Trump signs order banning federal agencies from firing U.S. citizens to replace them with foreigners
President Trump on Monday signed an executive order banning federal agencies – with particular attention on the technology sector – from firing U.S. citizens or green card holders only to replace them with foreigners.
The order, which the White House is calling the Executive Order on Hiring American, challenges federal contractors’ use of H-1B visas to bring in temporary foreign labor for high-skilled jobs rather than relying on American workers
“This Executive Order follows his Buy American, Hire American Executive Order from April 2017 and takes further action to prevent Americans from being displaced by foreign workers,” the White House said in a statement released Monday. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the firing of hardworking Americans in the pursuit of cheap foreign labor will not be tolerated.”
Trump’s action was in part to prevent the outsourcing of jobs at the Tennessee Valley Authority, the federally owned corporation created by congressional charter in 1933 to provide electricity, economic development and other essential services to the region.
At the White House signing ceremony Monday, Trump POTUS says he’s pushing for the removal of authority CEO Jeff Lyash and called on its board to make Lyash “does not receive a lavish compensation package upon his departure too.”
”He gets $8 million a year so that was just a succession of deep swamp things happening and it’s a disgrace,” Trump said. “So let this serve as a warning to any federally appointed board. If you betray American workers, then you will hear two simple words, ‘You’re fired.’ ”
team of macro analysts from JP Morgan’s sell-side research desk published a lengthy paper aggregating all of their COVID-19-related findings. And while perusing the note, one particular finding caught our eye. In one section of the note, the team addressed a critical question for epidemiologists (and investors): Will the amount of time required to reach “peak” infection rates vary between successive “waves” of the virus? And if so, how might this inform the global policy response?
Succeeding in compressing the “half life” of the wave should be the central focus of policy makers, the analysts argued. And while globally, the policy response in country after country has favored lockdowns, Melbourne is showing right now that, especially when case numbers are small relative to the overall population, lockdowns might not make sense as the most effective way to contain the virus.
As the infection curve starts to resurge in many countries, signaling the next wave, we examine whether the time to arrive at the peak is similar in both the first and second waves. Conceptually, we develop a hypothesis on shorter potential lifespan for the infection curve as the curve moves into the next waves.
In our view, the concept of decay in ‘half-life’, i.e. the time required for a quantity to reduce to half, could be applicable to picturing the next waves.
We think (1) better secondary infection rate control, (2) large mobility tracing and more voluntary testing; and, (3) shorter recovery periods could drive a shorter curve peak.
It is not necessarily so that if more people are infected, a larger part of society would have antibodies and that this would flatten the curve. We note that, in most countries – both developed and developing – the size of infection is only 0.2-0.5% of the total population.
Even if we were to assume about 5x higher unreported infection cases, this is still relatively small. Also, “ring vaccination” is not a strategy yet, as so far we do not have a vaccine widely available for the public.
Over the coming 6-12 months, JPM analysts concluded, it’s likely that a number of factors resulting from lessons learned during the first wave will commingle to help shorten the trough-to-peak dynamic in the ensuing waves.