| 0 comments ]

Jane Street Paid Employees $9.4 Billion, Twice What It Paid Last Year, After Record 2025 Results

Jane Street Group has evolved from a niche trading shop into one of Wall Street’s most profitable firms and employees are reaping the rewards. The firm paid roughly $9.4 billion in compensation last year, more than twice what it distributed a year earlier, according to Bloomberg.

On average, that translated to about $2.7 million per employee, far ahead of traditional banks like Goldman Sachs. The massive payouts followed a record year in which Jane Street generated nearly $40 billion in trading revenue, outpacing major banks and rivals in the market-making business.

Bloomberg writes that the firm started in 2000 trading American depositary receipts before expanding into ETFs and other electronically traded assets. As more markets became automated, Jane Street scaled aggressively and now handles trading across equities, bonds, ETFs, and other products.

Its financial resources have grown just as dramatically. The firm’s internal capital base has climbed to roughly $45 billion, up nearly twentyfold over the past decade, giving it significant flexibility to capitalize on market swings without relying heavily on outside funding. It has also raised additional cash through debt markets.

That war chest has allowed Jane Street to move beyond day-to-day trading. The firm has built positions in high-growth tech companies, including Anthropic, and has also backed CoreWeave while exploring deals involving Fluidstack.

Jane Street also operates differently from most major financial firms. It doesn’t have a traditional CEO hierarchy and is instead overseen by a group of partners. The firm is well known for recruiting mathematicians, engineers, and problem-solvers to sharpen its trading systems.

Despite regulatory and legal challenges — including scrutiny in India and litigation tied to the collapse of Terraform Labs — Jane Street continues to widen its lead. It outperformed Citadel Securities last year and is continuing to expand, including plans for a larger office in London.

Recall, we wrote just days ago that Jane Street reeled in a Wall Street record $39.6 billion of trading revenue last year, more than any Wall Street bank. According to the report, the firm beat out all global investment banks after reaping $15.5 billion in the year’s final quarter, and with only 3,500 employees, it beat nearest rival JPMorgan by 11% during the year. The company's adjusted ETBIDA for the full year was a stunning $31.2 billion. 

While Jane Street’s profits were lifted by surging valuations of its stakes in privately held companies, the firm’s main business matching buyers and sellers across assets thrived on bouts of market volatility. The new annual record - which includes gains on long-term investments - shows "how the balance of power has shifted in one of the most lucrative arenas of global finance."

While it has kept a remarkable low profile, its recent public appearances have been less than laudatory: The company's record haul is confirmation that Jane Street, long known for its secrecy, was able to keep growing after getting thrust into the spotlight in mid-2025 when authorities in India accused of manipulating markets while running what had once been one of the firm’s most lucrative trading strategies.

Jane Street has denied those allegations and is fighting them in court. In February, Jane Street was sued by the bankrupt Terraform Labs estate, accusing it of engaging in insider trading that precipitated the $40 billion crash of cryptocurrencies associated with Terraform; this week the HFT firm also urged a judge to throw out that lawsuit.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 19:15
https://ift.tt/ZwE7tVk
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZwE7tVk
via IFTTT

Jane Street Paid Employees $9.4 Billion, Twice What It Paid Last Year, After Record 2025 Results SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Democrats Melt Down After Supreme Court Restricts Race Based Gerrymandering

The response from Democrats to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down race-based gerrymandering has been predictable - running high in emotion and devoid of objectivity.  The Democrat Party has understood for a long time that much of their power comes from inserting themselves as the spokespeople for the supposed "have-nots".  Racial hysteria being a key weapon in their arsenal to push the ongoing socialization of America. 

Its the reason why left-wing NGO's have been dumping millions of dollars into the very "hate groups" they claim to be fighting against.  Leftists need racism as a bogeyman; they have no power without it.  

It makes sense that Democrats are clinging to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices (including redistricting maps) that result in denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race.  The assumption being that minorities (specifically black Americans) require rigged districts where they are the majority in order to maintain power in government.  

This obviously benefits Democrats, with around 83% of blacks voting blue in recent elections.  Predominantly black districts in states across the US have acted as assured seats in the House for Dems since 1965.  In 1982, Congress strengthened Section 2 by amending it to clarify that plaintiffs only need to prove that a voting practice has a discriminatory result (effect), not just the intent.

Republicans sided with Democrats in a grand virtue signal, but the results of the strengthened VRA have harmed conservatives ever since.  The Supreme Court's recent 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais ends this 45-year-long mistake, at least, for the most part.    

The decision sets a precedent which largely eliminates the use of frivolous race-based challenges to redistricting maps and will lead to a loss of 12-19 House seats for Democrats over the next two years.  States which are planning to adjust their maps in light of the Supreme Court ruling include Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama.  A few other red states are looking into potential changes before 2028.

The Democrat reaction has been an absolute meltdown.  Impending district map changes threaten a loss of around 12 seats in the near term.

The underlying narrative promoted by the political left is that the ruling will result in black Americans losing the right to vote.  Chuck Schumer insinuates this in his frantic response, calling the decision a "return to Jim Crow". 

This is, of course, a fallacy.  No black citizen is losing their right to vote.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruling confirms that black voters and white voters are equal and that rigged districts based on race are not necessary.  Raging over the proposition of losing political power, Democrats are now calling for "packing the courts" as a means to dilute the Supreme Court and assert total control over districts and elections (a typical appeal to lawfare). 

Hakeem Jeffries called the Supreme Court a disgrace and said "everything is on the table" to undermine their decision. 

Other Dems echoed this strategy.  Their plan?  If they can't rig districts, they will rig the courts.

It should be noted that the political left only calls for these kinds of extreme measures when the court rules in favor of conservatives.  Objective positions and nuances within court decisions are not tolerated.  The threat is clear:  "Rule with us, or we will get revenge..."

Other left-wing politicians argue that the Supreme Court "has no authority" to change the VRA because they are not "elected".  When Democrats start to sound like activist libertarians, you know they're scared.

In the sprint to the Midterms the district changes will likely be minimal, but enough to potentially thwart a Democrat majority.  In 2028, the game could change dramatically.  Former President Barack Obama was lambasted for attacking the Supreme Court ruling, just days after cutting ads for a Virginia effort to transform that state's map into a 10-1 Democratic advantage. 

Top Illinois Democrats called the precedent a ‘crushing blow to our democracy', despite the fact that Illinois is widely considered gerrymandered to benefit Democrats.  It's only okay when they do it, not when conservatives do it.  

The Democrat response is a reminder that, if the political left ever returns to substantial government power as they had under the Biden Administration, they will break every rule and violate every principle in order to keep control.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 17:30
https://ift.tt/zgE7Zjx
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/zgE7Zjx
via IFTTT

Democrats Melt Down After Supreme Court Restricts Race Based Gerrymandering SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

CNN 'Expert' Says Iranian Suicide Dolphins Going After US Ships

Americans have been subject to a variety of creative wartime propaganda claims by their government stretching back many decades. From the 'incubator babies' hoax of the first Iraq war, to hyping 'mushroom clouds' over US cities during the 2nd Iraq War, to Gaddafi 'mass rape' allegations through distributing Viagra pills to Libyan troops - there seems to be no end to such bizarre claims out of the D.C. beltway, and the mainstream media is consistently a willing participant in spreading these proven lies.

Already we've seen some whoppers coming from the same sources on Iran. Even Vice President J.D. Vance, reported to harbor quiet skepticism and doubts about Trump's Operation Epic Fury, has floated the idea that Tehran could send out terrorists with 'nuclear suicide vests'. But leave it to the Iranian 'expert' pundit class to come up with something even more absurd: suicide bomber dolphins. The below clip was recently aired on CNN, and the MSM channel gave the wild claim an air of credibility, because of course it did...

CNN show host Kaitlan Collins did nothing to challenge the assertion, which Iranian leaders were supposedly "contemplating". For example, the supposed 'expert' pundit didn't even bother to establish whether Iran has ever so much as had such a program.

However, there has long been a United States dolphin mine locating program and research. But in this instance - during the Iraq war of 2003 for example - they simply assisted in locating mines threatening the Persian Gulf waterway, according to archived news articles.

The Iranians may have, going years back, experimented with deploying dolphins to assist in surveillance operations - akin to some cutting edge programs in other countries like Russia, but nothing is known of what became of this, and it would without doubt be a very expensive research program which would require a heavy, long-term time investment as well.

And to be expected, the 'suicide dolphins' narrative gets re-laundered by Fox News:

But it remains that there has never been evidence of any country deploying 'suicide dolphins' to take out enemy ships. When it comes to 'official enemies' of Washington, the pundit class can basically make up any nefarious and twisted allegation or plot and it won't be met with much scrutiny or pushback from the mainstream, if any at all.

When the MSM wants to float at outlandish claim and frame it as credible, another technique is to simply add "reports say" such and such a regime is "mulling" this or that.

Flipper Akbar!...

The propaganda claim then becomes impossible to confirm, but still gets widely circulated, and the 'method' keeps getting repeated, with only the most gullible buying into the claims (though sadly, this is way too many Americans).

The EyE-raNIAN SUICIDE aTTaCK DoLpHInS are COmINg!!!

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 16:55
https://ift.tt/rpDuqzS
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/rpDuqzS
via IFTTT

CNN 'Expert' Says Iranian Suicide Dolphins Going After US Ships SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Berkshire Cash Hits A Record $397 Billion After Selling Most Stocks In 2 Years

The head of Berkshire may be new, but nothing has changed in the business model.

In Berkshire's first quarter Greg under Abel, who succeeded Buffett in January as Berkshire's chief executive, the company on Saturday reported a higher first-quarter operating profit even as economic uncertainty weighed on several of its consumer-oriented ​businesses. The Omaha, Nebraska-based conglomerate built by Warren Buffett and now led by Greg Abel also reported a record cash level, reflecting continuing difficulty finding ‌investments that meet its value-oriented principles.The conglomerate also continued its trend of divesting its stock portfolio with the largest sales od equity securities in Q1 since mid-2024; it also unveiled the first, modest stock buyback since Q2 of 2024.

Profit from Berkshire's numerous businesses rose 18% to $11.35 billion, or about $7,891 per Class A share, from $9.64 billion a year earlier. Net income, including from common stock investments, more than doubled to $10.1 billion, or $7,027 per Class A share, from $4.6 billion thanks to a boost from an improvement in underwriting results in its vast insurance businesses (Berkshire has traditionally downplayed the relevance of net income, which because of accounting rules includes unrealized gains and ​losses on stocks it has no plans to sell, and its therefore especially volatile during periods of market stress).

Berkshire's earnings are closely watched because the conglomerate’s businesses, ranging from insurance to railroads to energy and manufacturing, provide a snapshot of the health of the US economy. The company owns dozens of businesses including Geico, the BNSF railroad, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dairy Queen and See's Candies. Yet while Berkshire is sometimes considered a microcosm of the broader U.S. economy, its focus on insurance and hard ​assets has left it out of step with broader market trends, including the prevailing euphoria over artificial intelligence.

Worries about the economy took a toll on several of ​Berkshire's consumer-oriented businesses. Berkshire said economic conditions weighed on building products businesses such as the Clayton Homes mobile home unit, while the Forest River RV unit, Fruit of the Loom ‌and Squishmallows ⁠maker Jazwares reported lower revenue amid "higher economic uncertainty" and lower consumer confidence.

Underwriting earnings from the firm’s collection of insurance businesses surged to $1.7 billion, up about 29% from a year ago, when the units were hit by losses tied to the Los Angeles wildfires. Still, Geico posted a 35% decline in pretax underwriting earnings, as the unit faced more losses and spent more to gain new clients. 

“Most of Geico’s peer group this quarter posted significantly improved underwriting results,” said Cathy Seifert, an analyst at CFRA Research, on the contrast between competitors and Geico. “They’re a big unit and that’s a big deterioration.”

Profit from all insurance operations rose 4% ⁠to $4.4 billion from a year earlier, when wildfires in Southern California hurt results in reinsurance and smaller insurance businesses. The overall improvement came despite the 35% profit drop at Geico, where accident claims and marketing expenses ​increased. Geico spent several years upgrading its underwriting discipline and technology, and is trying to reclaim market share it ​gave up to rivals ⁠such as Progressive. Abel said at the meeting that the insurance sector generally is "softening" and becoming "more challenging" as more capital flows into the market, making it harder for Berkshire to charge sufficient premiums for the risks it takes on.

Profit at its railroad unit BNSF rose 13% to $1.4 billion, helped by higher demand to ship grains, petroleum fuels, oilseeds and meals, and relieving pressure on BNSF management, led by CEO Katie Farmer, to improve the unit’s operating margin and close the gap with its most efficient peers.

The railroad ​has lagged some peers in operating margin, and Abel said in his first annual letter to ​Berkshire shareholders that improved efficiency and service were necessary. Abel had given the division’s management a clear mandate to improve the business on those fronts. He said at the meeting that while he’s pleased with the first-quarter results, there’s still room for improvement.

“We had heard that there was some cost efficiencies being implemented at BNSF, and that showed up in the first-quarter results,” Seifert said.

Elsewhere, Berkshire Hathaway Energy said profit rose 2%, as higher revenue from natural gas pipelines attributable to cold weather offset rising maintenance and wildfire prevention costs ​in utility businesses. Profit from manufacturing, service and retail operations rose 5% to $3.2 billion.

Earnings aside, Berkshire's cash hoard soared to a new record high just shy of $400 billion, or more than the US government traditionally has in its Treasury General Account (except for rare outlier occasions). As of March 31, Berkshire's total cash (held mostly in T-Bills) was $397 billion. The cash pile reflected the company's years-long inability to find a ​major acquisition, as well as sales of some of its largest stock holdings led by Apple. 

After a nearly two year hiatus without any stock buybacks, in Q1 Berkshire repurchased a modest $234 million of its own stock, the first buybacks ​since May 2024. It conducted no repurchases in the first two weeks of April.

More importantly, in Q1 Berkshire sold $8.1 billion more stocks than it bought, the 14th straight quarter it was a net seller of stocks, and the largest net sales since Q3 2024 when BRK sold almost $30 billion. Berkshire hasn't bought stock since Q3 2022. Berkshire paid $9.5 billion in January for Occidental Petroleum's chemicals business; it also decided against a new impairment charge on Kraft Heinz, one of its largest equity holdings, for now, even as the book value of its holding in the packaged food giant exceeds its fair value by $1.4 billion. Last year, the firm took a $3.8 billion hit, as the stock’s performance continued to disappoint. 

Results were released prior to Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting, which draws tens of thousands of people to Omaha, and this year they won't be happy; not only is the Oracle of Omaha no longer there, but Berkshire shares have significantly lagged the broader market since Buffett unexpectedly announced at last year's meeting when Abel would take over. In 2026, Berkshire Class A shares of the $1.02 trillion buy-and-hold behemoth have fallen 6%, a mirror image of the S&P's 6% ascent, and a far cry from the historic surge in Semiconductor names which are now the market's darling du jour. 

Abel took to the stage and address shareholders in Omaha on Saturday for his inaugural annual meeting as CEO. This is the first time in decades that Buffett won’t be leading the event after the 95-year-old announced he would step down from his role last year, though he was still in attendance and even shared a few remarks to help kick off the meeting.

At the Omaha shareholder meeting earlier today, new CEO Greg Abel assured Berkshire shareholders that he will invest wisely and manage the conglomerate's massive cash stake without the burdens of bureaucracy, as he seeks to win over those cautiously hoping he is ​a worthy successor to Warren Buffett. Abel, 63, spoke at Berkshire's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, four months after succeeding arguably the world's most famous investor as CEO. 

To do that, he must earn the trust of ‌investors now enamored with technology and artificial intelligence, rather than Berkshire's collection of insurers, retailers and hard-asset businesses in energy, industrials and manufacturing.

"As a conglomerate, we live by the fact that we hate bureaucracy," Abel said in response to a prerecorded question from Buffett, who also sat in a front-row seat. "We do not intend to be beholden to anyone. We start with that."

Still, attendance was down significantly from when Buffett and Vice Chairman ​Charlie Munger, who died in 2023, presided over meetings filled with their lively insights and banter about Berkshire, the economy, markets and life. Buffett and Munger drew capacity crowds in ⁠the downtown arena where the meeting took place, but several thousand of the approximately 18,000 seats were empty when Abel took the stage.

The meeting is the centerpiece of a weekend of shareholder events around Omaha, including investment conferences, private get-togethers, and shopping from Berkshire-owned businesses in an exhibit hall adjacent to the arena. Fewer people ⁠shopped. While thousands ​lined up outside the arena before doors opened at 7 a.m., the lines were considerably shorter than in recent years.

“I wanted to ​soak in the atmosphere and network with finance professionals,” said Jobby Chin, a finance student from Singapore attending her first meeting, who said she got in line at 2 am. Michael DiDonna, a fashion photographer from Oyster Bay, New York, said he arrived at 3:10 a.m. for his fifth ​meeting. "I want to feel a part of the monumental shift at the company," he said.

Buffett, for his part, assured the audience that "Greg is doing everything I did and then some," reprising comments he made last year when he announced his retirement ​as CEO. The 95-year-old also praised Apple, one of Berkshire's most successful investments, and its departing chief executive, Tim Cook. Buffett remains Berkshire's chairman.

In an interview with CNBC on the meeting's sidelines, Buffett fretted about a gambling mentality that has taken hold of some investors. "We've never had more people in a gambling mood than now," he said. "That doesn't mean investing is terrible, but it does mean that prices for an awful lot of things will look awfully silly."

Abel also assured shareholders he would not break up Berkshire, saying it operated effectively and its bench of expertise was strong. "We want Berkshire to endure," he said. Abel also said ​he is constantly evaluating opportunities to add to Berkshire's existing portfolio, whether that is acquiring public or private companies or a piece of a company.

Abel adhered to Buffett's mantra of patience, saying he would like to hold investments "forever" and not plow into any without understanding their economic ​prospects and risks. "It doesn't mean you need to deploy all ​your capital and spend all your money," he ⁠said.

He agreed with Berkshire's longtime insurance chief, Ajit Jain, who also answered questions from the stage, that it was important to say "no" if an investment did not look right. "It is very difficult to sit there and do nothing," Jain said, "while everyone else is being wined and dined by brokers and taken to London."

Abel praised a recent Oregon appeals ​court ruling that, for now, spared Berkshire's PacifiCorp unit from billions of dollars of potential liabilities for wildfires in 2020 that the utility maintains it did not ​cause. "We're back to first base" on the ⁠legal side, he said, meaning the threat has lessened.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 16:55
https://ift.tt/dzxC62A
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dzxC62A
via IFTTT

Berkshire Cash Hits A Record $397 Billion After Selling Most Stocks In 2 Years SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

The Cheap Foreign Labor Regime Blocking Agricultural Intelligence

Authored by RJ Hauman via American Intelligence,

I grew up in Camarillo, California: fertile soil, Mediterranean climate, strawberries, avocados, lemons, citrus, and family farms passed down through generations. The kind of place that sells itself, and does.

Read the city’s own description of its agricultural economy and you will find every word you would expect: rich agricultural legacy, farming passed down, agricultural education, sustainability, drip irrigation, precision sensors, AI-driven robotics, research partnerships, and a North American AgTech market projected to reach $16 billion by 2027.

Read it again and notice what is missing.

The workforce.

Not wages. Not labor. Not who picks the strawberries, cuts the lemons, or brings in the harvest. The fields produce. The technology advances. The legacy continues. The workers disappear.

Every agricultural economy has a legacy. The question is which part is being preserved. The fertile soil is a legacy. The family farms are a legacy. The harvest is a legacy. So is the labor model that brings it in. And across American agriculture, that model has for forty years depended heavily on foreign labor, illegal hiring, and a political class determined not to disturb either.

When a city brochure pairs “legacy” with AI robotics in the same breath, it is not just describing the future. It is making a quiet promise: the technology will advance, but the labor model will not.

America is preparing for the AI age everywhere except the place that feeds the country.

In Washington, the debate tends to revolve around foundation models, export controls, chips, data centers, defense contracts, and the ideological capture of Silicon Valley. Those fights matter. But the next frontier of artificial intelligence will not stay confined to server farms or federal procurement offices. It will also play out in fields, dairies, orchards, irrigation networks, greenhouses, and the rural labor markets that underpin America’s food supply.

That frontier is no longer theoretical. Autonomous tractors already plant, till, and spray without a driver. Computer-vision systems can scout crops plant by plant. Machine-learning models can optimize water, fertilizer, pest control, and yield down to the meter. Robotic harvesters can pick faster, cleaner, and longer than hand crews. Precision irrigation can be guided by satellite analytics. AI-assisted breeding can compress decades of plant selection into months.

The question is no longer whether American agriculture can automate. It is whether Washington will stop subsidizing the cheap labor model that makes automation a losing bet.

America should be leading this revolution. It builds the software, funds the research, trains the engineers, and talks constantly about technological dominance. Yet federal policy still props up an agricultural labor model built on cheap imported labor, illegal hiring, and guestworker expansion. That bargain has kept human labor cheaper than machines, delayed mechanization, and now risks leaving the United States on the sidelines of a revolution it should own.

This is not a speculative warning. It is already underway. Syngenta’s Cropwise platform now spans more than 70 million hectares across 30 countries. The World Economic Forum projects that AI-amplified digital agriculture could increase agricultural GDP in developing economies by more than $450 billion annually. The Netherlands, Israel, and Australia are moving quickly to capture that ground.

American firms built much of the underlying technology. American universities produced the foundational research. American workers could be trained to operate it.

But the United States will not lead unless it dismantles the cheap labor regime that has allowed agriculture to skip the last revolution while pretending it is ready for the next.

You cannot leapfrog to autonomous agriculture over an industry that has barely mechanized. Software runs on hardware. AI runs on physical capital. The autonomous tractor still requires the tractor. The computer-vision yield system still needs the machine it is guiding. The machine-learning dairy platform still depends on the milking robot it is reading from. Farms that have not mechanized cannot become intelligent by press release.

The capital does not move. The infrastructure does not get built. The workforce does not get trained. The frontier goes to whoever did the prior work first.

Why has American agriculture failed to do that work?

Not because of technology. The tools have been available for decades.

The answer is policy. Washington has spent forty years making cheap foreign labor cheaper than the machine.

The Twin Pillars of the Cheap Labor Regime

American agriculture runs on a labor system Washington built, tolerated, subsidized, and now refuses to dismantle. It rests on two pillars.

The first is illegal hiring. Federal surveys show that roughly 40 to 45 percent of crop farmworkers lack legal work authorization. In California, the share is closer to 60 percent. Another large portion are foreign nationals who entered illegally or came on a temporary basis. The U.S.-born legal workforce in the fields is the minority.

This is not a system failure. It is the system. And it has been propped up by both parties.

The second pillar is H-2A, the federal guestworker program designed in 1986 as a narrow tool for seasonal shortages. It has since grown into one of the largest labor pipelines in the immigration system.

The Department of Labor certified roughly 385,000 H-2A jobs in FY 2024, nearly an eightfold increase since 2005. The program remains uncapped by statute. Recent rulemaking is projected to transfer tens of billions in wage value over the next decade, in some cases lowering effective labor costs by several dollars per hour.

Washington is making imported labor cheaper at the exact moment it should be forcing capital toward machines.

These pillars are not separate problems. They are the same subsidy delivered through different channels, defended by the same interests, and sustaining the same method.

When enforcement targets illegal hiring, employers demand H-2A expansion. When H-2A reform is proposed, they revive amnesty proposals like the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would grant Certified Agricultural Worker status and eventual green cards to up to 2.1 million illegal alien farmworkers while simultaneously opening H-2A to year-round industries.

The lobby’s actual position is not legal labor or illegal labor. It is permanent access to cheap foreign labor by whatever channel Washington will tolerate.

Illegal hiring supplies the shadow workforce. H-2A provides the legal release valve. Amnesty converts one into the other while preserving the pipeline behind it.

This is not stagnation by accident. It is by design.

The result is a labor-intensive production model with little incentive to mechanize, little reason to invest in agricultural intelligence, and no pressure to train American workers to operate either.

That helps explain why the United States lags Northern Europe in robotic milking, Israel in precision irrigation, and Australia in autonomous platforms.

Those countries did not discover secret technologies unavailable to American farmers. They built the workforce and mechanized base the United States has chosen to avoid.

We chose decades of cheap, and often illegal, foreign labor instead.

The Myth of the Impossible Crop

Big Agriculture’s most persistent claim is that American farming cannot be mechanized. The crops are too delicate. The terrain too uneven. The seasons too unpredictable. The farms are too diverse. The margins are too thin. The labor is supposedly too specialized.

Some of these objections contain fragments of truth. None justify a permanent federal subsidy for cheap foreign labor.

The “impossible crop” argument collapses the moment policy forces capital to solve the problem.

Commercial cabbage harvesters have existed for decades. Autonomous systems are now being developed for uneven terrain. Apple harvesting robots can pick roughly 10,000 apples an hour, about 30 to 50 times human speed, with less bruising than human crews.

Harvest CROO’s strawberry robots replaced crews of 30 migrant pickers with a small team of engineers and technicians and reached commercial viability in 2025. Carbon Robotics’ LaserWeeder uses AI-guided precision lasers to eliminate up to 5,000 weeds a minute, replacing the work of a hand crew of 75 people. Monarch Tractor’s MK-V is a fully electric, driver-optional tractor now operating on hundreds of farms. Bear Flag Robotics, now a John Deere subsidiary, retrofits existing tractors for autonomous tillage at scale.

Even crops long considered unmechanizable are starting to be mechanized.

The constraint is not engineering. It is incentive. And when the incentive shifts, capital tends to follow.

Dale Hemminger, an upstate New York dairy farmer, installed his first milking robots in 2007 after immigration authorities arrested one of his workers. Before mechanization, his farm produced about 800,000 pounds of milk per worker per year. Today it produces 2.5 million. About a dozen workers manage a herd of more than 2,000 cows. They earn more than typical farmworkers and work shorter hours.

That is what one enforcement event did on one farm.

Now imagine that incentive applied across the entire sector.

Bracero Proved the Point

America has already run this experiment.

From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero program admitted more than 4.6 million Mexican guestworkers. At its peak, it brought in more workers annually than today’s entire H-2A system.

The same arguments were made then: crops would rot, Americans would not work, mechanization was not ready.

Congress and President Lyndon Johnson ended the Bracero program in 1964.

The result was not collapse. It was modernization.

Tomato harvesters, developed at the University of California with public funds, were commercially deployed within five years. California processing tomato yields rose 300 percent while labor requirements fell by more than 80 percent. Real wages for remaining domestic farmworkers rose substantially. Crop losses were short-lived and concentrated in the first two seasons. Total production soon exceeded pre-termination levels.

The lesson is straightforward.

The technology was already there. Modernization was obstructed by outdated policy.

That lesson applies directly today.

End the federal guarantee of imported labor. Mandate E-Verify. Phase down H-2A on a real timeline. Reject amnesty that converts the existing illegal workforce into a permanent labor base while expanding future inflows.

No carve-outs. No indefinite delays.

Transition should be statutory, not chaotic. Enforcement must be paired with date-certain phase-downs, mechanization credit, and accelerated expensing. The point is not to create a harvest shock. It is to deny agribusiness the one thing that has defeated every reform for forty years: indefinite delay. Put serious public investment behind mechanization and agricultural intelligence in tandem, on the model of the semiconductor and energy industrial policies of the past five years. Pair the phase-down with targeted USDA credit for mechanization, accelerated expensing for qualifying capital investments, shared-ownership equipment consortia that put commercial-grade robotics within reach of smaller farms, and scale-tiered timelines that give family operations more runway than consolidated agribusiness.

Capital should move toward modernization, not toward Capitol Hill.

The Constituency This Is For

The Right often talks about building a worker-centered coalition. Agriculture is where that idea could actually take shape.

It is composed of the small dairy operator competing against a contractor-driven megafarm that lobbies for both illegal labor and H-2A expansion. It harbors the rural mechanic who could be trained as a robotics technician on a precision orchard. It uplifts the recent graduate of a community college agronomy program who could work in autonomous-equipment maintenance, computer-vision crop scouting, or precision-irrigation management. It represents the American worker who lost the field job a generation ago and never got the engineering job that should have replaced it, because the engineering job was never built.

Cheap, and oftentimes illegal, foreign labor does not just displace today’s American worker. It prevents tomorrow’s worker from emerging.

It blocks the investment that would create better jobs. It keeps rural America trapped in a low-wage equilibrium, and then frames that outcome as a necessary tradeoff.

It is not.

The Sovereignty of Food

The global agricultural intelligence revolution will not wait for American policy to catch up. It is happening now, on Dutch dairies, Israeli irrigation networks, Australian autonomous platforms, and in the orchards and greenhouses of countries that did the prior work, built the prior infrastructure, and trained the prior workforce.

But it does not have to be this way. American startups are building the machines. The United States can deploy them at scale, or watch other countries integrate the technology American firms invented.

The AI age is not just about who builds the model. It is about who controls the systems the model governs.

A country that imports foreign labor to prop up its food system, neglects the machines that should replace it, and fails to train its own workforce is not leading. It is stepping aside.

If “America First” means anything in the AI age, it means that the commanding systems of national life are built, operated, and controlled by Americans. Food is one of those systems.

The United States has the advantages: land, capital, universities, manufacturers, and workers.

What it lacks is the political will to end the old bargain.

For forty years, Washington has kept imported labor cheaper than machines. That decision has lowered wages, slowed mechanization, weakened the rural workforce, and delayed the productivity gains other countries have already captured.

Now the next revolution is here.

The choice is straightforward: a preindustrial labor system sustained by outdated and poor policy, or an industrial strategy worthy of a sovereign nation.

We should end the cheap foreign labor regime. Mandate E-Verify. Phase out H-2A. Restore wage discipline. Invest in mechanization and agricultural intelligence at scale.

America cannot shape the future of food while importing a labor model of the past.

There is no third option.

Coming soon from NICE: Phasing Out H-2A: How to Force American Agriculture into the 21st Century. A national mechanization and agricultural intelligence initiative built for American workers and American farms. The full case for ending Big Agriculture’s cheap labor racket and forcing the modernization that should have come a generation ago.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 15:10
https://ift.tt/0F2bqO1
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/0F2bqO1
via IFTTT

The Cheap Foreign Labor Regime Blocking Agricultural Intelligence SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend