Jewelry company that started as side hustle now has pop-up shop in Boston
A woman who got her start selling charm necklaces out of her apartment is now running a full-blown jewelry brand with a pop-up shop in one of Boston's hottest summer spots.
At the Caviar Bar in Boston's Seaport, there isn't drinks. Instead, customers leave with a custom charm necklace or other piece of jewelry.
Turned side hustle into career
WBZ-TV first met Kelly Bozigian back in 2024, when she was working full-time while shipping out thousands of orders from her living room for her jewelry brand, Coastal Caviar. She's since left the corporate world behind to chase her passion full-time.
"I made the leap and I'm so glad we did because now we're at the Current in Seaport and we have our first storefront!" said Bozigian.
Her new coastal-themed pop-up shop is already making waves and is full of the shiny charms and beachy vibes her clients have come to love. And it's not just necklaces - customers can make custom bag charms too.
Massive reach on social media
Bozigian bases her success on the massive reach she's had on social media, with many of her customers finding her through TikTok.
"TikTok has been massive for us," said Bozigian. "That's how we got our start. Week two, our business took off overnight and we had close to 500 orders to fulfill."
Bozigian is already dreaming up new ideas too.
"We're thinking about accessories and how we can tie in that thread of personalization to stay true to the brand but also expand into other areas," said Bozigian.
Caviar Bar is open through the end of the summer at the Current in the Seaport. Bozigian said she's potentially looking into permanent locations and plans to keep expanding her brand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump threatens Senate Republicans who defy him as Elon Musk attacks ‘utterly insane' megabill
President Donald Trump threatened Senate Republicans who defy him and his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as the legislation cleared a key test vote in a dramatic night in the upper chamber of Congress. After negotiations dragged on for hours Saturday evening, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to open a debate on the legislation, moving one step closer to landing the bill on Trump's desk by his self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. Trump targeted Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who voted against opening the debate after he argued the package would 'result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding' for his state. The president said 'numerous people have come forward wanting to run' in a primary election against Tillis, Trump wrote on Truth Social after returning to the White House to watch senators scramble for votes. 'I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina,' Trump said. Before votes were underway, Trump's 'first buddy' Elon Musk momentarily re-entered politics when he attacked the bill as 'utterly insane and destructive' in a post on X. The world's wealthiest man said the bill will 'destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country' and give 'handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' The motion to proceed with the legislation — which includes sweeping spending cuts to pay for Trump's tax cuts he signed into law in 2017, as well as increased spending for the military, oil exploration, and immigration enforcement — came down to the wire, as Vice President JD Vance showed up at the last moment in the event of a tie break. Senate Republicans scrambled for sufficient support to pass the motion to proceed with votes on the mammoth bill. Final text for the sprawling 940-page bill was released Friday evening. Budget analysts predict the bill — if approved — could explode the national debt by more than $4 trillion. The bill's tax cuts would amount to $4.5 trillion in lost revenue, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. If the bill does pass the Senate, it will return to the House of Representatives, which passed it last month. But plenty of House Republicans have objected to the Senate's changes, teeing up yet another legislative battle over Trump's massive bill. Trump lobbied senators on Saturday while playing golf with Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats would object to the bill moving forward without the text being read on the Senate floor. 'We will be here all night if that's what it takes to read it,' he said Saturday. Reading the nearly 1,000-page bill on the floor is estimated to take 15 hours. Republicans, who have 53 seats in the Senate, plan to pass the bill using the process of budget reconciliation. That would allow them to sidestep a filibuster from Democrats as long as the legislation relates to the budget. For the past week, the Senate parliamentarian's office has issued advisories about which parts do not comply with the rules of reconciliation. The biggest sticking point was major changes to Medicaid, with Republicans proposing the steepest cuts to the federal healthcare program in history. The legislation would add work requirements for certain Medicaid recipients and limit how much money states can tax health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes to raise money for Medicaid. But the American Hospital Association said this would devastate rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid dollars. The parliamentarian removed the provider tax provision, but the new version of the bill simply delays when the cap goes into effect. Hospitals in House Speaker Mike Johnson's home state of Louisiana were compelled to write to him Saturday to warn that the Medicaid cuts 'would be historic in their devastation.' Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, also warned that the bill would cut funding for Medicaid by $930 billion, citing an upcoming Congressional Budget Office analysis. Wyden accused Republican senators of pushing a 'rushed and reckless' process. 'Just as before, these cruel cuts to Americans' health care will strike a mortal blow to rural health care, and threaten the health and safety of kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working families across the country,' he wrote. Tillis, who hails from a state with a large number of rural hospitals and that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in 2023, said he was a 'no' on the motion to proceed because of Medicaid. 'It will cause a lot of people to have to be moved off of Medicaid,' he told The Independent Friday evening. 'It's just inescapable. The price tag's too high.' Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2028, outlined his opposition to the bill again on Saturday, saying in a statement that the bill would 'result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding' for his state, including hospitals and rural communities. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' he added. The bill would see Trump gain some $350 billion to pursue his anti-immigration agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.– Mexico border wall and another $45 billion to build capacity to detain another 100,000 people in immigration detention centers. In order to meet his goal of deporting some 1 million people per year, the bill would also allocate money to hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of border patrol agents. The legislation, which contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts, would extend the 2017 cuts that Trump signed into law during his first administration, which are set to expire at the end of the year. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. The bill also would include some measures Trump campaigned on, including up to $25,000 in deductions on tipped wages and $12,500 for overtime pay through 2028. Americans who receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, would face new 'hardship' under the current legislation as billions would be slashed from the scheme, advocacy groups warn. The bill increases the age at which 'able-bodied' adults without dependent children must work to receive food assistance from 54 to 64 years old, the year before many seniors become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. It also would mandate that parents with children 14 and older must work at least 20 hours per week to receive SNAP benefits. 'Already, states like Texas have opted out of programs like Summer EBT and denying thousands of children critical food benefits during the summer because of concerns over state obligations to cover SNAP benefit costs,' the Food Research and Action Center warned. 'It's unimaginable the number of children who would miss out on the nutrition they need if this harmful bill is passed.' Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, previously told The Independent that changes to SNAP in the House version of the bill 'may be one of the most egregious items in the entire markup.'
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
People Who Grew Up Wealthy Are Sharing The Moment When They Realized They Were Privileged, And It's Eye-Opening
The lifestyle you grow up in is often the one you become accustomed to, and for those who grew up wealthy, sometimes it's the one you assume everyone has as well. Recently, BuzzFeed Community members who grew up rich shared the "epiphany" moments when they realized they were privileged, and it's incredibly insightful: 1."I was leaving work (a job I did because I was bored), and a coworker asked why I was changing clothes. I said, 'Oh, we're buying another home and signing paperwork.' He looked at me and said that he and his mom have never lived in a house. I didn't tell him that we owned five houses at the time. I didn't learn my lesson, though. Years later, at a new job, I rented an apartment nearby so that I didn't have to commute every day. When speaking to a coworker, I said I was shocked that three beds could fit in 1,000 square feet. He looked at me and said that his family lived in an 850-square-foot home. Then, he said very kindly, 'You were raised a little differently than most people, weren't you?' Humbled. I was completely humbled." —shaysmith3 2."I grew up solidly upper-middle class. I remember going to my friend's home, and she had to sleep in the same room as her mom. I found that so weird." —kmpbnjelly 3."When the guy I was interested in said he finally owned his car. I knew he'd had the car for 8–10 years. I didn't realize that not everyone went into the dealership and paid for a new car in full." —Anonymous 4."When I was a kid, I thought we were poor because our maid only came over three times a week, and I had friends who had live-in staff." —Joe, 68, New York 5."I can't pinpoint when in my adult life I realized I was privileged growing up, but I remember as a child, I'd innocently asked my grandparents, 'Which family is that?' whenever I saw airplanes with names on them. I thought all families had private jets." —Anonymous 6."I had a private garage with all the high-end tools to fix my hot rods when I was 14." —Anonymous 7."I was going to have a sleepover at my friend's house, but I didn't have any clothes or things, so her mom drove us to my home to go pick some things up. My friend came in with me and loudly exclaimed, 'Wow! Your house is so big! That TV is so big! You guys are rich!' I'd never once considered that we were upper-middle class before that moment. I'd always just thought we were in the solid middle. It really opened my eyes to how privileged we were growing up. I still don't feel like our house was wildly fancy or anything big, but it was definitely nicer and newer than many of my friends' houses at the time." —Anonymous 8."When I was in college, we were visiting Florida as part of our swim team winter training. A friend of mine invited me over to visit an aunt who lived nearby. We went out for a boat ride, and I mentioned in passing, 'Oh, this reminds me of Puerto Rico, when my family went there on vacation.' They gave me a surprised look and made a comment that I must be wealthy to have been able to go to Puerto Rico as a kid (this would've been in the '80s). Up until that point, it never occurred to me that people didn't just go on vacation to warm places during the winter. My friend had never even seen a real palm tree in her life." —Anonymous 9."My public elementary and middle schools in the San Francisco Bay Area offered a winter break that was officially called 'Ski Week.' During that week, all of our families would take us skiing or on other vacations during the week of President's Day. Many of us had second homes in Lake Tahoe or other resort towns. The lore was that the school district started offering it because so many parents were taking their kids out during that time. It was kind of an 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' situation. It wasn't until I got to college that I learned that nobody else got Ski Week growing up. Now, in my 40s, I mention Ski Week sometimes, and nobody who didn't grow up in Marin County knows what I'm talking about!" —jennerator 10."My dad would take his plane and fly my mom and some friends to El Paso from our West Texas town to go out to eat." —Anonymous 11."I always knew that our family had enough money, and I am so grateful for the home that I've grown up in. The first time I realized our family was well-off was when we bought a nice house during the pandemic. It really sank in that I was very privileged when I was talking to a friend, and she told me that her family would be rich when her brother joined the army." —Anonymous, Oklahoma 12."We live in a nice 2,500 square-foot home that we built 27 years ago. I still remember the first Halloween we lived there. One trick-or-treater asked how many people lived here. I told him it was my husband, our daughter, and me. He said, 'Wow, you must be rich.' Now, mind you, I grew up lower-middle class. We didn't take big, fancy vacations or anything. However, it struck me when this kid said that." —blissbednar 13."I thought it was normal that my family went on vacation four times a year, but many of my friends haven't been on a vacation in years. I'm married now, and my parents take my husband and me on trips with the whole family still. My grandparents did that for them, and they want to pass down the tradition." —heyitsmadsss 14."I grew up in an upper-middle-class family, but I didn't realize we were doing better financially than many people. My brother and I went to private schools, and my mother made it very clear that we weren't 'in the league' of other students, whose families were really wealthy. Still, we had a vacation house in a resort town, went to premier summer camps, took private horseback riding lessons, etc. When I was 10, my parents wanted to get out of the city, so we moved to a farm about an hour out of town. It so happened that this was a couple of miles from the summer camp we'd always attended. I remember telling my new friends about how cool it was that camp was so close now. They looked at me incredulously and said that nobody local could afford to go to camp, but that many parents and siblings worked there. That was a big wake-up call for me. I realized that many people didn't have the privilege I did as a kid." —Anonymous 15."A friend in college told me they'd never flown on an airplane before. I straight-up did not believe her. Another person had to break it to me." —ORD2414 "I went to treatment for my alcoholism more than once. One time, the state didn't pay for it, so my parents did. It was around $6,000. My parents are middle-class but good with money and investments. My entire family is supportive. I've heard stories about other people's parents, and it really put me in my place. Some people were completely abandoned, or had to abandon their parents to be safe and sober. I never went hungry, and I never had to worry about the condition my parents were in when I had my friends over. I had stability, which isn't guaranteed to anyone, no matter their socioeconomic situation. Without my family, I might've been unhoused, dead, or in prison." —princesscansuelabananahammock *Cries in broke.* If you grew up wealthier than most, when did you realize you were privileged? Let us know in the comments, or you can anonymously submit your story using the form below! Note: Some submissions have been edited for length and/or clarity.
Gizmodo
36 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
CEOs Are Quietly Telling Us the Truth: AI Is Replacing You
The fear is real. In meetings, Slack chats, and after-work drinks, one question is quietly eating away at millions of employees: Will AI take my job? In public, CEOs like to sound reassuring. They say generative AI will 'enhance productivity' or 'streamline operations.' But when you actually read what they're telling their own employees, or what slips out in investor memos, the message is chilling: virtual workers are here, and they're not just assistants. They're replacements. Let's take a closer look at what some of the world's most powerful tech CEOs are saying. Not in hype videos, but in official internal messages, blog posts, and investor updates. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy recently published a company-wide message that sounds reasonable, until you actually read it. 'As we roll out more generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done. We will need fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today… We expect this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company.' The key phrase? 'Next few years.' That's corporate speak for 2026 to 2028. Not ten years away. This is soon. Jassy is not talking about automating only simple or repetitive tasks. He's preparing employees for a reality where AI replaces entire job categories across the board, and where hiring slows or stops altogether for roles that machines can now do. In a memo posted to LinkedIn, Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn was even more blunt. 'Most functions will have specific initiatives to fundamentally change how they work… Headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work.' Translation: No more hiring unless your job is impossible for AI to do. The company is betting that most teams will soon need fewer humans. Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke shared a similar directive on X: 'Before asking for more headcount and resources, teams must demonstrate why they cannot get what they want done using AI… What would this area look like if autonomous AI agents were already part of the team?' Lütke is openly asking managers to reimagine teams as if AI agents are already integrated, and to justify why any humans are still necessary. — tobi lutke (@tobi) April 7, 2025The message from these CEOs is clear: human employees are now the last resort. The new default is automation. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff recently stated that AI is already doing 50% of the work within his company, shortly before announcing another 1,000 job cuts. The CEO of Klarna, a major fintech company, was even more blunt, revealing that AI has already allowed the company to reduce its workforce by 40%. These aren't future scenarios. This is already happening. The reason for this sudden shift is the rapid evolution of AI technology. As OpenAI CEO Sam Altman explained in a recent podcast, the latest 'reasoning models' have made a critical leap. In simple terms, these AI systems can now do more than just find information; they can 'think' through complex, multi-step problems. Altman suggested these models can reason on par with someone holding a PhD, meaning they are now capable of performing the high level analytical tasks once reserved for highly educated humans. This capability is being actively harnessed. Three sources working at major AI labs told Gizmodo that they are training powerful models to perform real world tasks in nearly every 'knowledge work' profession, including banking, financial analysis, insurance, law, and even journalism. These sources, who requested anonymity as their contracts prohibit them from speaking publicly, described how their work is used in side by side comparisons with AI models to refine the technology until it can produce professional grade output with minimal errors. Virtual employees are already doing our jobs; the current phase is simply about making them more perfect. The 'next few years' Jassy spoke of may be closer to two years at most. Consider the tech industry's recent layoff trends. In 2024, 551 tech companies laid off nearly 152,922 employees, according to data from The pace has accelerated dramatically this year. In just the first six months of 2025, 151 tech companies have already laid off over 63,823 people. On average a tech company cut 277 workers in 2024. If that rate is maintained for the rest of the year, the average number of layoffs per tech company in 2025 would soar to 851, roughly three times the 2024 average. While there is no direct evidence linking all these layoffs to AI, the trend is happening during a period of record economic strength. The Nasdaq just closed at an all time high, and eight of the world's ten largest companies are in the tech sector. Profitable, growing companies are shedding workers at an alarming rate, and the quiet implementation of AI is the most logical explanation. Tech CEOs won't tell you outright that you're being replaced. But the memos speak for themselves. AI is already here, and your company is likely building a roadmap to automate you out of your role. One internal pilot project at a time. One chatbot at a time. One hiring freeze at a time. If you want to understand what's next for the American workforce, don't listen to the marketing. Read the footnotes in the CEO's blog. Because they're already telling you the truth.
