iftttwall

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

When the Obama Administration first suggested the Affordable Care Act following the Financial Crisis, we argued that the outcome would be substantially higher, not lower, healthcare costs. It is interesting today that economists and the media complain about surging healthcare costs with each inflation report but fail to identify the root cause of that escalation.

The chart below tells you almost everything you need to know, but in this blog, we will revisit why the Affordable Care Act failed to make healthcare affordable and some solutions to fix the problem.

When it was conceived, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was hoped to improve healthcare access. At the time, roughly 20 million Americans were uninsured. The bill hoped to lower the rising cost of healthcare in the economy by providing a Government mandate.

However, as is always the case when “Big Government” steps in, the outcomes are generally worse, not better. Such should not be surprising. At a press conference on August 12th, 1986, US President Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

A decade after the launch of the Affordable Care Act, we can not look back at the results. In 2023, roughly 25 million Americans still lack healthcare coverage. The government continues expanding programs, like Medicaid, to insure more individuals at a hefty cost to taxpayers. While the uninsured population has fallen by 3 million since 2014, the question is whether the costs justify the results.

Unsurprisingly, as we discussed initially, the Affordable Care Act led to a hefty increase in healthcare costs. Although its goals were noble, several key provisions – including pre-existing conditions, reduced consumer choice, and government subsidies – strained the system financially. These problems, compounded with other structural challenges, are further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving insurers, taxpayers, and patients grappling with rising premiums and expenses.

We will examine these issues.

The Many Problems Of The Affordable Care Act

Pre-Existing Conditions and Insurance Pools: Spreading the Risk Unevenly

One of the ACA’s most controversial provisions required insurance companies to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums. This ensured vulnerable individuals could access necessary care and altered the insurance risk pool. Before the ACA, insurers could price premiums based on the health profile of the insured population. Using data from the healthy pool, costs could be effectively calculated, keeping prices down. However, with the inclusion of high-risk individuals who immediately started drawing from the pool, insurers faced higher costs, which had to be passed on to everyone through increased premiums.

From 2013 to 2017, individual premiums more than doubled in some areas, driven by the need to balance the new risk. Younger, healthier individuals who previously benefited from lower premiums saw the steepest increases, making it less attractive for them to maintain coverage.

Reduced Consumer Choice: Fewer Plans, Less Competition

The ACA aimed to ensure standardized health plans, but this inadvertently led to reduced consumer choice. Insurance providers were required to offer a certain set of essential benefits. While the intention was good, the demands forced many insurers to exit markets where compliance became too costly. In some states, consumers were left with only one or two insurance carriers on the exchanges.

The resulting lack of competition gave insurers more leverage to raise prices without fear of losing market share. Premiums continued to climb as consumers had few options and no bargaining power, forcing many to accept higher deductibles for basic coverage.

The Cost of Subsidies and the Burden on Taxpayers

The ACA introduced subsidies that reduced the price of premiums for those who qualified, making coverage affordable for lower-income individuals. These subsidies, however, came with a steep price tag for taxpayers. The federal government currently subsidizes ACA plans with over $50 billion annually. Additionally, expanded subsidies after the pandemic increased the federal budget burden, locking higher costs even as inflation strained public resources.

While subsidies provide short-term relief for individuals, they distort the healthcare market. Providers are less pressured to lower premiums when the patients are shielded from the underlying costs. This dynamic creates a feedback loop that drives prices higher over time, especially as insurers set premiums in anticipation of ongoing subsidy support.

Failed State Exchanges and Their Impact

The early rollout of the ACA included state-run insurance exchanges intended to offer consumers access to competitive plans. However, several states—such as Oregon and Hawaii—saw their exchanges collapse due to technical issues, poor enrollment, and mismanagement. When these exchanges failed, the federal government absorbed the costs, passing the financial burden on to taxpayers. Billions were wasted on these failed systems, while insurers withdrew from the exchanges due to instability, further reducing competition.

These failed exchanges added to federal costs and undermined the ACA’s objective of creating sustainable marketplaces. Fewer participating insurers meant even higher consumer premiums, as the limited competition eroded the benefits of market-based pricing.

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Amplified ACA-Related Problems

The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system, compounding the ACA’s existing challenges. Hospitals and providers experienced soaring operational costs due to increased demand, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions. Insurers responded by raising premiums to account for higher claims and uncertainty. These price hikes hit already stretched consumers, with many households facing insurance costs that outpaced wage growth.

The government’s response to the pandemic—extending ACA subsidies and relaxing enrollment deadlines—further strained the system. While these measures helped many individuals access coverage during the crisis, they also deepened the financial burden on taxpayers.

A Cost We Can’t Afford

The design of the Affordable Care Act was deeply flawed at the outset, and as we noted in 2013, such would lead to an obvious outcome. To wit:

“It is when the full impact of the Affordable Care Act lands on those working class individuals that sentiment will turn deeply negative towards the government as higher costs, and taxes, not only impact their individual standards of living but continues to erode the economic growth in the U.S.”

Unsurprisingly, the very negative sentiment and division in the country today over the quality and costs of healthcare have come home to roost. Of course, this additional “welfare program” that is part of the mandatory spending side of the budget equation has also come to fruition.

“The current pace of increase in the participation of social welfare programs, from food stamps and disability claims to social security and Medicare, is creating an ever-increasing consumption of current revenues. Implementing another social welfare program will only create an additional drag on the revenue/expense equation.” – 2013

According to the Center On Budget & Policy Priorities, in 2023, roughly 90% of every tax dollar went to non-productive spending. 

“In fiscal year 2023, the federal government spent $6.1 trillion, amounting to 22.7 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). About nine-tenths of the total went toward federal programs; the remainder went toward interest payments on the federal debt. Of that $6.1 trillion, only $4.4 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount was financed by borrowing.”

Notice that 24% of spending goes to Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Marketplace Subsidies. That will only get worse over time. However, here is the issue. In 2023, 90% of all expenditures went to social welfare, non-productive spending, and interest on the debt. Those payments required $6.1 trillion, roughly 138% more than the tax dollars collected.

Those concerned about debt and deficit should question the continued support for the Affordable Care Act.

There are options.

Options For Lowering Healthcare Costs

Given the ongoing surge in healthcare costs, policymakers must reassess whether the ACA can achieve sustainable, affordable care in its current form. One option is to unwind or significantly revise key ACA provisions. For example, creating separate risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions could allow insurers to offer lower premiums to healthier individuals while ensuring coverage for those needing it most.

Another approach would involve deregulating the healthcare market to foster more competition. Allowing insurers to sell plans across state lines could increase consumer options and reduce premiums. Additionally, reforming subsidies by linking them to healthcare outcomes rather than premium levels could help contain costs at the source.

Revisiting antitrust enforcement in healthcare markets is also crucial. Mergers between hospital systems and insurers have reduced competition, driving prices higher. Strengthening competition policies would encourage providers to lower costs, benefiting consumers in the long run.

The ACA brought essential reforms but failed to control costs, burdening many households and taxpayers with unsustainable healthcare expenses. Revisiting the structure of insurance pools, increasing market competition, and reforming subsidies offer a way to address the root causes of rising costs. While unwinding parts of the ACA may be politically challenging, it could be a necessary step to build a healthcare system that delivers both access and affordability.

The slowdown in the global personal luxury goods market resulted in a year of record wealth losses for France’s top billionaires. 

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bernard Arnault, Françoise Bettencourt Meyers, and François Pinault had $71 billion erased from their collective wealth this year.

The three French billionaires are in the index’s top five for largest wealth losses (in dollar amount) on the year.

These billionaires control LVMH, L’Oréal SA, and Kering SA. It was a bloodbath for the industry… 

Gucci-owner Kering tumbled 41% on the year, L’Oréal SA -24%, and LVMH -13.5%. 

A recent note by Bain & Company, in partnership with Italy luxury goods manufacturers’ industry association Altagamma, showed that the personal luxury goods market entered its first slowdown since the Great Recession. 

Global luxury spending is expected between -1% and 1% in year-over-year growth in 2024, reaching 1.5 trillion euros, or approximately $1.6 trillion, as cash-strapped consumers from China to Europe to the US continue dialing back on discretionary items.

Looking ahead, Bain forecasts a slight improvement in luxury spending in 2025 but anticipates a shaky industry through the decade’s end.

LVMH is the world’s largest luxury goods company, and in its latest earnings report, it warned about an “uncertain economic and geopolitical environment” denting global sales. 

Meanwhile, Elon Musk remains firmly at the top of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Is rocket man set to become the world’s first trillionaire by the end of the decade?

Building rockets is a much better business than selling purses made in sweatshops.

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

We have come to accept that we are permanently trapped in an endless cycle of debt and money creation.  But the only reason why debt and money grow at an exponential rate is because that is what our system was designed to do.  The Federal Reserve and other central banks around the globe were created with a purpose.  The goal was to get humanity into as much debt as possible, and those holding that debt just keep getting wealthier and wealthier.  Unfortunately, we have been trained to not even question this deeply insidious arrangement.

Over the past several decades, our money supply has been growing at a pace that we have never seen before.

And once the pandemic hit, the growth of the money supply went into overdrive.

This is why the cost of living is so oppressive today.

There is simply way too much money floating around.

Over the past several decades, our national debt has also been growing at an exponential rate.

The system is designed to produce debt faster than it produces money.

That is why it will never be possible for us to pay off the national debt.

Sadly, most Americans don’t even understand what the Federal Reserve is.

One thing that the Federal Reserve is NOT is a government agency.  In fact, it is about as “federal” as Federal Express.  It is a private central bank designed to make money for the people who created it.  In fact, the Federal Reserve was the culmination of an effort by the international banking elite to force a permanent private central bank on the American people that began all the way back during the days of our Founding Fathers.

But don’t just take my word for it.

The following are 21 quotes about central banking from past presidents, congressmen and other notable historical figures…

#1 John Adams, the second president of the United States: “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”

#2 James Madison: “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.”

#3 Thomas Jefferson: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

#4 Abraham Lincoln: “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”

#5 James A. Garfield: “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”

#6 Woodrow Wilson: “A great industrial nation is controlled by it’s system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world–no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”

#7 Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”

#8 Horace Greeley: “While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”

#9 Sir Josiah Stamp, the former President of the Bank of England: “Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back.”

#10 Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863: “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”

#11 Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. in 1913: “This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

#12 Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. in 1923: “The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money”

#13 Congressman Louis T. McFadden: “The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers.”

#14 Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 just before FDR began his first term: “We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.”

#15 Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

#16 Eustace Mullins: “As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new [checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again.”

#17 Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941: “The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny…”

#18 Senator Barry Goldwater: “Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.”

#19 Henry Ford: “It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

#20 Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982: “The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. …but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”

#21 Boston Federal Reserve Bank: “When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”

Why isn’t this one of the biggest political issues in the country today?

The Federal Reserve is at the center of a controversy over central banking that has been around since the very beginning of the United States.  Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve system is so incredibly complex and the American people have been so “dumbed down” that the vast majority of the population literally has no idea how our system really works.

If we do nothing, things will continue to get even worse for ordinary Americans.

In 2001, 17 million people were on food stamps.

Today, more than 42 million people are on food stamps…

Food stamp enrollment has increased significantly in recent decades.

In fiscal year 2023, 42.1 million Americans received food stamps. This is 2.4 times the 17.3 million who were enrolled in FY 2001.

As the number of people receiving food stamp benefits has increased, the percentage of the U.S. population enrolled has also increased.

In fiscal year 2023, 12.6 percent of the total U.S. population received food stamp benefits. This is more than double the 6.1 percent in FY 2001.

One out of every four children in America now gets assistance from food stamps each month.  In fact, it is projected that half of all U.S. kids will be on food stamps at some point in their lives.

Our entire system is designed to funnel wealth to those at the very top of the pyramid at the expense of everyone else.

I have been writing about the evils of the Federal Reserve system for more than a decade, but sometimes it feels like I am banging my head into a wall.

What will it take for the American people to finally wake up?

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Authored by Olivia Murray via AmericanThinker.com,

For the better part of a century, Cuba has been under the control of communists and their ideologies, and the previously inconceivable has finally happened – they’ve run out of sugar.

Like John Hinderaker at Powerline quipped, “This is like Libya running out of sand.”

Or…like Alabama running out of cotton.

Like Costa Rica running out of pineapples.

Like Russia running out of vodka.

Like Saudi Arabia running out of oil.

Like China running out of rice.

Like the Midwest running out of corn.

Like Afghanistan running out of opium.

How is this even possible? Do you really even have to do anything to get a tropical crop to grow on an island nation with a literal year-round growing season?

According to a new report from CiberCuba, the communists are now importing sugar at about $25 a pound, and have stopped exporting entirely, after a number of “failures” over the years.

NEWS FLASH: Communism never works, and it is always a failure.

If anyone needs a refresher as to what happens to a plot of land after communists take over and try to grow something, look no further than the CHAZ community garden in Seattle from the summer of 2020:

(They immediately went online to solicit food donations, like vegan hotdogs, becuase they were “starving” a mere 6 hours into the garden-growing experience.)

Anyway, here is the story from the CiberCuba article:

The Cuban government acknowledged that it is ‘shameful’ for the island, traditionally one of the leading sugar producers in Latin America, to be forced to import this product.

Despite efforts to revive the sugar industry, the sector continues to face serious challenges, including failures in the last harvest.

During the session of the National Assembly of People’s Power, Cuban Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz recalled when Raúl Castro remarked that ‘it would be an embarrassment to have to import sugar.’ He then stated, ‘and well, we are experiencing that embarrassment because we are importing sugar.’

He emphasized that the crisis in the sector is such that the country has also stopped exporting sugar, which was a key component of the economy.

Everything about communism is shameful and an embarrassment—how do you take a flourishing crop and turn it into a liability? How do you look at a hundred-million-dead-in-one-hundred-years record, a death rate rivaled only by global abortion, and consider it a success?

Here’s what Russian-born Michael Malice recently said, via John Stossel:

‘One thing that drives me crazy,’ says Malice, ‘is when people say, ‘Communism works in theory.’ … Everything works in theory. Reality is how you determine how something works or not!’

I built a flying car, but it only flies…in theory.

I made an invisibility cloak, but it only hides a person…in theory.

I invented anti-gravity boots, but they only float…in theory.

I created a weight loss pill that makes the pounds just fly off a person, but it only works…in theory.

Stupid, right? Yes, and that’s exactly how asinine the “in theory” claim sounds.

South Korea plunged deeper into political chaos on Friday as parliament voted to impeach Prime Minister and Acting President Han Duck-soo, just two weeks after impeaching President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived emergency martial law stunt.

South Korea’s parliament voted with 192 lawmakers to impeach Han, exceeding the critical 151-vote majority in the 300-member legislature. This now means Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok will serve as acting president. 

“I announce that Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment motion has passed. Out of the 192 lawmakers who voted, 192 voted to impeach,” said National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-Shik.

South Korea’s acting president Han Duck-soo has also been impeached. Read more: https://t.co/QByIlUw7mA pic.twitter.com/WYfPB1CEN8

— South China Morning Post (@SCMPNews) December 27, 2024

Han’s sudden ouster comes several weeks after Yoon’s December 3 martial law decree, which lasted only six hours—one of the shortest martial law periods in the country’s history. Nevertheless, it sparked mass protests and now worsening political turmoil.

Reuters noted the imposition of martial law earlier this month “sent shockwaves through Asia’s fourth-largest economy, and drew concerns from allies in the United States and Europe who had seen Yoon as a key partner in efforts to counter China, Russia and North Korea.” 

Finance Minister Choi released this statement: “The government must do its best to ensure that the people do not become anxious, or the security of the country and people’s daily lives are not shaken.” 

Goldman previously told clients that the Constitutional Court has six months to uphold or reject the impeachment vote. The court has stated that Yoon’s case will be a “top priority,” along with other impeachment cases.

On Friday, Goldman’s David Kim and Chris Cha provided clients with a market wrap of how the latest political turmoil impacted domestic markets:

KOSPI traded lower as the index saw joint net foreign & local insto selling. The index saw deeper losses as the session progressed and at one point dropped below 2,400 following the sharp mid-day KRW depreciation to as low as W1,485 due to more political instability after the Democratic party reinforced their decision to impeach the interim president / PM Han Duck Soo after he declined to appoint 3 judges to the Constitutional Court. Outflows were scattered across sectors today on year end ex-div for some names as well, but foreigners ended the day as main net buyers of KOSPI Tech & Service (Internet). Turnover was -29% vs the recent 20 day average.

The KOSPI is attempting to hold support. A failure at this level would likely result from escalating political turmoil combined with mounting economic headwinds.

Shin Yul, a political science professor at Myongji University, told Reuters that South Korea could plunge into an economic crisis comparable to the one in the late 1990s on top of its ongoing political turmoil. 

President-elect Donald Trump warned federal employees last week that they must return to the office, or “they’re going to be dismissed” – an announcement which comes on the heels of several major corporations taking swift action to end work-from-home, a pandemic-era policy that saw a considerable portion of the US workforce adapt to remote work.

During the pandemic, approximately 2.3 million federal employees shifted away from traditional office spaces. This shift was not just a temporary adjustment, but a transformational move that many hoped would persist post-pandemic due to its perceived benefits in work-life balance and reduced operational costs.

The Biden administration, acknowledging these benefits, continued to support telework, facilitating the reduction of government-owned real estate and integrating flexible work arrangements into the fabric of federal employment. However, with Trump’s election, a quick pivot is on the horizon.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s call for a return to office has been met with resistance from federal employees and unions. Approximately 56 percent of the civil service is covered under collective bargaining agreements that include telework provisions, while a full 10% of federal jobs are now designated as fully “remote,” according to the Washington Post.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, agrees with Trump.

“The pandemic is long over, and it is past time for the federal workforce to return to in-person work,” Comer said in a statement – adding that the Biden administration never provided evidence that work-from-home didn’t harm service.

“On the contrary, the evidence suggests that Americans have suffered under these lenient telework policies,” Comer added.

Other GOP lawmakers have introduced bills mandating that chronically “absent” employees be seen in their office chairs, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who leads a caucus aligned with Musk and Ramaswamy’s commission, said this month that she tracked down “bureaucrats relaxing in bubble baths, playing golf, getting arrested, and doing just about everything besides their jobs.” -WaPo

Meanwhile, as the Epoch Times notes, big business has already been taking action to get people back into the office.

Starting Jan. 2, 2025, Amazon is requiring all of its 350,000 employees to return to the office five days a week to foster collaboration and strengthen company culture, according to an announcement made by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy on Sept. 16.

While companies including Boeing, Disney, Apple, Starbucks, UPS, Dell and banks such as Chase, Barclays, and CitiGroup have called employees back to work on at least a hybrid schedule, Amazon’s move has heightened the belief that remote work options are drying up.

In recent months, various surveys have revealed that business leaders are becoming more resolute in their push to reinstate pre-pandemic work practices.

A September KPMG report highlighted that 83 percent of U.S. CEOs expect a full return to the office within the next three years, up from 64 percent in 2023. Likewise, an August survey by Resume Builder showed that 90 percent of businesses will have adopted return-to-office policies by next year, with 30 percent requiring full-time office attendance.

The latest Flex Index, which monitors the RTO activity of 100 million employees across more than 13,000 companies, showed that 43 percent of U.S. firms on an industry-adjusted basis have employed a structured hybrid model in the fourth quarter, up from 38 percent in the third quarter and 20 percent in the first quarter of 2023. Additionally, 32 percent of firms had fully returned to in-office work.

Reasons CEOs Push Return-to-Office Policies

The main reasons for return-to-office mandates include: fostering collaboration and teamwork, improving communication, strengthening company culture, boosting productivity, and simplifying employee management, according to a recent survey by Resume.org.

Kevelyn Guzman, the regional vice president at Coldwell Banker Warburg, is one of many business leaders that have embraced the return-to-office trend.

“We see the office as more than a workspace—it’s a hub for connection, collaboration, and growth,” Guzman told The Epoch Times.

“In-person collaboration has been a game changer for our agents, sparking spontaneous brainstorming sessions, allowing them to collaborate on listings, referrals, ideas, real-time problem-solving, and the kind of energy that can only come from face-to-face interaction.”

Tim Stassi, founder of Dwell One Realty echoed this sentiment. “Returning to the office feels a bit like reuniting with an old friend you forgot how much you missed—except this friend brings fresh ideas, spontaneous brainstorming sessions, and the undeniable aroma of freshly brewed coffee that no Zoom background can replicate,” he told The Epoch Times.

Cyndi Gave, leader of The Metiss Group, a consulting firm specializing in talent selection and development, offered another perspective on why companies are implementing return-to-office policies.

She said that while remote and hybrid work models have enabled flexibility and broadened talent pools, they have also posed challenges to collaboration, resulted in reduced engagement, and introduced phenomena such as “job stacking,” which refers to employees taking on multiple jobs simultaneously.

“They were just doing things on a list and then going out to fish or walk the dog. They became task focused,” Gave told The Epoch Times.

“So, then they realized they could get their tasks done in less than 40 hours, so they took on another full-time job and pulled in two salaries. I’ve heard of people actually taking on three. If you’re working multiple full-time jobs, you can’t tell me you’re putting in full-time work.”

Gave said that job stacking has started to wane now that employees are going back to the office.

Recent data from SurveyMonkey seems to bolster this opinion. According to its report, 46 percent of hybrid or remote workers admit to multitasking during a work call, with activities ranging from using bathroom to browsing social media or online shopping. Another 46 percent confessed to doing house chores during work, and 4 percent revealed they were working a second job simultaneously.

‘The Great Resistance’

On the other hand, it is no secret that many workers have resisted the call to return to their desks at a centralized location.

Two of the most common concerns about return to work are cost and control.

Last month, Owl Labs research found that workers spend more than $60 per day to work from the office, be it their commute or buying lunch.

“If you’re being asked to go into the office five days a week, an additional $300 a week in expenses is really, really high,” said Owl Labs CEO Frank Weishaupt in a statement.

This past spring, MyPerfectResume’s 2024 Return to Office Survey revealed that 77 percent of workers believe companies are mandating return to office because they seek more control over their staff members.

Some other concerns employees have with being asked to return to the office on a hybrid or full-time basis revolve around the disruption of family dynamics with commuting time and the need to begin paying for childcare again.

Whatever the causes of pushback to returning to the office may be, Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research referred to this phenomenon in July 2022 as “The Great Resistance.”

As more companies move toward bringing remote workers back to the office, the prevailing question for some employees is, “Do they have the legal right to do this, and can they fire me if I don’t?”

Scott Herndon, an employment attorney in Berkeley, California, said the answer is “yes and yes.”

The vast majority of America’s non-union workforce is employed under an “at will” contract, meaning they can leave at any time or be let go for whatever reason their employer deems necessary, Herndon said.

“I think people are misled at how robust their rights are in the workplace. That doesn’t mean there aren’t key protections that might interfere with this return-to-work policy but not in general,” he told The Epoch Times.

“The employees have very little leverage. It’s basically supply and demand and there’s no intrinsic rights for those working remotely at all. They’re being called back because it’s a matter of businesses attempting to be more efficient.”

However, John Hubbard, an employment attorney with Hubbard Snitchler & Parzianello in Detroit, said that one of the most significant downsides for companies giving return to office ultimatums to employees is the potential to lose talented people.

“People moved due to prior policies and then are told the company changed policy. But many in that circumstance are not coming back and are leaving the company. Because everybody is on an at-will contract basis, they can make their own decisions,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Employers may be making the decision to have you back in the office, but it’s up to the employee to decide whether that is acceptable or not.”

A survey of 2,585 Amazon professionals conducted by the anonymous forum provider Blind, just one day after the company’s announcement, shows that 73 percent were considering quitting because of the five-day mandate.

However, the Resume.org survey also showed that almost half (49 percent) of employers were not concerned about the risk of their employees resigning due to their return to office policies, given the current state of the job market.

Another survey, conducted across six major cities—Paris, London, New York, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto—revealed that more than 60 percent of employees in each city will comply with their companies’ return-to-office policies. In New York, for instance, 72 percent said they would comply, with 44 percent doing so willingly while 28 percent reluctantly.

‘Not a One-Sided Initiative’

Nevertheless, businesses are trying all ways to attract workers to the office.

“Companies must fundamentally reimagine and reconfigure workspaces to provide seamless and immersive collaboration experiences,” said Snorre Kjesbu, senior vice president and general manager of collaboration devices at Cisco, in the company’s recent Global Hybrid Work Study.

This, said Kjesbu, consists of designing and installing customized collaborative workspaces, concentrating on room layouts, screen visibility, and audio coverage.

Understanding initial hesitation among personnel, Guzman’s office has tried to make the atmosphere more engaging. Over the past year, the business has hosted various art, charity, and wellness events.

Simply Noted, an Arizona-based handwritten notes platform, has utilized a hybrid model to facilitate the benefits of working in the office and remotely. While the company offers remote work options, management has stressed the importance of an in-office presence to bolster professional growth.

“Team members can build stronger relationships, learn through osmosis, and take advantage of mentorship opportunities that are harder to replicate remotely,” Rick Elmore, the founder of Simply Noted, told The Epoch Times.

“We’ve also communicated how collaboration in person can accelerate decision-making and innovation—benefits that positively impact everyone’s workload and outcomes.”

At the same time, it is not a one-sided initiative as return to office also requires improving in-office culture, says Elmore.

“We’ve been intentional about making the office a place employees enjoy coming to,” he said, alluding to different perks, like catered lunches, wellness programs, team-building activities, and flexible schedules.

“Ultimately, our goal is to create a workplace that everyone feels proud to be part of—whether they’re contributing from home or in the office,” Elmore stated.

Kevin Connor, founder and CEO of Modern SBC, told The Epoch Times that the company focused on making the office “worth coming back to.”

“We targeted our efforts on growing a workplace in which humans desired to be.”

Kraig Kleeman, founder and CEO of The New Workforce, said he encountered resistance. He told The Epoch Times the company handled it by offering flexibility in office hours and working on solutions “to the real challenges people face, like providing travel allowances and support for parents who are caring for children.”

These efforts are consistent with surveys.

A June BambooHR poll of human resources professionals and managers found that the objectives behind working from the office are to enhance employee development, boost customer interactions, and improve company culture.

Prakash Mana, the CEO of California-based cybersecurity firm Cloudbrink, has a message to other executives: “Work-from-anywhere isn’t going anywhere.”

Despite return-to-office mandates observed over the last year, Mana thinks remote work will persist in 2025 and beyond for two primary reasons.

“First, Gen Z, the first true digital-first generation, is fast becoming the primary new talent pool,” he told The Epoch Times. “Second, secure remote connectivity now offers the speed, performance, and security to match the in-office environment.”

RedBalloon’s December Freedom Economy Index, a monthly survey of 100,000 small businesses shared ahead of publication with The Epoch Times, found that a fifth of employers expect remote work to be more prevalent in the year ahead.

Authored by Jeff Carlson & Hans Mahncke via Truth Over News,

A few days ago, our friend Stephen McIntyre, one of the original Russiagate investigators, sent a tweet to revisit a question that many of us have pondered for years but which has never been fully resolved. As a result, we finally now have the answer. That is because, in response to McIntyre’s tweet, the key figure has come forward to confirm what many of us have suspected all along.

McIntyre’s tweet highlighted that, according to the FBI, it was Australian diplomat Alexander Downer who initiated the inception of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. However, the narratives surrounding this event differ significantly between Downer’s account in Special Counsel John Durham’s report and the FBI’s version. Downer has now stepped forward to affirm Durham’s version with a three-word tweet: “Durham is right”. This development carries substantial implications for the entire Russiagate saga, particularly regarding its fraudulent origins.

Downer’s confirmation represents a significant breakthrough in unraveling the final puzzle pieces of Russiagate, not necessarily because the information is new or surprising, but rather because it confirms that the FBI was aware from the outset that its justification for initiating the Trump-Russia investigation was phony.

The two competing versions of the Crossfire Hurricane origin story can be summarized as follows: According to the FBI, Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos met with Australia’s ambassador in London, Alexander Downer, and Downer’s assistant, Erika Thompson. During this meeting, Papadopoulos is supposed to have “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion” that Russia might assist the Trump campaign by anonymously releasing damaging information about Hillary Clinton prior to the 2016 election.

Robert Mueller went one step further, claiming that what Papadopoulos had talked about was “that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.”

Downer’s account, as detailed in the Durham report, states, “Papadopoulos made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance. Rather, Downer’s recollection was that Papadopoulos simply stated “the Russians have information” and that was all.”

Notably, the day before Papadopoulos met with Downer and Thompson, Andrew Napolitano shared a nearly identical account on Fox News, raising the distinct possibility that Papadopoulos was simply reiterating what he had heard on TV, as opposed to any secret plot. In fact, we would argue that this is almost certainly what occurred: Papadopoulos enthusiastically repeated a story he had encountered on Fox News.

So, how did everything get blown out of proportion? This is where Downer’s confirmation of Durham’s account comes into play and why it is so important.

According to the Durham report, the FBI utilized a cherry-picked portion of a report written by Thompson regarding their meeting with Papadopoulos to justify the initiation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. Thompson’s report, which was a standard post-meeting document, was submitted to the Australian government in Canberra shortly after Thompson and Downer met with Papadopoulos on May 10, 2016.

The snippet relied on by the FBI stated:

“[Papadopoulos] commented that the Clintons had “a lot of baggage” and suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton (and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of [sic] through other means. It was also unclear how Mr[.] Trump’s team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump team’s reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of [sic] what Russia decides to do, with or without Mr[.] Trump’s cooperation.”

In late July 2016, Downer gave the meeting report, which included the cherry-picked snippet, to the U.S. Embassy in London after hearing Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook on CNN assert that Russia had hacked the DNC to assist Trump. As we later found out, the so-called experts Mook supposedly relied on in making his claim were Clinton campaign operatives, such as Christopher Steele. Although Downer could not have known this, his actions in going to the U.S. Embassy with two-and-a-half-month-old meeting notes were highly unusual. Perhaps he was caught in the moment of widespread hysteria. Or perhaps he was cajoled into doing what he did. Be that as it may, to the extent that he could be criticized for acting prematurely or misunderstanding the situation, he promptly clarified the matter.

The reason for this is that after the FBI initiated its Crossfire Hurricane investigation on July 31, 2016, allegedly based on the snippet from Thompson, FBI chief investigator Peter Strzok and his associate Joe Pientka traveled to London to interview Downer and Thompson regarding their encounter with Papadopoulos. Setting aside the fact that an honest investigator would have waited to speak with the witnesses before launching a comprehensive investigation into a presidential campaign, it is what Downer conveyed to Strzok—now confirmed—that demonstrates the entire investigation was founded on a deliberate misunderstanding, in other words, a lie.

Downer told Strzok that the substance of the snippet that Thompson had drafted was “purposely vague” because “Papadopoulos left a number of things unexplained.” Downer also clarified that Papadopoulos “did not say he had direct contact with the Russians.” Downer further said that “there were reasons to be unsure about what to make of the information from Papadopoulos,” and that he “did not get the sense Papadopoulos was the middle-man to coordinate with the Russians.”

Notably, this is not what Downer later told Durham with the benefit of hindsight, it is what Downer told Strzok at the time.

Downer later informed Durham that he would have characterized the statements made by Papadopoulos differently than Thompson did in the snippet relied on by the FBI. It is unclear to what extent Downer communicated this to Strzok in August 2016, but based on the available information, it should have been evident to Strzok that the snippet should not under any circumstances have been taken at face value.

While the report of Strzok’s meeting with Downer remains under lock and key, based on Durham’s statements, we know that, contrary to Thompson’s vague notes, Downer made it clear to Strzok that Trump’s team had not received any offers from Russia, at least not that anyone was aware of, and Papadopoulos did not claim or suggest that they had received any offers.

What is more, even if Strzok, for whatever reason, had taken Thompson’s loosely worded meeting report at face value, it clearly indicated that any information the Russians possessed might have been publicly available. In other words, based on the actual wording in the snippet that the FBI used to initiate Crossfire Hurricane, whatever Papadopoulos may have meant could have been public knowledge—such as Napolitano’s comments on Fox News. This puts to rest the FBI’s fraudulent narrative that the Papadopoulos-Downer meeting had something to do with Clinton’s emails, a claim that both men have always strenuously denied.

But it gets worse. While in London, Strzok confessed to Pientka and the FBI’s London representative that “there’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground.”

Then, shortly after the London trip, Pientka, who is referred to as “Supervisory Special Agent-1” in Durham’s report, had the following text exchange with the FBI’s London representative:

FBI’s Assistant Legal Attache in London: “Dude, are we telling them [British Intelligence Service-1] everything we know, or is there more to this?”

Pientka: “That’s all we have. Not holding anything back.”

FBI’s Legal Attache in London: “Damn that’s thin.”

Pientka: “I know. It sucks.”

British Intelligence officials also told the FBI’s Legal Attache in London that they “could not believe the Papadopoulos bar conversation was all there was” and suggested that the FBI should, as a first step, talk to Papadopoulos.

But Strzok had different plans. Immediately following his trip to London, during which Downer made it abundantly clear that Papadopoulos had said nothing of significant importance and that the entire matter was likely a misunderstanding, Strzok initiated full investigations into three additional members of the Trump campaign team: Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn.

That Downer has now confirmed Durham’s version of events is highly significant because it proves that Strzok was fully aware that the snippet from Thompson’s report should not have been relied upon. Downer explicitly informed Strzok that the snippet was phrased loosely and that Papadopoulos had said nothing inappropriate. Downer, who witnessed the events firsthand, also disagreed with how the snippet was worded.

To summarize, FBI leadership selectively chose a vaguely worded paragraph from a meeting report to initiate an enterprise investigation into the Trump campaign regarding alleged collusion with Russia. A few days later, when Downer, the principal witness to the meeting, informed the FBI that the entire situation was essentially much ado about nothing, his statement was disregarded.

We all remember that when Strzok’s interview notes with Michael Flynn were finally released, they proved that Flynn had told the truth and that the entire case against him was fabricated. When Strzok’s interview notes with Downer are eventually released, we will discover the same: that Downer told the truth and that the initiation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was based on a big, fat lie.

A Personal Note: The person who prompted Alexander Downer to finally clear things up, Runyonesque, is currently facing significant medical challenges and is raising funds to cover treatment costs. If you’d like to support, please consider donating.

US equity futures declined after Thursday’s muted session on Wall Street, while markets in Europe and Asia advanced in muted holiday trading as the year draws to a close. As of 8:00am, S&P futures were down 0.3%, after ending Thursday flat, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 fell 0.2% in quiet post-holiday session as mixed jobless claims data did little to change bets on the Fed’s policy outlook. The 10-year Treasury yield hovered near a seven-month high around 4.60%, and the dollar was steady, on track for its best year since 2015. Oil reversed Thursday’s losses and was set to gain.  The macro calendar is quiet: we get the advance goods trade balance, as well as wholesale and retail inventories.

In premarket trading, Arena Group climbed 18% after the company said it was notified by NYSE American that its plan to regain compliance with continued listing standards had been accepted. SES AI soared 64% and is set to extend gains for a fifth session after shares of the EV battery maker climbed as much as 168% on Thursday.

With the economy remaining resilient, investors are concerned President-elect Donald Trump’s policies, which could include tariffs and tax cuts, will stoke price rises, forcing a more hawkish stance from the central bank.

“The most important move in this year-end is the rise of the US 10-year bond; this shows how much everybody is waiting for Trump’s inauguration and its impact on inflation,” said David Kruk, head of trading at La Financiere de L’Echiquier in Paris.

“Other than that, most of the trades are technical ones, short-covering and profit taking but there’s no big trend going on as is typical during this time of the year.”

Europe’s Stoxx index climbed 0.5% as trading resumed after a two-day break, with volumes at about 60% of the 20-day average for the time of day, and were poised for modest weekly gains. Novo Nordisk shares extended their rebound into a second session. Delivery Hero shares drop as much as 9% after Taiwan blocked the sale of its subsidiary there to Uber Technologies.

Earlier in the session, the MSCI Asia Pacific index climbed for the fifth straight day, its longest such streak since July. Shares in Tokyo jumped after the yen dropped to a five-month low of 158 per dollar in the previous session, following Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda’s comments Wednesday that avoided giving a clear signal on interest rates next month. Elsewhere in Asia, Hong Kong and mainland Chinese shares fluctuated. Equities rose in Australia, with their South Korean counterparts declining as the country’s political turmoil continued.

In FX, the Bloomberg dollar index was steady, on pace for its best year since 2015.

The yen rebounded slightly Friday, after Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato said the government will take appropriate steps against excessive movements in the foreign exchange market. Data released Friday also showed inflation in Tokyo accelerated for a second month, with retail sales also beating estimates. Bank of Japan board members held mixed views when they discussed the timing of an interest-rate hike at last week’s meeting, according to minutes released on Friday.  A summary of opinions from the central bank’s December meeting showed mixed views among its board members on the timing of another rate hike partly due to uncertainties over the US economy. USD/JPY traded 0.2% lower at 157.75, having fallen as low as 157.51 in Asian trade; the pound drifted higher against the dollar while the euro held its ground at $1.0421.

In rates, treasuries are under pressure as US trading gets under way, trailing steeper declines for European bond markets, many of which are reopening after a two-day holiday. US yields remain inside ranges from Thursday, the 10-year Treasury yield rising 3bps to 4.61%, near the May high of 4.64% hit on Thursday. Traders are betting that the Fed will deliver less than two rate cuts by end-2025. 5- to 30-year yields have risen more than 15bp since Dec. 17, the day before the Fed, while cutting interest rates for the third straight time, signaled a slower pace for future moves. Bloomberg Treasury Index lost 1.7% this month through Thursday, paring its YTD gain to less than 0.5%; index may benefit next week from month-end rebalancing that will extend its duration by an estimated 0.07 year

In commodity markets, iron ore sank to the lowest in more than five weeks, falling below $100 a ton, as poor industrial profits in China highlighted the nation’s economic weakness. Oil gained while gold was steady.

Bitcoin edged higher after the cryptocurrency’s rally showed signs of fizzling Thursday.

The US economic data calendar includes November advance goods trade balance and November preliminary wholesale inventories at 8:30am. Fed speaker slate is blank until Jan. 3.

Market Snapshot

• S&P 500 futures down 0.4% to 6,073.75
• STOXX Europe 600 up 0.3% to 505.34
• MXAP up 0.4% to 182.70
• MXAPJ down 0.2% to 573.66
• Nikkei up 1.8% to 40,281.16
• Topix up 1.3% to 2,801.68
• Hang Seng Index little changed at 20,090.46
• Shanghai Composite little changed at 3,400.14
• Sensex up 0.3% to 78,727.26
• Australia S&P/ASX 200 up 0.5% to 8,261.80
• Kospi down 1.0% to 2,404.77
• German 10Y yield up 6 bps at 2.39%
• Euro little changed at $1.0412
• Brent Futures up 0.2% to $73.42/bbl
• Gold spot down 0.3% to $2,625.09
• US Dollar Index little changed at 108.17

Top Overnight News

• The Bank of Japan signaled that a rate hike next month still remains on the table even as cautious views among the majority swayed the stand-pat decision at a policy meeting last week.
• German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier dissolved parliament and set the country’s snap election for Feb. 23, formally endorsing a timetable proposed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz after he pulled the plug on his ruling coalition last month.
• A Bitcoin rally is fizzling in the final days of a record-breaking year for the digital asset, as investors assess the remaining impetus from President-elect Donald Trump’s embrace of the cryptocurrency sector.

Authored by Molly Slag via American Thinker,

The most remarkable feature of the UFO swarm that began November 18 over New Jersey and then expanded in short order to infest New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Oregon, Minnesota, California, Texas (and where else?), with an average of 92 sightings per night, and that continues wholly unabated through the present day, is its persistence. The swarm persists unabated, the public demand that the government explain persists unabated, and the government stonewall of the public demand persists unabated. This persistence reveals how ineptly the government reads the public mood.

The great lesson of COVID—well known to all the unwashed who lived through it—is that the government and all its acolytes and running dogs, including, among others, the media, Big Science, and Big Pharma, are liars who care not a whit about the rest of us. The very reason we elected Donald Trump for the third time is that we believe he cares.

Do they think we slept through COVID? Do they think we were fooled by it? Do they think we missed its message?

We, the unwashed, must understand there are only three options for the government stonewall. The government is duplicitous, incompetent, or genuinely blindsided.

Moreover, there are only five plausible sources for this UFO swarm: The swarm originates in either the USA, Private Enterprise, China, Russia, or ET. These five swarm source options above are not mutually exclusive. For example, the swarm might originate in a collaboration between China and Russia or China and ET.

When the truth is finally learned, it might be illuminating, disappointing, or frightening.

Trump says the government must disclose what’s going on or “shoot them down.” Chris Christie says continued stonewalling will create vigilantes. Trump seems to think that the government knows all about this and is choosing to conceal the relevant information, which means this is all a demonstration of something. For whatever reason, the stonewall continues.

But now, at long last, there is a development that offers some light on the situation. The Daily Mail has reported that “An interactive map has revealed a disturbing pattern in drone sightings across the US.”

The “disturbing pattern” is that the unexplained UFO swarm “has targeted America’s military bases worldwide since October, beginning with a swarm over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.”

So, the swarm has focused on US military bases! Many people have surmised this all along, and it now appears they were correct.

From all this, we can conclude, not with mathematical certainty, but with considerable probability:

1. Neither the US nor private enterprise is the source.

2. The US military knows what is going on.

3. The military has informed the White House of what is going on.

4. The White House judges that the public should not be told.

The question then is, “Why?”

The inquiring mind can freely roam over numerous conjectures answering to “why”, but the single most probable is that the government fears being exposed as impotent to deal with the swarm.

After Donald Trump’s overwhelming election victory in November the nation is adjusting to the reality that the mass immigration policies of the political left are about to be reversed.  Not just ended, but turned back.  This means mass deportations of millions of illegals and far more scrutiny on existing temporary visa programs.  The logistics of such an unprecedented effort require intensive planning and a lot of debate.    

There is a contingent of MAGA that wants a total shutdown of migrant activity and a moratorium on work visas.  For how long?  No one seems to know, exactly, but it’s a scorched earth response to the Biden Administration’s excessive abuses of H-1B programs (and similar labor programs) to sneak millions of third world migrants into the country and label them “legal”.     

Biden’s free pass for Haitians and Venezuelan’s, for example, was introduced at a time when the border crisis was hitting the mainstream media feeds and the public realized how bad the situation actually was.  Biden and the Democrats offered Haitians and others temporary work visas and created a loophole, allowing the visas to be extended for years.  In other words, Biden tried to reduce the number of border encounters by offering millions of illegals a backdoor into the US through work programs.    

The third worlders still get into the country and Biden can claim illegal immigration is going down.  The longer migrants are able to stay in the US on visas, the easier it is for them to get permanent residency.  This is called “Labor Certification” and it’s the first step towards a Green Card.  Because of the many loopholes associated with visa programs, Americans are now highly suspicious of any migration to “fill holes in the labor pool”.     

On the other side, some in MAGA want to end illegal immigration while increasing legal immigration of skilled workers.  In other words, attract the best and brightest from around the globe and bring them here so that our competitors don’t get them first.   

The threat of a complete shut down of all immigration, including skilled workers, has the tech industry concerned.  Elon Musk chimed in on the H-1B issue recently and called for more foreign engineers to be allowed work status in the US.  Some people agree, while many others are in an uproar, calling Musk a “traitor”.   

There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent. It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 25, 2024

No, we need more like double that number yesterday!

The number of people who are super talented engineers AND super motivated in the USA is far too low.

Think of this like a pro sports team: if you want your TEAM to win the championship, you need to recruit top talent wherever…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 25, 2024

To be fair to Musk, he would know better than most what the deficiencies are in the STEM labor market in America given his industry focus.  The fact is, not all immigration is bad immigration and going scorched earth on work visas might be a net negative to the US in the short term (perhaps even the long term).  It should be noted that a lot of skilled immigrants come from Europe, Australia, the UK, Canada and other western nations, not just places like India or China.

Others argue that America is not a sports team or a company, it’s a home.  People believe the system is inviting foreign workers into the US without giving a fair shot to native born Americans.  The question is, do such American STEM workers exist in numbers large enough to fill industry needs?  And, if not, what’s the solution? 

Vivek Ramaswamy has chimed in on the issue via X, suggesting that there isn’t an intelligence deficiency in the US, there’s an educational and institutional deficiency:  

“The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture.  

Tough questions demand tough answers & if we’re really serious about fixing the problem, we have to confront the TRUTH:  Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG.  A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers.” 

This is essentially the same argument that conservatives have been making for many years; the decline in the American educational system, especially in STEM fields, is legendary at this point, along with the overall decline in culture.   

Vivek might be a little behind the times on the issue – Even athletic excellence in the US is no longer culturally venerated.  The problem is mediocrity in every area of life.  The most popular career choice for Gen Z is to become a “YouTube star”.  No kid wants to be an astronaut anymore.  There are some very smart people out there on YouTube, but no society can survive on a labor force full of wannabe “influencers”.

That said, US trust in the immigration system has been broken and even Vivek is receiving considerable blowback for his defense of H-1B visas.  A common counter to Vivek’s position is the claim that much of the “skilled labor” coming from countries like India is actually mediocre labor that does the job (barely) for cheaper wages while replacing better qualified Americans.  Whether or not this is true on a wider scale needs to be investigated. 

       

As usual, whenever there is a divisive issue causing internal conflict and debate among conservative groups there are doom mongers that dance around the edges and act as if the entire movement is suddenly fracturing.  Conservatives have never agreed on solutions – This is normal.  They are not a hive mind like the political left, which is a good thing.  Such debates are a sign of a healthy political process.     

What we really have here is an artificially created either/or scenario; skilled labor shortages should be treated as a “why not do both” scenario.   

First and foremost, Americans want actual proof of these labor shortages.  They’ve heard stories for years but the proof is less accessible.  What if tech companies and others in need of STEM labor were to engage the public in a large scale national labor fair?  It sounds cheesy, but consider for a moment that the vast majority of companies today handle all their hiring through online cattle markets that often give job seekers the runaround.   

There is almost zero human interaction and no confirmation that a job was ever filled.  There are companies that post fake job listings to make it appear as though they are growing, to make existing employees feel as though they can be replaced and to make existing employees think their extreme work load will soon be alleviated by new talent.  This practice has stunted the stats on the labor market.     

Nationwide job fairs require money to set up and companies have to put people on standby to talk to prospective employees.  There is energy and a sense of urgency involved.  If skilled labor is truly hard to find, then Elon Musk and other industry leaders should have no problem putting come capital into a physical and interactive job fair – A national search for American talent in STEM in which workers talk to employers face-to-face instead of being filtered by websites and algorithms.   

It might even be prudent to make such labor searches a requirement for large companies before they’re allowed to bring over migrant workers through visa programs.

If the shortage is real then it will be obvious from the lack of participation on the side of job seekers or the lack of qualifications in their resumes.  Then, those within MAGA that oppose migrant visas will have to admit that the demand is legitimate and that the only option, in the short term, is to bring in foreign labor.   

In the long term, the national education system needs to be completely overhauled and a focus on practical skills and advanced STEM has to be championed.  Incentives to lure Americans back into science and engineering fields may be necessary.  The US can do both:  Cut immigration down to only the best and brightest, or down to labor pools with proven shortages, while also encouraging native-born American interest in such fields and creating a domestic pool of skilled assets.