to stick to the things we like, so make a conscious choice to watch films, movies, documentaries you wouldn't normally watch, read books and articles you wouldn't normally read and listen to podcasts and music you wouldn't normally listen to. Different writing, topics and styles of delivery help us to see the world through an alternative lens.
4. Curiouser and curiouser - Spend time with children, as they are naturally curious and explore everything with a passion, being thrilled with the simplest of things. It's their way of showing how they make sense of their world. Observe how they constantly ask questions - then emulate their curiosity. Thereby re-developing the curiosity trait education and life has removed or limited in us.
5. Be surprised - Instead of watching a Ted Talk on your favourite/regular topics make use of their Surprise Me feature. This is another simple yet effective way to shift from your usual comfort zone, because from one click of a button you're avoiding the usual and learning something new, an alternate perspective to nurturing your curiosity.

It's a pretty well known fact that curiosity and innovation are inextricably interrelated, as one cannot occur without the other. What is perhaps a little less known is that

Curiosity is one of the great secrets of happiness [Bryant McGill].

And isn't that what life and business is all about? I wonder...

Valuing the Invaluable in Business

This article has been submitted as part of the Natural Capital Coalition's series of blogs on natural capital by Ivo Mulder, REDD+ Economics Advisor, UNEP.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn.

Putting an economic value on our natural environmental is difficult, both from an ethical and from a technical perspective. Nature is therefore often regarded as 'priceless'.

However, in our globalized economic system, the value of nature's multitude of critical services is subsequently translated as "0". This is true for services such as crop pollination, water purification, climate regulation and carbon sequestration, and the list goes on.

Many people know in the back of their minds that as we continue to overuse our forest ecosystems, deplete soils, and overuse our water resources, at some stage the "rubber will hit the road".

In other words, there will be real economic and financial impacts. For the private sector then, the race is on to identify how changes in our natural environment can positively or negatively affect the costs and revenues of a business.

We are entering an era where water scarcity, deforestation, soil degradation and biodiversity loss will increasingly incur real costs or affect revenues by companies caught unaware. Take the Malaysian palm oil producer 'IOI Corporation', whose shares has been on a roller coaster.

On 1 April 2016, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) suspended the corporation due to failure to prevent its subsidiaries from illegal deforestation in Indonesia. As a result, 27 major corporate buyers - including Cargill - suspended and terminated relations with IOI and its share price fell 17%. Then on 5 August 2016, shares rallied 5% on the news that the RSPO will lift its suspension effective 8 August 2016. Moody's - a credit rating agency - however maintains a "negative credit outlook" on its debt. (See research conducted by Chain Reaction).

Take another example. The south of Brazil experienced a massive drought in 2015, severely affecting São Paulo state, which accounts for a third of Brazil's economy and 40 percent of its industrial production. The agricultural sector - including production of coffee and sugar (ethanol) - has been seriously affected. An article in the Guardian highlighted that production of Arabica coffee beans fell 15% in 2014, which, (given that Brazil is by far the biggest producer globally), pushed up the global price of the commodity by almost half.

While rising population density and higher water consumption are among the reasons cited, there is increasing evidence that continued deforestation in the Amazon leads to decreased rainfall. Because of the drought, the Brazilian water firm Sabesp also saw the outlook of its credit rating changed to negative.

These are just two among a growing number of examples that show how the deforestation, forest degradation and other environmental issues can be financially material for companies, and therefore, for those who have put money into them, such as stock and bondholders as well as banks and other investors.

So, if you understand as a business that this is real and relevant for your operations, what tools are out there for the private and financial sector to understand the extent to which your company can be affected by natural capital risks?

A good starting point is the Natural Capital Coalition, which has just released a Protocol that guides companies through nine steps to identify, measure and value their impacts and dependencies on the natural environment. It has also issued two sector guides for food & beverages and for the apparel sectors. Specific sector guides for more sectors will follow.

If your company is specifically or exclusively interested in understanding the financial impacts related to natural capital, then the Natural Capital Declaration (NCD) is developing a range of tools that directly integrates natural capital in credit risk analysis of loans and bonds, as well as in market valuations of companies listed on stock exchanges.

The basic premise of any of these tools is that they look in principle at costs and revenues, and how to embed these in standard financial metrics such as EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization).

A water risk tool target (equities) developed and released in 2015 by Bloomberg and the NCD enables financial professionals to gauge the extent to which water scarcity affects earnings and potentially the share price of mining stocks using a standard discounted cash flow model (DCF). It found for example in the case Antofagasta, a copper mining company, that the difference between free cash flow in a business-as-usual scenario in 2021 and when taking water risks into account, is about 40% or US$ 2.5 billion. This is large enough to affect equity value and the projected share price.

The NCD has also co-developed a water risk tool focused on corporate bonds. It found that water stress could have a significant impact on credit ratios. In the case of South African utility, Eskom, the model predicts that its debt/EBITDA ratio, (which is an important yardstick for the value and riskiness of corporate bonds), will almost triple if the full cost of its water use is internalized.

What these two tools have in common is that they are Excel-based, free to download from the internet, focus exclusively on the financial impacts of natural capital risks, and are customizable meaning that anyone can override the assumptions in the model and add new companies.

Nevertheless, this story is not only about risks and credit downgrades. There are major business opportunities for companies and investors that know how to turn a healthy profit in a world where resource scarcity is a reality and where greenhouse gas emissions need to get down fast, including in relation to forestry, agriculture and other land use.

The market for green bonds is rapidly expanding with close to US$ 700 billion of climate-aligned bonds outstanding in 2016 (of which US$ 118 specifically labelled green bonds). There are plans to issue the first green bond that would specifically finance commercially viable projects that have a positive effect on sustainable landscape management. This is being made possible thanks to a growing drive by consumer goods companies to work towards 'zero-net deforestation' commodity supply chains, effectively creating demand for private finance that leads to lower or zero-net forest impacts. As of June 2016, 579 companies had made pledges to remove forest destruction from their supply chain.

The UN-REDD Programme is also playing a very active role by supporting partner countries such as Panama, Costa Rica, Kenya and others to identify how the private sector can contribute to achieving REDD+ results.

The take away message is that changes in our natural environment - deforestation, water scarcity and greenhouse gas emissions building up in our atmosphere - are real and if left unaddressed will affect many businesses in a vast multitude of ways. On the other hand, those who are well prepared and know how to navigate changes in consumer and investor preferences related to natural capital, will be much better positioned to weather the storm.

Disclaimer: Articles in this series are submitted by people who work in organizations who are part of the Natural Capital Coalition, or people who are involved in the natural capital space more generally, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of The Natural Capital Coalition, other Coalition organizations, or the organization that employs the author.

Ivo Mulder has over ten years of professional experience working for UNEP, private consulting firms and with NGOs on building the business case for companies and governments to deal with challenges related to climate change, water scarcity and ecosystem management. He has published more than forty reports, blogs and articles.

Over the past two years, he has contributed to building the economic case for reduced deforestation and forest degradation as part of the UN-REDD Programme, including through economic valuation studies, fiscal policy analysis and outlining how businesses can decouple revenue growth from forest impacts. More recently, Ivo is involved in setting up new finance mechanisms with the aim of channelling private capital to activities that contribute to achieving REDD+ results.

Follow REDD+ on Twitter: @unredd

On 13th July 2016, The Natural Capital Coalition launched a standardized framework for business to identify, measure and value their impacts and dependencies on natural capital. This ' Natural Capital Protocol' has been developed through a unique collaborative process; a World Business Council for Sustainable Development consortium led on the technical development and an IUCN consortium led on business engagement and piloting. The Protocol is supported by practically focused 'Sector Guides' on Apparel and Food & Beverage produced by Trucost on behalf of Coalition.

Keep up to date with the Natural Capital Coalition on Twitter: @NatCapCoalition

Keep up to date with our series on natural capital here.

www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org

How Can SEO Be Used to Target Millennials

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) remains one of the most powerful ways to reach your target audience. But Google's changes have meant that ranking websites is based on the user experience each customer gets. This means companies have to change the way they do things. SEO is not just a case of throwing in a few keywords and links to sites.

I spoke to Arya Bina, Founder and CEO of Kobe Digital, to talk about how SEO can be used to target millennials, which is one of the hardest groups to hit.

AJ: Thank you for joining me today. Could you tell me more about Kobe Digital?

CEO: Kobe Digital is a company that caters to small and medium-sized businesses. We help them to reach their target audiences. We remain a small firm with a global reach. Our role as a boutique Los Angeles digital marketing firm enables us to give our clients the personalized services they want to conquer the most competitive industries.

AJ: Do you think millennials look at SEO differently than any other generation?

CEO: Millennials definitely view SEO differently. The main difference is that millennials perceive strong SEO to be a requirement for any company they do business with. They have grown up with the Internet and Google their whole lives, the first generation to do so, and finding a piece of information online has become second nature. They do the same when they want to find out more about a business.

For the vast majority of them, the Internet is the first place they look when learning more about a company and its products. Companies that have failed to make a strong online presence their top priority are practically invisible to millennials. They're as good as dead in the water.

AJ: As a boutique LA digital marketing firm, do you find most of your clients are from the local area?

CEO: We have found that the majority of small to medium-sized businesses enjoy working with local agencies. This is because we find that any cultural and logistical challenges are already understood by the agency. Our list of clients reflects this, and the majority of the businesses on this list are based in Southern California to enable this personalized approach.

But Kobe Digital is a national company and there have been many companies from across the country deciding to work with us after being referred. Los Angeles is one of the biggest and best creative hubs in the country, which is why top marketing talent tends to flock here which has enabled Kobe Digital to hire some of the top millennial talent .

AJ: What direction do you think SEO is taking now?

CEO: To us, it's clear that SEO is becoming the new reality when it comes to marketing. SEO has enabled companies to execute campaigns that are targeted, scalable, and measurable. That's the gold standard in advertising. With over 90% of online experiences beginning with a Google search, SEO is the clear choice for any company that wants to hit millennial audiences.

SEO is part of an environment that's dynamic and fast-flowing. It's difficult to predict which direction it will move in over the next few years. But targeted marketing services are sure to continue their relentless advance. Companies will be able to leverage granular data, including time spent on pages, search engine users' search histories, and bounce rates. To a large extent, we've already seen this transformation.

AJ: When marketing to millennials does SEO and/or Social have the stronger place?

CEO: It's easy to think that millennials share every detail on social media, therefore social media marketing is the future of online advertising. At Kobe Digital, we have found that this is true to a certain extent. A strong social media marketing campaign is one of the most effective tools for building your brand and engaging with your customers.

But when it comes to introducing your company's products and services to new demographics, SEO is the best way to increase your visibility. Search engine users are far more likely than social media users to convert. 72% of people who perform a local search will visit the closest store to them. 61% of local searches also lead to a purchase.

Those are numbers social media marketing has yet to reach.

Conclusion - SEO is More Important than Ever

SEO is more important than ever before and there's no doubt that it's a cornerstone for reaching millennials. SEO might have been changed, but it's not going to disappear anytime soon. Companies that fail to invest in SEO are going to be at a crippling disadvantage. And there are no signs of this changing anytime soon as SEO becomes more targeted and more affordable.

What do you think is the most important benefit of SEO?

Big Banks Won’t Say If They Use The Same Scheme That Led To Wells Fargo’s Fraud

The four biggest banks in the U.S. won’t say whether they offer workers the same kind of sales incentives that drove Wells Fargo employees to open millions of accounts for customers without their knowledge.

That scam led to a record-setting fine, congressional hearings and a rare case in which a bank CEO was forced to give up a few million dollars in compensation, with legislators calling for his ouster. California recently announced it would no longer do business with the bank, and Illinois is expected to follow with its own announcement on Monday.

Representatives from Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and US Bank declined to respond when The Huffington Post asked them if they use the same high-pressure, lofty sales quotas that pushed underpaid Wells Fargo employees to rip off customers in an effort to keep their jobs or earn bonuses to enhance their low hourly pay. Along with Wells Fargo, these banks are the five largest in the country, ranked by total assets.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Many are demanding Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf step down in light of the scandal. So far, he is being forced to give up some of his pay.

No one has accused these institutions of pulling off a fraud like Wells Fargo’s. The bank was fined $185 million for the widespread behavior.

Yet it’s notable that none of the banks contacted by HuffPost would be forthcoming about practices within their bank, even as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a stern warning to financial institutions to carefully monitor sales practices to prevent a Wells-like debacle. 

JP Morgan Chase, for instance, declined to talk about incentives and instead referred HuffPost to a press release about its plans to raise bank teller pay to $16 an hour in some high-cost cities.

The CFPB has said it’s investigating other banks to see if the practice is going on there.

Pressuring bank workers to “cross-sell” customers ― industry jargon for convincing them to sign on for more products like credit cards, bank accounts and loans ― is a common practice at U.S. banks, Christman reported in a detailed analysis NELP released this summer.

Indeed, there are signals that Wells Fargo isn’t alone with its fake account problem. Consumers have reported problems with unauthorized credit card openings at other banks since at least 2015. The CFPB has received 638 complaints from people who said they received credit cards they did not ask for since January of that year, according to an analysis the S&P Global Market Intelligence released last week. Just 28 of those complaints were directed at Wells Fargo; 31 were for Bank of America; 59 were about JPMorgan Chase and 83 complaints regarded Citi.

“Those banks that don’t do this [sales incentives] are happy to say so,” Anastasia Christman, a policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, told HuffPost.

That none of these banks were willing to talk about their practices is perhaps a sign of extreme caution in the wake of the penalties levied on Wells Fargo. The bank was forced to pay $185 million in fines earlier this month, including a record $100 million penalty levied by the CFPB. 

At the time, CFPB Director Richard Cordray put the banking industry on notice.

“This was outrageous conduct. It was a violation of trust and an abuse of trust. It should not have happened, and I guarantee you that we will be seeing that it does not happen again at any bank,” he said in an interview with CNBC. “We will be looking for these types of problems.”

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

CFPB Director Richard Cordray has said other banks should carefully look at their incentive systems to ensure a Wells Fargo-like scam doesn't happen.

Bank workers interviewed for the NELP report talked about the immense pressure to sell more products to customers, who often not only didn’t need a new credit card ― but would likely face financial harm from one.

“If someone’s getting married, tell them to get a credit card. Any life event that happened, you were supposed to say, ‘Get a credit card for it.’ If you heard kids in the background, the answer was a credit card,” a Rhode Island Bank of America service specialist told the organization.

The comprehensive analysis was based in part on interviews with 75 workers currently or recently employed by seven major banks ― including Wells Fargo, Bank of America and US Bank. It was released the month before news of Wells Fargo’s fine broke.

The pressure on workers is amplified by the fact that they’re low-paid. The average wage for a bank teller is around $12 an hour. A stunning 70 percent of the lowest-paid bank workers are women. 

Nearly one-third of bank tellers’ families use public benefits ― including food stamps and Medicaid ― according to a 2014 report from the University of California, Berkeley.

One banker reported signing her sister up for a credit card that she didn’t really understand. “She maxed it out, and she still has that maxed-out credit card 10 years later,” this banker told NELP.

A U.S. Bank collection worker said: “There was a constant battle of how you do right for the customer without sacrificing, you know, not paying a light bill or having shoes for the kids going back to school. You can’t make that sacrifice.”

Amalgamated Bank, a small New York-based union-owned bank, is one of the few financial institutions to publicly disclose it does not use sales quotas or incentive pay for cross-selling. The bank announced last year it would pay its workers at least $15 an hour.

Until recently, Amalgamated did offer bonuses to branch managers for reaching certain goals in opening accounts, but the bank plans to discontinue the practice at year’s end.

“We don’t want to have any shred of doubt in our consumers’ minds that we are watching out for their best interests,” Amalgamated CEO Keith Mestrich told HuffPost. He said tellers at Amalgamated often make far more than $15 an hour.

Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Union-owned Amalgamated Bank says it doesn't have the quotas or incentive systems that other banks employ.

But Mestrich’s bank isn’t public and under the same pressure to increase its bottom line as the largest banks. In the wake of the financial crisis, the nation’s biggest banks have increasingly relied on fees from consumer accounts to keep bringing in money. 

“We don’t know if this is going on at other banks,” Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, told HuffPost. “We do know that cross-selling products at all the banks is both a priority and highly incentivized and must be policed with care and diligence or we will see more scandals like this.”

“The banks make massive amounts of money in selling their own products to their customer base,” Kelleher said.

For years, low-paid Wells Fargo tellers and customer service representatives were under enormous pressure to cross-sell. These workers, who typically made about $12 an hour, were offered bonuses for reaching their quotas. Some were warned they could be fired for not meeting these aggressive sales goals. The bank said it wanted to sell each customer eight products ― “eight is great!” Wells Fargo said publicly of its cross-selling efforts.

Faced with that kind of pressure, thousands of workers created fake accounts for customers. More than 2 million sham accounts were created, causing all kinds of consternation for customers ― extra fees, lower credit scores, calls from debt collectors on accounts these people did not know existed. And Wells Fargo fired 5,300 bankers for engaging in the practice. It’s not known how many other bankers were fired for not meeting the aggressive quotas.

Black Women Are Leaning In And Getting Nowhere

Black women want a seat at the table. And yet they are close to invisible at the highest ranks of corporate America, reveals data released Tuesday morning by consulting firm McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.org, the nonprofit women’s leadership organization founded by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. 

This is the second year the organization has released the data, among the most comprehensive looks at how women are faring in the business world.

Overall, it’s not going terribly well. Women drop out of the corporate pipeline at high rates: For every 100 women promoted to manager (the first step on the track up the ladder), 130 men are advanced, the study found. Women get more pushback when they negotiate for raises, and are more likely to get labeled pushy or bossy by the higher-ups and generally receive less support from senior colleagues.

But women of color have it particularly bad, the study found. 

Defined as black, Asian or Hispanic, women of color make up just 3 percent of executives in the C-suite at the 132 North American companies surveyed, which include JP Morgan Chase, Procter & Gamble, General Motors and Facebook. Yet, these women comprise 20 percent of the United States population.

White women were also nowhere near parity in those high-level offices, but at 17 percent are doing much better by comparison.

“When women are stuck, corporate America is stuck,” Sandberg said in a statement. “We know that diverse teams perform better and inclusive workplaces are better for all employees, so we all have strong incentives to get this right.”

LeanIn.org

Women of color are far less likely to make it to the top in corporate America.

“Women of color are the most underrepresented group in the corporate pipeline,” write the authors of the report, which also surveyed women within these companies.

This is the second year that LeanIn.org and McKinsey have done this landmark survey. Though last year some data on women of color was included, the report did not break out pipeline data on women of color. 

The latest study looked at promotion and attrition rates at the various companies, which together employ more than 4.6 million people. Additionally, more than 34,000 employees at the companies responded to a survey on gender biases, work-life issues and career opportunities at their companies.

Women of color who responded to the survey, especially black women, tended to perceive their offices as less fair. Only 29 percent of black women said the best opportunities at their company go to the most deserving employees, compared to 47 percent of white women, 43 percent of Asian women and 41 percent of Hispanic women.

“This study makes clear that while all women remain underrepresented in the corporate pipeline, women of color face the steepest drop-offs,” LeanIn.org president Rachel Thomas said. 

When Sandberg’s corporate feminist manifesto Lean In came out in 2013, one of the most potent criticisms of the best-seller involved race. Many said the book, which urges women to speak up and be more ambitious at work, was less relevant for women of color, who face different challenges at the office.

Sandberg famously wrote that many women were giving up on attaining leadership roles in corporate America before their careers even took off. Women “leave before they leave,” she wrote, echoing a widely viewed TED Talk she gave in 2010. Essentially, the argument goes, women anticipate that they won’t be able to have full-throttle careers because at some point marriage and children will intercede. So they deliberately hold themselves back.

This may be a specific problem of white women, however. Women of color, according to surveys and plenty of anecdotal evidence, are far more ambitious. Indeed, black women participate in the labor market at higher rates than any other group of women.

While white women seem to struggle with whether or not to seek advancement at work, black women are far less ambiguous, according to a 2014 survey from the Center for Talent Innovation.

“In our research, we find black women are nearly 3 times more likely than white women to say they aspire to a powerful job with a prestigious title,” Tai Wingfield, one of the report’s authors and senior vice president of communications for the Center for Talent Innovation and managing director at Hewlett Consulting Partner, told The Huffington Post. 

In this year’s LeanIn.org survey, 48 percent of women of color said they aspire to leadership positions at their company, compared with 37 percent of white women. The difference is most stark at the entry level, where only 27 percent of white women aspire to be a top executive, compared with 41 percent of women of color.

Yet it’s white women who are far more likely to land top roles. After Xerox chairman and CEO Ursula Burns leaves her post this year, there will be no black women CEOs in the Fortune 500, noted Melinda Marshall and Wingfield in a recent piece for Harvard Business Review.

“The problem is leadership isn’t seeing them ― those qualified, well educated black women who are vying for leadership but are being overlooked,” Wingfield told HuffPost.

“Black women are already ‘leaning in,’” Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, a psychology professor at Columbia University, wrote last year in a fascinating piece for Fortune on black female leadership.

Steve Marcus / Reuters

Xerox chairman and CEO Ursula Burns is seen at the 2012 International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Jan. 11, 2012. The company refers to Burns as "chairman" rather than "chairwoman."

Part of the problem is “invisibility,” Purdie-Vaughns writes. When the average person thinks of a “woman leader,” she argues, the image that comes to mind is a white woman ― like Sandberg. If you picture a black leader, you’re more likely to think of a black man than a black woman.

“Because black women are not seen as typical of the categories ‘black’ or ‘woman,’ people’s brains fail to include them in both categories,” Purdie-Vaughns writes. “Black women suffer from a ‘now you see them now you don’t’ effect in the workplace.”

In Wingfield’s study, black women tell painful stories of how this plays at the office. One woman, after asking her boss about new opportunities at her firm, was told to be happy with what she’s achieved. “You’ve reached a milestone you’ve probably never imagined,” he tells her. “Do we really need to talk about what you haven’t yet achieved?” 

Yvette Miley, a senior executive at MSNBC, describes her experiences in the 1990s speaking up at editorial meetings only to see her ideas get ignored until a male colleague repeated it and had the buy-in of the room.

What seems clear is that the managers and executives who make decisions about promotions and advancement may have unconsciously absorbed some of these stereotypes and are holding back women of color.

And to make things even tougher, many companies aren’t very focused on racial diversity to begin with. According to LeanIn.org’s numbers, 55 percent of companies say racial diversity is a top priority. Gender diversity gets far more attention, with 78 percent of companies saying they’ve made it a top goal.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that more than 34,000 women answered survey questions as part of LeanIn.org and McKinsey’s new report. In fact, both men and women participated in the survey. 

What Men Really Think About Workplace Gender Bias

In the past few years, American corporations have increased their focus on attracting and retaining talented women to build gender diversity. Companies tout everything from diversity targets to enhanced maternity leave to bias training to flying nannies. Many leadership experts, such as Harvard Business School Professor of Leadership John Kotter, believe that change needs to be driven from the top down. And yet evidence from over 10,000 employer reviews analyzed by Fairygodboss suggests that the top down approach is necessary – but not sufficient to build a path to a truly gender diverse workplace.

Nearly half of women on Fairygodboss, an online career community for women, say that women are not treated equally at their workplace. Even at the most highly rated companies, women often report that experiences can vary greatly depending upon the department. One-third of women on Fairygodboss say that their workplace experience “depends on their manager.” In other words, whether women face gender discrimination at work is generally not driven by corporate mandates or a CEO’s proclamations, but in day-to-day interactions through the chain of command. That’s why understanding the male perspective is so important: In corporate America managers are still disproportionately men.

If a woman’s workplace experience is so dependent on her manager, how can companies begin to make improvements? In other words, how can they change culture quickly -- especially among male managers? That was the question that Artemis Connection, a consultancy that focuses on aligning strategy and team, and Fairygodboss tried to answer by honing in on the behavior and attitudes of men in the workplace.

This summer, we surveyed over 300 U.S. full-time working men. Our survey was not random, nor was it intended to be. We simply wanted a cross-section of perspectives on how men felt about women’s workplace inclusion. And while the sample was not representative of all working U.S. men—three-fourths of participants have incomes of $100,000 or more, almost half work in the technology, Internet, or telecom sectors, and over half in management, finance, or technology roles—we did end up gathering a wide range of opinions on women at work.

Here are some of the most revealing insights men shared about women at work:

• “It’s a problem, just not where I work.” While a full one-third of men think women are treated unfairly in the workplace in general, just 10 percent of respondents agree that women are treated unfairly in their workplace. In other words, the men we spoke to don’t believe that gender bias happens in their own backyard.

• “Diversity is a culture issue. There is no gender wage gap.” When asked what challenges women most faced at work, men pointed toward an overall feeling of inclusion as the single biggest issue (by over 50 percent of respondents). Work-life balance, childcare, and mentorship came in a close second, but other more fundamental issues, such as compensation, promotion, harassment, and even flexible work options, were named much less frequently. Less than 25 percent of men, for example, named compensation as a big challenge faced by women at work, and similarly, less than 17 percent men viewed harassment as a challenge. Compare this to what women tend to say about the gender wage gap and sexual harassment, and you begin to see a real schism in what women and men say about workplace issues.

· “I want to help, but it’s kind of awkward.” When asked, men say they are eager to help women. Almost half say they have advocated for equality, inclusion, and diversity publicly, and over half have done it privately. A full one-fifth, however, admitted that they have not yet acted as an ally.

What should companies do in light of these insights?

1) The first step - Get the facts: We recommend every company perform a brief survey about gender diversity in their workplace, and gather side-by-side responses from men and women. Laying bare the facts about how men and women perceive gender diversity issues in their own workplace differently would be the first step to helping everyone recognize how deep the perception gap can be.

2) Have honest conversations: Employees should be encouraged to have open and candid discussions about how gender bias impacts their workday. If men hear from female colleagues about the barriers they face at work, they may feel more compassionate and more motivated to help eliminate them.

3) Hold managers accountable: A commitment from the top to build a diverse, inclusive workplace is not enough—managers have to be held accountable. Rewarding managers for creating an environment where diverse talent can thrive is important.

4) Train managers: How managers manage truly matters. Research out of Stanford highlights that when people are assigned to better bosses, they are less likely to leave the firm. The first year as a manager is key for developing skills and habits. Often, managers are judged solely on financial performance; yet structured training and clear expectations for leadership quotient should be an essential element of every company.

5) Try, learn, iterate and share results: Finally, at an organization level, companies should continue to experiment with different approaches, or at least dialogues, to pinpoint their firms’ unique gender-related strengths and challenges.

Not all of the above strategies will work for everyone, but experimenting with them will help you find the right activities for your team and culture. Actively including men in these efforts, is vital—without it, women’s workplace progress will continue to stall. And the more companies are willing to share their results with each other, the faster and smarter we can all forge a path to more gender inclusive workplaces everywhere.

Written in conjunction with Christy Johnson, CEO Artemis Connection, a strategy and design firm that is reinventing consulting and providing meaningful work for women. Christy was an engagement manager at McKinsey & Co, was a VP at several corporations and was an award winning high school math and economics teacher. Christy holds an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business and a MA in Education from the Stanford School of Education.

Disrupt or Be Disrupted: How Legacy Businesses Are Changing the Game

Jeanie Caggiano, EVP, Executive Creative Director, UnitedHealthcare at Leo Burnett USA

Evolve or die. It’s as true in business as it is in biology. Just ask Kodak.

Problem is, legacy businesses—let’s say those born before the digital age—can’t always move quickly when something upends their model. Little things slow them down. Like factories, inventory, infrastructure, equipment, processes, franchisees, federal and state regulations, and hundreds of thousands of actual employees. Unlike, say, Uber. With its independent subcontractors who own, operate and maintain its virtual fleet, it can turn on a dime.

But most businesses are legacy businesses. And as the Ubers and Googles and Instacarts mature and become more regulated (and themselves work to evolve or die), they too will become legacy businesses. And some yet-undreamt-of new model will arise and scare the pants off them. It will happen: 86% of the companies on the Fortune 500 in 1955 were history by 2015.

The good news? There is something a legacy business can turn on a dime: its image. Nearly overnight, I have seen a great idea stop people and change how they feel and think about a brand—even if that brand has been around for more than a century. Creating disruptive ideas happens to be our agency’s “legacy” talent. And has been ever since Leo Burnett opened the place in 1935.

“Advertising is the ability to sense, interpret…to put the very heart throbs of a business into type, paper and ink.” – Leo Burnett

In today’s world, I’d add “words and pictures, sounds and stories, bits, bytes, context and algorithms.” Legacy agencies, too, have had to evolve or die. But technology hasn’t changed the need to engage people in a great idea. It simply changes how and where we execute it. And dumb or boring creative will be ignored even faster.

Here are three ideas, created for three of our legacy clients, that can’t be ignored:

The Art Institute of Chicago (founded 1879): “Van Gogh’s Bedroom”

“Come look at old paintings on a wall” has been the traditional art museum pitch. But though old, the Art Institute of Chicago is anything but traditional, especially when it comes to the immersive marketing experiences they’ve created with Leo Burnett.

For the Van Gogh exhibit, we took one of his famous bedroom paintings and lovingly re-created it as a real bedroom, right down to the brush on his nightstand. But the real genius was letting people stay in the “painting” via AirBnB. “Van Gogh’s Bedroom” sold out immediately, generating massive PR and a 250% increase in online ticket sales—the highest attendance of any exhibit in 15 years.

Allstate (founded 1931): “Mayhem Sale”

Mayhem was created to disrupt the insurance category. If you bought on price—not realizing you’d also cut your coverage—Mayhem would find you. This led to a unique event where Mayhem showed homeowners how important it is to have the right coverage.

We started with an increasingly common behavior—sharing on social media. We added a fact: 70% of burglars use social media to target homes while their owners are away. Then we found an oversharing couple—Matt and Shannon—who’d posted on Facebook that they’d be at the Allstate Sugar Bowl.

Mayhem broke into their home (actually, a reproduction meticulously re-created on a Hollywood set) and started selling exact copies of all their personal possessions online, from a cheesy squirrel statue to their new car. Seeing their stuff being sold by Mayhem on the Jumbotron at the game gave Matt and Shannon the shock of their lives. And had the rest of America laughing, logging on and learning about how Allstate home insurance protects you differently.

UnitedHealthcare (founded 1977): “Ways In” Campaign

Despite the fundamental changes shaking up health care, all health insurance brands looked the same. They featured vignettes of happy people and vague promises of “wellness.” To stand out, UnitedHealthcare decided to do something different: Use humor to help people notice and like their brand.

Inspired by the more than 76,000 official medical codes used to track how people get into the health-care system, we told funny back stories. For example, code “Y93.4 Activities Involving Dancing and Other Rhythmic Movements.” That became the story of a middle-aged couple making dinner, getting carried away when “their song” came on the radio, attempting the lift from “Dirty Dancing,” and destroying the dining room table. One tele-doctor visit over a laptop later, courtesy of UnitedHealthcare, they were bruised but unbowed. Our films stopped people, were widely liked and shared, and set UnitedHealthcare apart from the rest.

What wasn’t (outwardly) disruptive was our media choice. Yes, we live in an omni-channel world. But our target was so broad (adults 18 to 100+) that micro-targeting wasn’t the answer. TV and online video was. And it worked. With only 25% of category spend, the campaign has driven 97% of category engagement.

The moral of this story? Disrupt or be disrupted. A great idea can retool a legacy business faster than it can build a new factory or re-do its website. And that holds true whether your brand is 200 years old or 2 months old.

About the Author

Jeanie Caggiano is executive vice president, executive creative director and business lead on UnitedHealthcare at Leo Burnett USA. Jeanie’s Advertising Week panel, “From Legacy Business to Disruption Enabler: Meeting the Challenges of the Digital Age,” is on September 29 at 9 a.m.

Top Reasons Why Investors Would Switch Online Stock Brokers

By Kevin Voigt

The top reason why investors would switch online stock brokers? Lower trade commissions, according to a recent NerdWallet/eTrade survey.

That is, except for millennials, who say that fees are their top reason why they would change to a different online brokerage.

NerdWallet teamed with eTrade as part of the online brokerage's quarterly Streetwise survey to ask investors what factors are most likely to make them switch online stock brokers, including lower commissions for each trade, lower fees to maintain the brokerage account, more investment offerings, better customer service and better site usability and tools.

Key findings

• The reason most commonly cited by investors to switch brokers: lower trade commissions (34%), followed by lower account fees (22%) and better website usability (18%). Better customer service (12%) and investment offerings (7%) were the least likely reasons overall.

• The picture changes by age and type of investors. Unlike other age groups, millennials were more likely to switch for lower account fees (31%) than lower trade commissions (28%).

• Active investors, those who trade more than once a week, are more likely to leave for lower trade commissions (37%) than lower account fees (20%). Investors 55 or older had the largest split on the commission-versus-fees question: 36% would leave for lower trade commissions, while 15% would leave for lower fees.

• Investors 55 or older also are more likely to leave for better site usability (20%) than other age groups. Active investors also rate usability higher (22%) than other investor types.

Commissions versus fees

The fact that millennial investors favor lower fees more than other age groups do holds some logic. A May study by J.D. Power and Associates found that millennials were much more interested in fee-based robo-advisors -- 72%, compared with the 47% average for all age groups. Also, as a recent NerdWallet study shows, millennials have the most to gain or lose over time by shaving fees from their retirement savings.

Active investors are wise to examine the commissions for each of their trades. But they are the exception: A 2012 NerdWallet analysis found that the average online stock brokerage customer executes fewer than two trades a month.

To know which is best for you -- lower commissions versus lower fees -- requires an analysis of your investing habits. As my colleague Arielle O'Shea writes: Start by understanding what features you want in an online brokerage, then compare the costs of fees and trade commissions. For example, if exchange traded funds are a priority, look for an online stock broker that allows commission-free trades on ETFs.

Shop around and select the broker that delivers the features you want with the lowest commission on the securities you trade frequently.

Survey methodology
This online survey was conducted from April 1 to April 8, 2016, among a U.S. sample of 907 self-directed active investors who manage at least $10,000 in an online brokerage account. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.25 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. It was fielded and administered by ResearchNow. The panel is broken into thirds of active (trade more than once a week), swing (trade less than once a week but more than once a month) and passive (trade less than once a month). The panel was 65 percent male and 35 percent female with an even distribution across online brokerages, geographic regions and age bands.

Kevin Voigt is a staff writer at NerdWallet, a personal finance website. Email: kevin@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @kevinvoigt.

This Family Went A Whole Year Without Buying New Clothes

This article is part of HuffPost’s “Reclaim” campaign, an ongoing project spotlighting the world’s waste crisis and how we can begin to solve it.

In June 2015, Emily Hedlund gave herself a challenge: She would go an entire year without buying any clothes. 

At first she thought she’d try it out on her own. But because she was also in charge of clothes shopping for her husband and young son, she expanded the experiment to also include them. Hedlund calculated that she spent hundreds of dollars each year on thrift store finds and cheap fast-fashion impulse buys, stuff she and her family didn’t feel any connection to and never actually wore.

Together, they had enough of a stockpile to keep themselves dressed for a year, Hedlund thought. There was just one potential hitch: She was pregnant ― her second child was born two months after she started the challenge ― and would need clothes in various sizes. Fortunately, she had a strong rotation of summer dresses, activewear, leggings and jeans, including items from the first time she was pregnant. 

Hedlund shared her pledge on Facebook and her personal blog to keep herself accountable. And to eliminate temptations, she unsubscribed from emails from companies like Old Navy, Victoria’s Secret and American Eagle, which peppered her inbox with emails about sales.

It worked. With the exception of a single pair of running shoes, Hedlund succeeded in not buying any clothing for anyone in her family for one year. Along the way, the exercise in frugality brought her attention to something else entirely: the clothing industry’s staggering wastefulness. This problem, Hedlund realized, was fueled in part by people like herself, who bought too many clothes they didn’t need or even really want.  

Worldwide, people buy more than 80 billion pieces of clothing each year. Compared to other household expenses, Americans are buying more clothing than ever before but spending less. These purchases power a fashion industry where pollution, waste and unsafe working conditions are too often seen as simply the cost of doing business ― unsettling truths that Hedlund realized as her experiment progressed.

“There’s this whole dark side of the fashion industry that I’d heard of but wasn’t really aware of,” Hedlund told The Huffington Post. “It definitely wasn’t at the forefront of my mind when I started the ban, but now it just makes me want to keep not buying clothing.” 

There’s this whole dark side of the fashion industry that I’d heard of but wasn’t really aware of.Emily Hedlund

It’s not necessarily naïve to think that one person’s actions can impact a trillion-dollar global industry notorious for its lack of transparency. Consumers can pressure retailers into slowing the hyperproduction that leads to so much waste, said Christina Dean, founder of the fashion waste reduction organization Redress. 

By controlling their consumption ― that is, buying less stuff ― consumers can “send a clearer signal to the big players that are producing billions of garments a year that they don’t want to buy so much and they don’t want to buy cheap stuff that’s badly made,” Dean said.

Hedlund, who lives in St. Louis, began to think about her own place in a larger system when, in the midst of her yearlong experiment, she invited a group of friends to her home for a clothing swap. They arrived toting garbage bags full of unwanted items, many of which were from fast-fashion brands like H&M and Forever 21. When they’d finished picking over each other’s stuff, most of it remained unclaimed.

“There was so much left over,” Hedlund said. “I could not believe how much.” Afterward, the bulging trash bags sat in her dining room, waiting to be donated. “It just gives you an idea that there’s so much overconsumption going on.” 

Courtesy of Emily Hedlund

Hedlund began hosting clothing swaps at her St. Louis home. The sheer number of unwanted items opened her eyes to problems of overconsumption and waste. 

Hedlund has assigned herself other challenges, including frugal grocery shopping and buying (almost) nothing at all for an entire month. She’s part of a community of bloggers responding to consumer culture with an ethos of minimalism, a lifestyle category containing everything from decluttering to tiny houses.

Even some businesses, counterintuitively, are encouraging people to buy less. Cladwell, a minimalist clothing app, helps customers curate a wardrobe of fewer, higher-quality items, with a stated goal of crusading against the fashion industry’s wastefulness.

“As a society, we’ve consumed our way into this mess,” Cladwell founder Blake Smith told HuffPost. “So it’s my belief that we can’t consume our way out of it.”

Self-congratulatory expressions of minimalist living have earned plenty of critics. To people who don’t have enough in the first place, celebrations of “less is more” can sound more like a luxury than a sacrifice.

“Minimalism is a virtue only when it’s a choice, and it’s telling that its fan base is clustered in the well-off middle class,” Stephanie Land wrote in The New York Times in July. “For people who are not so well off, the idea of opting to have even less is not really an option.” 

Hedlund gets this. She was able to go a year without buying clothes for her two children because she was able to inherit hand-me-down coats, mittens, socks and shoes from a friend with four sons.

Courtesy of Emily Hedlund

Hedlund's sons Shiloh and Malachi, pictured here in hand-me-downs from a family friend.

For those who take dramatic steps to curb their shopping habits, it’s about bringing sustained attention to a part of everyday life they once took for granted.

When Andrew Morgan began making “The True Cost,” a documentary about the human and environmental consequences of the fashion industry, he vowed not to buy any clothing until he finished the film ― which ended up taking two years.

“I just wanted to reset. I wanted to step back and say, ‘I want to figure out what I believe in and where I want to buy stuff,’” Morgan said. “And that was an awesome exercise.” He kicked his habit of buying cheap, poorly made items at fast-fashion companies and now shops almost exclusively at secondhand stores.

For Hedlund, changing habits took some time. At first, she missed the feeling of buying and having new things, and even the act of shopping itself. As summer turned to fall, she felt the urge to rush out and buy fleece-lined leggings, leather boots and other cold-weather comforts. She even kept a list of things she planned to buy once her yearlong embargo lifted.

But as time went on, the urge to shop began to fall away. In the three months since her challenge’s end, she has treated herself to two $3 dresses from her local Goodwill. She hasn’t even looked at her list, and doesn’t intend to.

“I didn’t actually need those things,” Hedlund said. “I just thought I did.” 

More stories like this:

• We Buy A Staggering Amount Of Clothing, And Most Of It Ends Up In Landfills.
• The ‘Chilling’ Moment This Father Realized Where His Kids’ Clothes Come From
• Before Buying More Clothes At H&M, Read This
• Dressing Like A Cartoon Character Made Me Happier, Calmer And A Better Consumer
• This Company Is Basically A Hospital For Sad, Damaged Clothes
• Why This Company Wants You To Fall In Love With People’s Old Jeans
• These African Countries Don’t Want Your Used Clothing Anymore

Using Insurance to Pay for Mental Healthcare: A Therapist's Perspective

Authored by Molly Merson for Psyched in San Francisco. Molly is a relational, psychodynamic psychotherapist in private practice in Berkeley, CA. Molly works with adults and adolescents of all genders in approaching uncomfortable feelings, working through stuck patterns and creating room for joy and desire.

While I'm pleased to read NPR's ongoing investigation into mental health access, therapists like myself face a lot more when considering taking insurance, including mental health stigma, private practice costs, assumptions about "helpers," and client/patient privacy and confidentiality.

Mental health stigma is alive and well, and plays a part in the insurance conversation. When patients use insurance, they reveal the fact that they are in therapy, as well as a mandatory diagnostic code, to a third party. The problem is, therapy doesn't lend itself well to third party scrutiny. Therapy is often like a dream, where strange thoughts and uncanny relationships between images and sensation arise. It's a language that doesn't really hold itself up to conscious, logical assessment. Maybe you don't actually want to kill your father and have sex with your mother (thanks, Oedipus), but your unconscious doesn't know that. Therapy works because it helps you deeply get to know yourself and process your feelings in a safe environment. Worrying about your insurance company requesting your records and declaring your therapy "not medically necessary" could pose a challenge to that safety.

In the fine print of your insurance policy, you might discover that your insurance company has the right to audit your diagnosis, treatment plan, and progress notes to prevent fraud and determine whether the treatment is medically necessary. But having a non-clinician look into the deepest secrets of my patients feels like an unethical breach of patient confidentiality, and makes me uneasy. I'm not sure I trust the auditor more than I trust myself and my clinical consultants to understand and care for my patients' needs.

Additionally, since many people come to therapy to better their lives and relationships, it can be difficult to find a medical reason for the treatment. Yes, intervening when someone is suicidal is medically necessary, but what about everything leading up to and following the crisis? Some therapists are willing to juggle the risk to confidentiality with the need to make mental health care financially accessible.

But there are two people in a therapeutic relationship (three, if you count managed care, or if you're a relational psychoanalyst). Therapy must also be financially viable to the therapist. The truth is, someone has to pay us. Our profession is not a hobby. Up to six years of graduate school and 3,000 hours of mostly unpaid training is expensive. In private practice, therapists pay for office space, electricity, and furniture. We provide our own health insurance, disability, and retirement plans. Vacation and sick days don't exist. There's transportation, record keeping software, an accountant, business license, continuing education, personal therapy, and consultants to help with complex cases. And taxes, including the special "self-employment tax" that small business owners have to pay on top of regular taxes (usually about 15%).

It adds up.

If I see on average 14 clients per week (many therapists, myself included, stay under 20 clients to provide competent care), I charge $100 for each hour (just for round numbers' sake, not my actual fee), and all those hours are paid, I'll make $70,000 a year with two weeks vacation. Factoring in overhead, estimated at about $30,000 by Zynnyme, then self-employment tax and income tax, that comes to about $23,000 in take-home pay. That's 50% of median income for the SF Bay Area and qualifies me for reduced income housing (rent or mortgage being anywhere from $2,000-$6,000 per month in the Bay Area).

Finances are a huge consideration for therapists wanting to take insurance. I wish I could share the contracted rate I was offered the last time I inquired, but I can't. I'm not allowed to talk about what insurance companies actually pay, and therapists cannot unionize to advocate for better rates from insurance companies. That would violate the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act. In fact, therapists are not even allowed to talk to each other about their fees. That could be interpreted as conspiring to monopolize. However, I can share that some rates I've been offered are less than half my fee, and not nearly enough to live on. In addition, insurance companies don't pay for missed sessions, so the hypothetical income calculations above could end up being even lower.

I know a few therapists who take insurance. They have to overbook their practices in order to meet their bottom line. They report feeling burnt out, tired, overextended, still don't have enough for retirement or emergency savings, and struggle to take vacations.

The helping professions, indeed.

But here's the thing: Many of us want to take insurance. We went into this profession to help everyone who needs it, not just those with financial means. I am hopeful for change with Hillary Clinton's new bill attempting to expand Medicare and Medicaid. But since MFTs are barred from accepting Medicare, this proposed bill may still be paying lip service to a deeper problem.

I think about the patients I see who can't afford much (if anything) out of pocket, who are wrapped up in so much childhood trauma that they could benefit from multiple sessions per week. One-third of my practice is sliding scale or pro-bono, and the rate I charge factors for that. But I wish I could work with anyone whose need fits my skills, regardless of their financial means. I wish I could accept insurance without feeling like I was compromising the integrity of my practice, or feeling resentful about rates so low that I couldn't pay back my debts or take care of myself and my family.

These are heavy things to consider as a private practitioner. I constantly support my patients in developing healthy boundaries and increasing abundance and self-esteem. What kind of therapist would I be if I could not do the same for myself? Unfortunately, for many of us, accepting insurance would make our own survival impossible. Until something changes, we are caught in a conundrum: able to help some, but not all, who need our care.

America's Richest (And Poorest) States

The U.S. Census Bureau released on Wednesday new data from its 2015 nationwide population survey. According to the annual survey, the national median household income rose to $55,775 in 2015. No state reported income declines. While 39 states reported significant increases in household income, income levels in 11 states remained the same.

24/7 Wall St. ranked all 50 states according to the newly released median household income figures. Annual income levels range from $75,847 in Maryland to $40,593 in Mississippi.

High-income states typically share certain social and economic characteristics. For example, residents of states with the highest incomes also tend to have high education levels. In 17 of the states reporting higher than average household incomes, college attainment rates also exceed the national attainment rate of 30.1%.

Click here to see America's richest (and poorest) states. 

While it certainly does not make up the difference between a poverty wage and a six-figure salary, residents of low-income states enjoy cheaper goods and services than residents of high-income states. For example, goods and services cost 10.3% more in Maryland than they do across the nation. In Mississippi, meanwhile, goods and services cost 13.4% less than the national average.

Similarly, home values closely mirror household incomes. In 18 of the states with high household incomes median home values exceed the national median home value of $194,500. The opposite is the case in the nation’s poorest states.

To identify the richest and poorest states with the highest and lowest median household income, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed state data on income from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 American Community Survey (ACS). Median household income for all years is adjusted for inflation. Data on health insurance coverage, employment by industry, food stamp recipiency, poverty, and income inequality also came from the 2015 ACS. Income inequality is measured by the Gini coefficient, which is scaled from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing total inequality. We also reviewed annual average unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for 2014 and 2015.

These are America’s richest and poorest states.

The Poorest States:

• 5. Kentucky
• Median household income: $45,215
• Population: 4,425,092 (25th lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 5.4% (20th highest)
• Poverty rate: 18.5% (5th highest)

Like most states, Kentucky’s median household income of $45,215 a year has increased since 2014, when the median income, adjusted for inflation, was $43,014 a year. Residents are still quite poor, however. Kentucky’s poverty rate of 18.5% is the fifth highest poverty rate of all states. While no guarantee, a college degree substantially improves the odds of finding a job with a good wage. In Kentucky, just 23.3% of adults have a bachelor's degree, considerably lower than the national college attainment rate of 30.6%.

• 4. Alabama
• Median household income: $44,765
• Population: 4,858,979 (24th highest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 6.1% (8th highest)
• Poverty rate: 18.5% (5th highest)

Alabama is one of the poorest states in the nation with a median household income of $44,765 a year. However, this figure is notably higher than in 2014, when the median income, adjusted for inflation, was $42,895.

Like in many of the poorest states, Alabama’s poverty rate of 18.5% is among the highest of all states. Other problems the state faces are a high jobless rate and a high proportion of households relying on food stamps. Last year, 6.1% of workers were unemployed, the eighth highest jobless rate of any state. With low incomes, home values are also low in Alabama. The median home is worth $134,100, or more than $60,000 below the national benchmark of $194,500.

• 3. West Virginia
• Median household income: $42,019
• Population: 1,844,128 (13th lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 6.7% (the highest)
• Poverty rate: 17.9% (7th highest)

The typical West Virginia household earns $42,019, compared to the national median income of $55,775. Individuals struggling to find work who live on little to no income contribute to low household incomes in West Virginia. Of workers in the state, 6.7% were unemployed in 2015, the highest annual unemployment rate of any state.

West Virginia’s population is one of the largest recipients of government assistance programs such as SNAP, which each year help millions of people cope with poverty. Of households in the state, 16.0% use food stamps, the ninth highest share.

• 2. Arkansas
• Median household income: $41,995
• Population: 2,978,204 (18th lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 5.2% (24th highest)
• Poverty rate: 19.1% (4th highest)

Goods and services in Arkansas cost less on average than almost anywhere else in the country. While the relative affordability certainly helps low income households, state residents are still quite poor. The typical household earns $41,995 a year, second lowest after Mississippi. Also, 19.1% of people live in poverty, the fourth highest poverty rate of any state. Homes tend to have relatively low values to match the low incomes. At just $120,700, the typical home in Arkansas is valued at more than $70,000 below the national benchmark of $194,500.

• 1. Mississippi
• Median household income: $40,593
• Population: 2,992,333 (19th lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 6.5% (4th highest)
• Poverty rate: 22.0% (the highest)

With 2015 median household income unchanged from 2014, Mississippi is once again the poorest state in the country.The typical Mississippi household earned $40,593 last year, well below the national median income of $55,775. Mississippi also has the highest poverty rate in the country, with 22.0% of residents living below the poverty line. A relatively large share of state households are very poor. Some 11.5% earn $10,000 or less annually, the highest extreme poverty rate of any state. Similarly, there are relatively few affluent households in the state. Only 2.1% of Mississippi households earn $200,000 or more a year, the lowest such share.

The Richest States:

• 5. Connecticut
• Median household income: $71,346
• Population: 3,590,886 (22nd lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 5.6% (18th highest)
• Poverty rate: 10.5% (6th lowest)

A typical Connecticut household earns $71,346 in a year, considerably higher than the national median income of $55,775. With such high incomes, residents are better able to afford more expensive homes. Connecticut’s median home value of $270,900 is among the highest nationwide. A portion of every state's population is extremely wealthy, and the share of such high earners is especially large in Connecticut. More than one in 10 households earn $200,000 or more a year. Connecticut's relatively high education attainment rate partially accounts for the high incomes in the area. More than 38.3% of adults have at least a bachelor's degree compared to 30.6% nationally.

• 4. New Jersey
• Median household income: $72,222
• Population: 8,958,013 (11th highest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 5.6% (18th highest)
• Poverty rate: 10.8% (8th lowest)

While New Jersey households report some of the highest incomes in the nation, living in the state is not cheap. Goods and services cost an average of 14.5% more in New Jersey than across the country. Housing is also very expensive in the state. The median home value of $322,600 in New Jersey is considerably higher than the national median home value of $194,500.

Few states have a higher proportion of high-income households than New Jersey, where 10.9% earn $200,000 or more a year. While certainly not a guarantee for such high wages, high college attainment among adults in New Jersey partially explains the high median income. More than 37.6% of adults have at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 30.6% nationally.

• 3. Alaska
• Median household income: $73,355
• Population: 738,432 (3rd lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 6.5% (4th highest)
• Poverty rate: 10.3% (5th lowest)

A typical Alaska household earns $73,355 annually, nearly $18,000 more than the typical American household. While the price of oil has fallen considerably in recent years, Alaska still relies heavily on its traditionally high-paying oil industry. Of workers in the state, 5.6% work in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining sector -- which includes the oil industry -- the sixth highest such share of any state. State workers who are employed in the industry likely still earn relatively high wages.

Like the nation, the percentage of people without health insurance in Alaska dropped substantially in 2015. However, 14.9% of residents still do not have health insurance, the second highest rate in the nation.

• 2. Hawaii
• Median household income: $73,486
• Population: 1,431,603 (11th lowest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 3.6% (6th lowest)
• Poverty rate: 10.6% (7th lowest)

With its picturesque island scenery, Hawaii attracts some of the world’s wealthiest individuals. The state is also home to some of the more valuable real estate. Hawaii’s median household income trails only Maryland as the highest in the country, and the median home value of $566,900 is the highest of any state and several times greater than the national median home value of $194,500. Even the richest states do not necessarily have especially healthy job markets, but Hawaii’s unemployment rate of 3.6% in 2015 was one of the lowest in the country.

• 1. Maryland
• Median household income: $75,847
• Population: 6,006,401 (19th highest)
• 2015 Unemployment rate: 5.2% (24th highest)
• Poverty rate: 9.7% (2nd lowest)

Maryland leads the nation with a median annual household income of $75,847. The state’s poverty rate of less than 10% is also nearly the lowest of any state. The prosperity can be partially explained by high levels of education among state residents. More than 38% of adults have at least a college degree, many of whom are likely among the state’s high-income residents. The state also contains Washington D.C., home to some of the nation’s highest-paying government occupations. More than 10% of Maryland workers are employed in public administration, which represents only one portion of such government jobs.

Didn't see your state? Click here to see the full list.

Click here to see America's most segregated cities.

Click here to see the healthiest city in every state.

Click here to see America's most violent (and peaceful) states.

What You Can (Still) Learn From Donald Trump

I know. Risky topic. Read on.

In recent weeks, Donald Trump has become a political “powder keg” characterized by various gaffes and bumpy poll numbers. His early cycle rise to the 2016 Republican nomination however was truly remarkable.

So…what got him there?

In a word: communication. Correction…two words: communication style.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/27151701353

Donald Trump speaking with supporters

That’s right… love him or hate him Trump is (or was, depending on your view) an effective communicator. His success lies in his mastery of four components of communication that can make anyone effective in conveying ideas and persuading listeners. Even if your personal mission is not to lead the free world—these are techniques that YOU can use to positively impact your communications with clients, colleagues, board members and juries:

1. Pith – “The Donald” has mastered the art of expressing himself concisely and forcefully. He says what he wants and does so using word economy minus painstaking attention to grammar or syntax. This allows him to message to a wider audience by avoiding meandering prose or “big words.” He is a sophisticated man, but he speaks the language of the masses. What he says, sticks. Take note.

2. Suggestion – Recognize that suggesting something to a listener can be extremely powerful if done forcefully and succinctly. The right suggestion can alter a listener’s mindset. Consider Trump’s past success derailing Jeb Bush’s candidacy. He did it by repeatedly suggesting that Mr. Bush was a “low-energy” candidate (i.e. the exact opposite profile of a person you want in the White House). It became a quiet mantra that resonated and ultimately, I believe, got into Jeb’s head. Result: one less competitor for the nomination. Suggestion is power.

3. Synchronicity – Mr. Trump’s verbal message is very well coordinated with what his body is also saying at the moment. In other words, Trump is pithy and powerfully suggestive when speaking and uses body language that fully supports and reinforces the message coming out of his mouth. There is no disconnection between the two. Each of his several “stock” body movements (e.g. the finger wagging “no, no you’re totally wrong” motion ― or the arms spread wide “get on board, folks” move) fits perfectly with what he is saying at the time. It takes years to reach this level of communication expertise, but the results are well worth the effort. So, merge your words and body movement. By the way, Steve Jobs was an absolute master of this as well. Practicing in front of a mirror helps. I’d bet my last dollar Donald does it ― daily.

4. Authenticity – This is the bow on the packaging. Donald Trump is comfortable being Donald Trump. The man knows who he is and this conviction comes through in his speech. Whether he is engaging an audience of die-hard supporters or speaking to a skeptical reporter the subtext is the same: “I know who I am and I am comfortable with it.” People appreciate and respect that—even if they disagree with what you are saying. Proof: more than one of Mr. Trump’s opponents has fared poorly by attempting to be something they are not. Be yourself. People always know.

Fortunately, Donald Trump doesn’t have a monopoly on any of the traits or techniques listed above. He just merges them superbly and uses them effectively. You can too.

About the author:

Ernesto Sigmon is an attorney in Houston, TX. He has an LLM in International Law from George Washington University Law School, and an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

13 Signs Your Mall Is Dying

Does your town have a mall? Do you have a sneaking suspicion that it’s on a downhill slide? We have a handy little list here to help you know for sure:

13. It’s the weekend. The mall is open. And this is the parking lot.

Elford Alley

12. The entrance appears foreboding, a yawning abyss awaiting you and anyone else who dare visit the Sears within.

Elford Alley

11. There’s a guy selling swords and laser pointers in the same store.

Elford Alley

Other stores will come and go. But swords and laser pointers are forever. Like the diamonds in the jewelry stores that are no longer here.

10. You see signs of the world that once was. Pac… Sun?

Elford Alley

9. You can navigate a third of the mall without seeing an open store.

Elford Alley

Also: If you hear children’s laughter emanating from the dark corners of the mall ― which you will.

8. You see an abandoned store that was converted to a church… that has also been abandoned.

Elford Alley

The power of Christ compelled them... to new digs! Boom! Take that, struggling businesses.

7. Some stores escape. Others are not so lucky...

Elford Alley

6. They still have a place for kids… to disappear without a trace.

Elford Alley

5. Hey, where did you go to college? By the Dillard’s? Me too!

Elford Alley

4. All that remains of the food court are the bygone signs of the long extinct maintenance crew.

Elford Alley

3. The fabulous ‘90s carpeting mysteriously vanishes.

Elford Alley

2. Hey, look guys, a teen hotspot! For teens!

Elford Alley

Hey, look guys! The teen hot spot has... German military paraphernalia…?

Elford Alley

1. It looks like someone is living in one of the stores…

Elford Alley

Oh shit...

Elford Alley

I think I found him. But seriously, if you disturb his final resting place, you’ll suffer the same curse that brought down the Sbarro.

Elford Alley

How did your mall do?!

One to two things apply: Not looking good.

Three to four things apply: Someone is going to try and stab you in the parking lot.

Five or more things apply: Seriously, was that a Halloween costume or did I photograph a dead guy?

What a Boomer (or Gen X) and Millennial learned from each other

My birth year straddles the Baby Boomer and the Gen X boundary so depending on what chart I look at I could be either. I kind of like that actually -- because I think we over generalize the traits about generational groups and end up with even more bias.

Earlier this year, I moderated a panel on "millennial myths" at the HR Policy Association conference, a gathering of CHROs from around the country. We brought together four millennials from different companies to talk about myths and truths about their generation. It was eye opening.

The most important lessons I learned? Take the time to learn more about each other as individuals instead of putting people in a box. And, that a "what can I learn/what can I teach" mindset is extremely productive.

One of our panelists was Daniella Patrick. Daniella is a product manager at Accenture's Talent Innovation Lab - a creative team within HR that is charged with researching, ideating and developing innovative solutions that improve employees' experiences here at Accenture. She is a valued colleague of mine and I check­-in with her often to bounce ideas around.

In the spirit of our "what can I learn/what can I teach" philosophy, I thought it would be fun and insightful for us to co-author a blog together--blurring the generational lines to share what we've learned from each other.

Thank you, Daniella, for adding your voice to mine ... over to you!

Daniella: Things I've Learned from Ellyn

Be willing to teach and learn. One of my earliest "Accenture Adventure" experiences was when Ellyn and I coached a client together on ways to attract and inspire top talent. Ellyn modelled what it means to teach and to learn. First, she actively involved me in the conversation and asked for my opinion. And, afterward we discussed how the meeting went and she offered invaluable insights that I carry with me today on the importance of establishing collaborative and trusting professional relationships.

Meaningful Connections. I've seen Ellyn work collaboratively with others inside Accenture as well as with other CHROs to ideate and bring solutions and experiences to life. Take Hackfest 2016 for example, where Ellyn is collaborating with LinkedIn's CHRO, Pat Wadors. This upcoming hackathon gathers students from all over India to solve complex human challenges in the workplace. It's clear from seeing them work together that Ellyn and Pat are friends first and coworkers second. Putting people first and connecting with them in a genuine way is what Ellyn is all about.

Love what you do! I don't think anyone loves their company and their work more than Ellyn. It's infectious. While her demanding schedule and frequent travel are certainly challenging, her high energy and passionate way of working show that she simply thrives here at Accenture.

Lead from Within. Ellyn takes on great challenges and brings bold ideas to life, which inspires others to take on greater challenges and be their best. In her few years as the Chief Leadership and HR Officer at Accenture, Ellyn launched Performance Achievement and in a very bold move shared Accenture's diversity stats with the world to push us all to do better.

Thank you, Ellyn, for being the inspiring leader, mentor and colleague that you are, and for letting me co-author this blog with you!

Ellyn: Things I've Learned from Daniella

The bottom line is that Daniella helps me look at old problems in a new way. Here are some of things I've learned from her:

Importance of being tech savvy - even when you aren't solving technology challenges. Daniella brings a technology lens to every problem, which is essential in the digital age. It's very important to bring both the human and digital perspective when looking at solving complex challenges. And, with her and others' help, I'm also very proud that I've become very tech savvy and active on social media.

Straight talk. One of the things I value most about Daniella is that if asked for her opinion she shares it - unvarnished. Hierarchy does not get in the way. We view each other as equals. We listen to each other, share ideas and ultimately co-create together.

Give people a voice. In this spirit of collaboration, it's important to give people an opportunity to step up -- early and often. Nine times out of ten they will grab ahold of that challenge and knock it out of the park. Daniella is proof of that. Hierarchy doesn't have a place in the workplace of the future. Collaboration across levels and tapping people for stretch assignments fuels innovation and helps people flourish both professionally and personally.

Diversity brings greater creativity. We have an unwavering belief at Accenture that our diversity makes us smarter and more innovative. The relationship that I've forged with Daniella is a prime example of that. The different perspectives we bring because of our age, life experience and ethnicity all contribute to new ways of viewing the world. Talking things through with Daniella opens my eyes to things that I wouldn't have otherwise seen. And that is a really beautiful thing.

It all starts with a meaningful conversation. Think about how you can broaden your circle to include older and younger colleagues and simply reach out. It comes down to connecting with each other as individuals to break through the myths and learn from each other.

Daniella mentioned Hackfest 2016, planned for September 24-25 in Bangalore, where students will innovate solutions that elevate human performance at work. And, breaking down generational barriers at work is an important issue because for the first time in history, we have five generations together in the workplace. This presents a tremendous opportunity to innovate - by leveraging the unique strengths we each bring to the work environment. I'll share the great ideas that the hackers come up with in a future post.

How do you break down generational barriers at work? Share your comments below and let's start a meaningful conversation now.