Black-owned businesses in Harlem profit from boycott: ‘Community has our back'
HARLEM, Manhattan (PIX11) – Did you spend any money shopping or dining out?
An activist group wanted all Americans to refrain from spending any money for 24 hours as an act of resistance against what they described as the bad influence of billionaires, big corporations, and both major political parties.
More Local News
However, a group in Harlem, TBO Harlem, which stands for The Best of Harlem, was trying to turn this situation into something positive for local, Black-owned businesses.
'This is really about exercising our power as a people,' Marija Abney, the founder of The Soapbox Presents, told PIX11 News.
NiLu is a Black-owned boutique that offers luxury rooted in Harlem's history. Owner Katrina Parris Pinn saw an uptick in business this Friday.
'In these times, if you have to spend money, spend it intentionally,' Katrina Parris Pinn, co-owner of NiLu, told PIX11 News. 'You should be spending where people appreciate you,' she added.
Across Lenox Avenue, L.A. Sweets NY and Sugar Hill Creamery also saw more people walk through their doors.
'We don't exist if people don't come in,' Petrushka Bazin Larsen, co-owner of Sugar Hill Creamery, told PIX11 News. 'It is very reassuring to know the community has our back,' she added.
'It sends a message that it's supposed to be fair and equality for everyone,' Loretta Alston, owner of L.A. Sweets NY, told PIX11 News.
There had already been a national month-long boycott of Target, starting on February 1 to coincide with Black History Month.
It was launched by civil rights activists in Minneapolis, who were upset by the rollback of the DEI program.
But not all shoppers were aware.
'Now I feel I have to go back and return everything,' Levan Bourne, a Target shopper, told PIX11 News. 'I don't agree either DEI being rolled back,' he added.
Grandma's Place is a Black-owned toy and bookstore promoting children's literacy for 25 years. It welcomes as many customers as possible.
'If you have to boycott, do what you have to do,' JahTurner, owner's godson, told PIX11 News.
'Us getting more support is always going to help,' he added.
There are no firm numbers yet about the boycott's effect, but Harlem entrepreneurs hope their community's support continues.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Says He's Nearing a Possible Deal With Harvard
President Trump said his administration was 'working closely' with Harvard University and could announce a deal within the next week. The White House and Harvard have been locked in battle since late March. Trump has pulled billions in federal funds over antisemitism and DEI concerns, tried to block Harvard's ability to enroll international students and threatened its tax-exempt status. Harvard has sued the administration, saying the government has violated its First Amendment rights.
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s
Many Americans preparing for retirement through savings and investments often encounter significant financial hurdles as they work toward a secure and enjoyable future. They eventually come to realize that while Social Security provides a foundational stream of income, it was never designed to fully support every cost of living throughout the entirety of retirement. According to renowned motivational speaker and author Tony Robbins, although 401(k) plans offer valuable opportunities, workers frequently encounter scenarios that could jeopardize their long-term financial well-being. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Regularly contributing to retirement accounts that offer tax advantages - such as 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) - is a smart financial strategy. Taking full advantage of these contributions, particularly with regard to 401(k) plans when an employer match is available, can greatly enhance retirement savings over the long term. Robbins has emphasized the importance of financial awareness when it comes to retirement planning. One of his key messages is a warning to American workers regarding misconceptions about Social Security and 401(k) plans. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message to Americans on Social Security A crucial part of effective retirement planning certainly involves understanding how Social Security benefits are determined and carefully choosing when to begin claiming them. By postponing benefits beyond one's full retirement age, retirees can receive higher monthly payouts from the program. Considering this background, Robbins highlights a critical caution about how 401(k) plans are used - urging workers to avoid common pitfalls that could affect their financial futures. Tony Robbins points out that for three decades, companies managing 401(k) plans were not required to reveal how much they were charging in fees. Now that disclosure is mandatory, he believes many providers hide those costs in lengthy, complex documents - making it hard for individuals to truly grasp what they're paying and keeping them largely uninformed. "What the majority of Americans don't realize is that an increase in 1% in fees will cost you 10 years in retirement income," Robbins wrote. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Robbins uses a straightforward hypothetical scenario to underscore the long-term impact of investment fees on retirement savings. In his example, three employees - let's call them Employee 1, Employee 2, and Employee 3 - each invest $100,000 at age 35 into separate mutual funds. All three investments generate the same steady annual return of 8%, and none of them withdraw any funds for 30 years. However, each employee is subject to a different annual fee: 1%, 2%, and 3%, respectively. By the time they reach age 65, Robbins clarifies, the variation in fees has created a striking difference in their account balances. Despite identical contributions and returns, Employee 1, who paid the lowest fee, has nearly double the retirement savings of Employee 3, who paid the highest. Related: Dave Ramsey sends strong message to Americans on Medicare Robbins emphasizes that the cost of high investment fees doesn't end at retirement. Using the scenario of each employee needing $60,000 annually to fund their retirement, he notes that the long-term consequences become even clearer. The employee facing the highest fees - Employee 3 - depletes their savings before reaching 75, while Employee 1, who paid the lowest fees, sees their nest egg last until age 95. According to Robbins, this stark contrast demonstrates how even small differences in fees can compound into significant financial disparities. It's a powerful reminder, he says, that being mindful of investment costs isn't just a matter of saving money - it's a crucial step in safeguarding long-term financial security. "I learned about these abuses while writing 'Money: Master the Game,' and it made me so angry that people were getting robbed blind," Robbins wrote. "So I brought in America's Best 401(k)." America's Best 401(k) is a retirement plan provider that says it aims to reduce the high fees commonly associated with traditional 401(k) plans. Robbins asked the firm to asses the 401(k) plan used by his own research company and ended up using their proposed solution. "They showed me that we were paying 276% more than we needed to for the same exact stocks," Robbins wrote. "It saved my employees $5 million in their retirement, and it cost nothing." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
