A new measure of poverty that accounts for health care needs and resources being developed by the U.S. Census Bureau—the Health Inclusive Poverty Measure (HIPM)—shows that poverty affects even more people in the U.S. than the typical statistics estimate. This is particularly true for people of color. This is primarily a function of the limited access to health insurance that Black and Hispanic communities endure. Black and Hispanic individuals, for example, are more likely than peers to be uninsured and to rely on Medicaid for coverage. This is why we warned about the uneven impact of cuts to the program early this year.

Policymakers are currently debating the merits surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies that help more than 20 million people afford health insurance and kept nearly 2 million people out of poverty in 2024. These subsidies were introduced through the American Rescue Plan and extended through the Inflation Reduction Act; they increase the accessibility of health insurance by subsidizing the amount eligible individuals pay for the “benchmark”—i.e., the second-lowest tier plan on a sliding scale with income—such that most individuals making near-poverty wages can access these plans for free.

Allowing the ACA premium enhanced tax subsidies to expire will increase health inclusive poverty across groups, but the impact will be felt most heavily by those for whom accessing health insurance was already precarious. These households are disproportionately Black, brown, and working class because those households sit at the margin of health insurance affordability under normal circumstances and have seen the largest increases in insurance rates during the period when the enhanced tax credits have been available.

Communities of color trying to obtain health coverage now face attacks on two fronts. The more economically vulnerable among them face a more financially constrained Medicaid program with more stringent work requirements, purposefully meant to reduce access to health care. And those fortunate enough to afford care via the ACA marketplace now face the rising prospect of being priced out of coverage if the credits are allowed to expire this month. If the subsidies are allowed to expire, those who previously had free access to the benchmark ACA plans would lose it. The poorest eligible families would see the largest percentage increase in their annual health insurance premiums, while families with higher incomes would experience a higher dollar amount increase.

The end result of this two-pronged attack on public health, not to mention the dismantling of the country’s public health infrastructure that the Trump-Vance administration has carefully orchestrated since coming into office, will be an increase in the number of uninsured individuals, higher economic insecurity for families who need health care but can’t afford coverage, and increased poverty. These forces, as we illustrate below, will affect people of color unevenly.

Health inclusive poverty reveals deeper economic pain than monetary poverty—the attack on Medicaid and health subsidies will make things worse

More than 50 million people struggled with health inclusive poverty last year. This means more than one in seven (14.8%) individuals grappled with economic insecurity because they lack the resources to meet their health and broader needs (see Figure A). 

Figure A

The HIPM produced by the U.S. Census Bureau researchers broadens the basket of goods and services that families need to maintain an adequate standard of living beyond the two measures of poverty that the Bureau publishes annually. These two measures include the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) and the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). While the SPM goes further than the OPM to account for geographic differences in housing costs, tax credits, and government benefits (like SNAP), it doesn’t incorporate health care benefits, subsidies, and expenses like the HIPM. The HIPM therefore enables us to examine the extent to which access to health insurance and key health care subsidies impact the standard of living of individuals and families.

As observed in Figure A, health inclusive poverty has exceeded monetary poverty in the U.S. for the greater part of the last decade. Last year, for example, the prevalence of health inclusive poverty was more than 4 percentage points higher than the incidence of poverty measured by the OPM, and about 2 percentage points higher than the SPM. Access to health insurance serves as a key driver of the differences we observe between estimates of monetary and health inclusive poverty. This is because uninsured individuals have zero health insurance resources to offset the health care needs that the health inclusive measure of poverty introduces to the original poverty thresholds under the SPM.

Recent policy choices under the Turmp-Vance administration are likely to further widen the gap between these measures. The Republican Budget Reconciliation bill is projected to increase the number of uninsured individuals by more than 10 million in the years ahead, and the expiration of health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act marketplace will quadruple the average net premiums for the more economically vulnerable and increase the number of uninsured individuals by nearly 5 million in 2026.

In 2024 alone, Medicaid kept about 15 million people out of poverty and health care subsidies that made health insurance more affordable for people in the ACA marketplace kept nearly 2 million people out of poverty. Without these support systems, about 17 more million people would have fallen below the poverty line in 2024, pushing the poverty rate from 14.8% to around 19.8%.

Health inclusive poverty affects people of color disproportionately

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals are more than twice as likely as their white peers to face economic hardship due to insufficient resources to meet their health and material needs. Last year, more than one in five Black, Hispanic, and AIAN people fell below the health inclusive poverty line (see Figure B).

Figure B

While the prevalence of health inclusive poverty exceeds that of monetary poverty for all racial and ethnic groups, the divide is starkest for Black, Hispanic, and AIAN individuals (as shown in Figure B). Compared with their non-Hispanic white peers, the percentage point difference between health and monetary poverty is more than twice as large for Black individuals and more than five times as large for Hispanic and AIAN individuals. These disparities are driven by unequal access to health insurance, as the uninsured rate is highest for Hispanic, AIAN, and Black individuals. More than one in six Hispanic and AIAN people, for example, lack access to health insurance. These groups are more than three times as likely as their white peers to lack access to health insurance. Slightly narrower, but just as harmful, disparities affect Black individuals. In 2024, more than 3.5 million Black people struggled without access to health insurance.

Statistically meaningful differences between both poverty measures are largest in Southern states, where communities of color make up a relatively larger share of the population. States where social and economic policy have historically been rooted in racism are also less likely to have expanded access to Medicaid. Census researchers find that states with expanded access to Medicaid coverage have health inclusive poverty estimates that are more than 2 percentage points lower than states without expanded access.

Black and brown people, as well as the working class and uninsured, skip or postpone needed health care due to cost

The U.S. health care system is designed such that access to adequate and timely care is based on a person’s ability to pay and often based on whether they are employed. Access to health insurance mediates access to health care, and employment is a major mediating factor for access to both health insurance and the income necessary to pay any out-of-pocket costs associated with care. In greed-driven health care systems like ours, poorer workers and their families often forgo or delay treatment that could improve or extend their lives because they can’t afford it.

Black and brown households are more likely to be uninsured, to report difficulties with reporting health care costs, and to report skipping or postponing needed health care within the past year than their white and Asian counterparts. Lack of access to adequate and timely care has long-term economic and health implications for Black and brown families and communities. Policies that threaten the already tenuous connection that marginalized groups have to the health care system, e.g., allowing the ACA premium tax credits to expire and restricting access to Medicaid, will contribute to the persistence of economic and health inequities across race and class.

HIPM underscores the economic and public policy imperative of expanding health care access to prevent poverty

The HIPM captures the impact of overlapping economic and public health policies—or lack of effective policies—on households’ exposure to poverty. It shows how policies like Medicare, Medicaid, and expansions to the Affordable Care Act protect families from financial distress and uncertainty. Racial and geographic differences in the HIPM highlight the variation in adequacy different groups experience across our patchwork health care system. It also helps us identify the impact that recent and ongoing policy choices will have on public health and equity.

The federal cuts to Medicaid that President Trump signed into law this summer, as well as the potential expiration of ACA health insurance subsidies, will disproportionately impact communities of color. Cuts to Medicaid will hurt Black and Hispanic adults and children most, as they are more likely than their peers to rely on Medicaid and CHIP for health insurance. The potential expiration of ACA subsidies will undoubtedly compound health inequities, pushing more than 2 million people of color into ranks of the uninsured. With both private and public options for health insurance falling further out of reach for the most disadvantaged, the administration’s attack on the country’s public health infrastructure will worsen health outcomes, widen disparities, and deepen the growing economic vulnerability of families struggling under Trump’s affordability crisis.

This is part 2 of a two-part series analyzing the impact of an amendment to the House Homeland appropriations bill on the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. Read part 1 here.

Key takeaways:

• The government funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may include a rider amendment that would establish a new methodology for setting the H-2B visa program’s annual numerical limit. This amendment (originally known as Amendment #1 but later dubbed the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc amendment) would result in a cap of at least 252,000 visas in fiscal year (FY) 2026.
• H-2B visa extensions and job changes are not counted against the annual cap, but after adding them to the updated cap of 252,000, the total number of H-2B workers employed in FY 2026 would be 282,000, which is almost 113,000 greater than the total number of workers in 2024 and 2025.
• The rider would move 12,000 H-2B workers employed at carnivals, traveling fairs, and circuses to the P visa, which lacks any numerical limit on the number of visas, further expanding the number of exploitable workers in H-2B industries.
• The rider would restrict the already limited ability of H-2A and H-2B workers to change employers, leaving them more exploitable and vulnerable to workplace violations.
• This amendment in Congress would mainly benefit employers by allowing them to gradually hire an exponentially higher number of workers they can control, while undercutting labor standards for all workers.

In part 1 of this two-part blog post series, I provided background and discussion on a rider amendment that the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee proposed and passed over the summer. Originally known as Amendment #1 but later dubbed the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc amendment, it would make major changes to the H-2A and H-2B visa programs through the appropriations process, while completely circumventing the committees that should have subject matter jurisdiction in the House and Senate. Part 1 focuses on the changes and impacts in the H-2A program; this post will briefly explain the components of the rider that would make changes to the H-2B visa program and the impact of those changes, as well as one change that would affect both programs.

The H-2B program has been expanded through appropriations riders every year since fiscal year 2016

Two of my previous reports provide a fuller explanation of the background on the size of the H-2B program and a history of the legislative riders in appropriations bills that have been used to expand the size of the H-2B program. A quick recap here is warranted. In fiscal year 2016, Congress authorized a “returning worker” exemption through appropriations legislation to fund the operation of the U.S. government. The legislation exempted H-2B workers from the annual H-2B cap of 66,000 that is set in law, for fiscal year 2016, if the workers hired were previously in H-2B status in any of the preceding three fiscal years. There was no cap on the number of returning H-2B workers under the exemption.

In each year since FY 2017, Congress has, through appropriations riders, given the executive branch the discretionary legal authority to roughly double the number of H-2B visas available. Rather than specify the level of increase for the H-2B program, appropriators have passed the buck instead to the executive branch—perhaps because they didn’t want the responsibility or criticism that may come from setting a specific number—by directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), to determine how many additional H-2B visas are appropriate, if any. DHS has interpreted the rider language as allowing them to issue up to 64,716 “supplemental” visas in the corresponding fiscal year. In total, it has been 10 years (FY 2016–2025) since Congress first permitted increases to the size of the H-2B program through an appropriations rider. The Biden administration in 2023, 2024, and 2025 used the full authority granted to the executive branch in the legislative riders, raising the total H-2B annual limit to 130,716.

The appropriations rider would create a new methodology to expand the H-2B cap by at least 100,000

The rider takes a different approach to allowing a higher number of H-2B visas to be issued in FY 2026. The language of the amendment states that for every employer who has had any H-2B positions certified in the past five fiscal years (2021–2025), the highest number that they had certified in those years will be the number of H-2B workers they may hire who will not count against the annual cap of 66,000. In other words, if an employer had 10 jobs certified in 2021, 15 in 2022, 20 in 2023, 100 in 2024, and 50 in 2025, they would be allowed to hire 100 H-2B workers in 2026 without them counting against the 66,000 cap.

To calculate how many workers could be hired in 2026 under this formula, a colleague and I matched employer records from DOL and identified the employers who had at least one approved H-2B job in each of the years between 2020 to 2024. (Full year data for 2025 were not available at the time of writing, so 2020–2024 are used as a proxy.) Altogether, 186,342 H-2B workers would have been exempted from the annual cap under this formula. This is almost certainly a low-end estimate because the number of H-2B jobs certified in 2020 was lower than normal because of the bureaucratic shutdowns and slowdowns caused by the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 1 shows an estimate for 2020–2024 that serves as a proxy for our estimate on the number of new H-2B workers who will be exempted from the cap in 2026 and also lists the number of new H-2B workers who will be permitted under the regular annual cap of 66,000. Altogether, the regular cap plus the supplemental cap for H-2B in 2026 would permit at least 252,342 new workers if the language in the rider becomes law. That’s an increase of almost 100%, relative to the total cap in 2023–2025, and a 282% increase, relative to the original H-2B cap of 66,000.

It’s also important to note that the annual caps and total number of workers will grow exponentially in the following years after 2026 if Congress reauthorizes the same language in the rider year after year, as they’ve done with past H-2B riders. This will occur because employers will have an incentive to apply to DOL for labor certification for as many H-2B jobs as possible because that will increase the size of their exemption from the cap for the following year.

Table 1 Total number of H-2B workers would reach 282,000 in 2026 if the rider becomes law

In a recent report, I showed that in 2024, when 64,716 supplemental H-2B visas were added to the statutory cap of 66,000, for a total cap of 130,716, there were a total of 169,177 H-2B workers. This was up from 75,122 total H-2B workers just a decade earlier. The nearly 170,000 total in 2024 included 139,541 H-2B workers with newly issued visas from the State Department, and 4,580 H-2B workers who had their employment extended with the same employer. An additional 25,056 were H-2B workers who changed employers. Workers who extend their H-2B status or change jobs are not counted against the annual cap. (In 2025 the cap was identical to the previous year; thus, final numbers for 2025 are likely to be very similar to 2024.)

To get a better sense of the total number of H-2B workers who would be employed in 2026 if the rider became law, I estimated that the same number of workers who extended their status or changed jobs in 2024 would also do so in 2026, and added that total to the 2026 total cap that would result from the rider. This is illustrated in Figure A, which shows the total number of H-2B workers from 2017 to 2024, and projections for 2025 and 2026. The annual cap plus the supplemental cap, together with H-2B extensions and job changes, will result in nearly 282,000 H-2B workers being employed in 2026—almost 113,000 more workers than were employed in 2024 and 2025.

Figure A The rider would move 12,000 H-2B jobs to the P visa, which is not administered by the Department of Labor

The other notable change in the rider when it comes to the H-2B program is that H-2B workers employed at carnivals, traveling fairs, and circuses would be moved to the P visa program. According to DOL, in FY 2024 there were 12,398 H-2B jobs certified in the “Amusement and Recreation Attendants” occupation, which is the relevant occupation that would be moved to the P visa. There would be no annual cap on the number of amusement and carnival workers who could be employed in the P visa program.

At present, the P visa is a little-known program intended for use by professional athletes and coaches, members of an internationally recognized entertainment group, or persons performing under a reciprocal exchange program or as part of a culturally unique program. At present, the P visa program has no wage rules or worker protections and is administered exclusively by DHS, which has no staff or expertise on worker rights. This is extremely troubling, given that H-2B workers employed at carnivals and traveling fairs work grueling hours and in terrible conditions, making them some of the most exploited H-2B workers—as advocacy groups have pointed out. These workers are often paid below the minimum wage and are not paid for overtime hours. Yet DOL would no longer have any formal oversight role to ensure they are protected.

The rider language says that employers hiring H-2B carnival workers through the P visa “shall be subject to the same program requirements” of the H-2B program, which are administered by DOL. It also directs DHS and DOL to each separately publish regulations to implement H-2B carnival workers being moved to the P visa program within 180 days and finalize them within one year.

The legislators who support this amendment have provided no explanation or rationale for why it makes sense to create an entirely new process and set of regulations to move one of the biggest H-2B occupations from DOL into DHS—an agency that will be given primary responsibility over the P visa and protecting carnival workers, but which has no mandate or expertise on labor standards and employment laws. The most obvious explanation is that this legislative maneuver is simply a new way to expand the H-2B cap even beyond 252,000, in a way that gives carnival employers an unlimited supply of workers who can be exploited and underpaid. It also seems absurd to put a low-paid traveling carnival worker into the same visa category—where there’s no labor oversight—as a professional baseball player coming from abroad to sign a multimillion-dollar contract with a major league team, or a world-famous singer, dancer, or painter.

House Homeland Security appropriations rider would defund the H-2 modernization rule, restricting the ability of H-2 workers to change jobs and leave abusive employment situations

One other notable section in the rider that impacts both the H-2A and H-2B programs would prohibit DHS from spending funds to implement a regulation that took effect in January 2024—often referred to as the H-2 modernization rule. The rule, among other things, requires additional scrutiny of applications from employers that have violated the law, makes it easier for H-2 workers to be eligible for green cards through existing pathways, and expands the ability of H-2A and H-2B workers to change employers (this is referred to as visa “portability”), making it easier to leave an abusive employment situation. The regulation is far from perfect. As EPI and other advocates have pointed out, the portability provisions require additional measures to make visa portability a more practical reality, rather than just a right that exists on paper and one that can be hijacked by employers seeking to circumvent the annual cap.

Nevertheless, these three provisions in the H-2 modernization rule can undoubtedly help some workers, reducing the indentured nature of the visa programs by tilting the balance of power ever so slightly in the direction of workers. And that’s likely the exact reason that the employers and legislators pushing for the rider included this provision to defund the rule.

The H-2B program needs reforms to improve labor protections and provide H-2B workers with a pathway to citizenship

The appropriations committees in the House and Senate should not continue using parliamentary tactics to make changes to the H-2B program that would likely not pass in Congress through regular order. Instead, Congress should work with the executive branch to reform the H-2B program in the following ways: 

• ensure U.S. workers are considered for open temporary and seasonal jobs 
• craft updated wage rules that protect U.S. wage standards for all workers in H-2B industries
• provide migrant workers with new protections and allow them to more easily change jobs
• provide migrant workers with a quick path to a green card and citizenship
• prohibit lawbreaking employers from hiring through the H-2B program

As EPI and other advocates have long said, these genuine reforms are the only way to ensure that the workers playing vital roles in the U.S. economy are not being exploited and underpaid and that their employers are not able to use visa programs as an employment law loophole that ultimately erodes job quality for all.

 

The Book of Genesis: A Comprehensive Study Guide

Exploring Genesis involves accessing valuable resources, including a book of genesis study guide pdf, offering detailed commentary and analysis․

Numerous online platforms provide these guides, facilitating deeper understanding of the text’s historical and theological contexts․

Scholarly PDF editions, like those with ISBN 1-59045-796-X, present in-depth analyses for serious students․

These resources illuminate the foundational narratives and themes within the Book of Genesis․

Genesis, meaning “origin” or “beginning,” stands as the inaugural book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament․ It lays the foundational narrative for understanding God’s relationship with humanity and the origins of the world․ A book of genesis study guide pdf serves as an invaluable tool for navigating its complex themes and historical context․

This initial section of scripture transitions between primeval history – recounting creation, the fall, the flood, and the Tower of Babel – and patriarchal history, focusing on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph․ Understanding this structure is crucial․ Resources like those available through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) offer access to classic commentaries in various digital formats, including PDF․

A comprehensive study necessitates recognizing Genesis’s literary genres, encompassing poetry, genealogy, and narrative․ Exploring these facets, aided by a well-structured study guide, unlocks deeper insights․ The book establishes core theological concepts like covenant, sin, and redemption, setting the stage for the rest of biblical revelation․ Utilizing scholarly PDF editions enhances this exploration, providing detailed analysis and historical perspectives․

Authorship and Date of Composition

Determining the authorship of Genesis remains a complex scholarly endeavor․ Traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs attribute authorship to Moses, though modern critical scholarship suggests a more nuanced picture․ The text likely underwent a lengthy process of oral tradition and redaction, with multiple sources contributing to its final form․ A book of genesis study guide pdf often addresses these varying perspectives․

The Documentary Hypothesis proposes that Genesis is a compilation of four main sources: J (Yahwistic), E (Elohistic), D (Deuteronomic), and P (Priestly)․ Identifying these sources aids in understanding the text’s development․ Dating the composition is equally challenging․ The primeval stories likely originated much earlier, perhaps drawing on ancient Near Eastern traditions, while the patriarchal narratives may have been written down during the early Iron Age (around 1200-1000 BCE)․

Accessing scholarly commentaries, often available as a PDF, provides detailed analysis of these theories․ Resources like those mentioned previously offer insights into the textual evidence and historical context․ A robust study guide will acknowledge the uncertainties surrounding authorship and dating, encouraging critical engagement with the text․

Literary Genres in Genesis

Genesis showcases a diverse range of literary genres, demanding a nuanced approach to interpretation․ It isn’t a single, uniform type of writing․ The early chapters (1-11) primarily employ myth and legend, presenting foundational narratives about creation, the fall, and the flood․ These aren’t necessarily “false” stories, but rather utilize symbolic language to convey profound theological truths․ A comprehensive book of genesis study guide pdf will highlight these distinctions․

The later sections (12-50), focusing on the patriarchs, lean towards historical narrative, though still containing elements of folklore and saga․ Poetry, such as the blessings of Jacob (Genesis 49), and legal codes are also present․ Recognizing these genres is crucial for accurate exegesis․ For example, interpreting the creation account as literal scientific history misses its intended purpose․

Resources offering detailed genre analysis, often found in scholarly PDF commentaries, are invaluable․ Understanding the literary conventions of ancient Near Eastern literature further enriches interpretation․ A good study guide will equip readers to identify these genres and appreciate their unique contributions to the overall message of Genesis․

The Primeval History (Genesis 1-11)

Genesis 1-11, known as the Primeval History, lays the foundational theological groundwork for the entire Bible․ This section addresses universal themes: creation, sin, judgment, and the origins of humanity and civilization․ It’s characterized by a broad scope, dealing with events impacting all people, rather than specific individuals or nations․ A thorough book of genesis study guide pdf will emphasize the theological significance of these chapters․

Key narratives include the six-day creation, the fall of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the flood narrative involving Noah, and the story of the Tower of Babel․ These stories aren’t simply historical accounts, but rather symbolic representations of fundamental truths about God, humanity, and the world․

Many PDF commentaries explore the parallels between these narratives and ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, illuminating their unique theological contributions; Understanding the literary genres employed – myth, legend, and proto-history – is vital․ A quality study guide will provide context and aid in discerning the intended meaning of these pivotal chapters, setting the stage for the rest of Genesis․

The Creation Account (Genesis 1-2)

Genesis 1-2 presents two distinct, yet complementary, accounts of creation; The first (Genesis 1:1-2:3) offers a majestic, ordered account of God creating through divine speech, emphasizing God’s power and transcendence․ The second (Genesis 2:4-25) provides a more intimate, anthropocentric perspective, focusing on the creation of Adam and Eve and their relationship with God and the Garden of Eden․ A comprehensive book of genesis study guide pdf will address these differences․

Scholarly resources within these guides often explore the literary structure, theological themes, and historical context of these chapters․ Key themes include the goodness of creation, the image of God in humanity, and the establishment of the Sabbath․

Many PDF commentaries delve into the debate surrounding the “days” of creation – whether they represent literal 24-hour periods or symbolic epochs․ Understanding the ancient Near Eastern creation myths provides valuable context․ A robust study guide will equip readers to navigate these complexities and appreciate the unique theological message of Genesis’ creation narratives․

The Fall of Man (Genesis 3)

Genesis 3 narrates the pivotal event of the Fall, where Adam and Eve disobey God’s command, resulting in sin entering the world․ A detailed book of genesis study guide pdf will thoroughly examine the symbolism within this narrative – the serpent representing temptation, the forbidden fruit embodying knowledge, and the consequences of disobedience․

These guides often explore the theological implications of the Fall, including the loss of innocence, the introduction of suffering and death, and the broken relationship between humanity and God․ Commentaries analyze the roles of Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and the nature of sin itself․

Resources within these PDF guides frequently address the concept of original sin and its impact on human nature․ Understanding the cultural context of ancient Near Eastern narratives is crucial․ A comprehensive study will also explore the promise of redemption hinted at in God’s pronouncements after the Fall, foreshadowing the need for a savior․

The Story of Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6-9)

Genesis 6-9 recounts the story of Noah and the Great Flood, a divine judgment upon a wicked world․ A robust book of genesis study guide pdf will dissect the narrative’s layers, examining the reasons for God’s judgment, the righteousness of Noah, and the details of the Flood itself․

These guides often delve into the symbolism of the ark – representing salvation – and the covenant God establishes with Noah, signified by the rainbow․ Commentaries explore parallels between the Flood narrative and other ancient Near Eastern flood myths, highlighting both similarities and crucial differences․

Resources within these PDF guides frequently analyze the theological themes of judgment, grace, and new beginnings․ Understanding the scope of the Flood – was it local or global? – is a common point of discussion․ A comprehensive study will also address the implications of the covenant for humanity and the renewed promise of God’s faithfulness, offering hope after devastation․

The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9)

Genesis 11:1-9 narrates the story of the Tower of Babel, a pivotal event illustrating human pride and God’s intervention․ A detailed book of genesis study guide pdf will unpack the motivations behind the tower’s construction – a unified attempt to “make a name” for themselves and reach heaven․

These guides explore the significance of a single language initially and God’s subsequent confusion of tongues, leading to the dispersion of humanity․ Commentaries often analyze the symbolism of Babel as a representation of human rebellion against God’s established order and a desire for self-exaltation․

Resources within these PDF materials frequently discuss the narrative’s connection to ancient Mesopotamian ziggurats, providing historical context․ A thorough study will also examine the theological implications of divine judgment and the establishment of diverse nations․ Understanding the story’s message about humility and dependence on God is central, offering insights into human nature and God’s sovereignty․

The Patriarchal History (Genesis 12-50)

Genesis 12-50 details the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph – the foundational figures of the Israelite nation․ A comprehensive book of genesis study guide pdf is crucial for navigating this complex section, offering detailed analyses of each patriarch’s covenant relationship with God․

These guides delve into Abraham’s call, the covenant promises, and the challenges to his faith, including the near-sacrifice of Isaac․ Commentaries explore the intricacies of the familial dynamics within Jacob’s family, particularly the story of Joseph and his brothers, highlighting themes of forgiveness and providence․

PDF resources often provide historical and cultural context, illuminating the patriarchal lifestyle and societal norms of the ancient Near East․ Studying these narratives reveals God’s faithfulness in fulfilling His promises and establishing a chosen people․ Understanding the lineage and the unfolding of the covenant is key to grasping the narrative’s theological significance․

Abraham: The Father of Faith (Genesis 12-25)

Genesis 12-25 centers on Abraham, revered as the “father of faith․” A dedicated book of genesis study guide pdf is invaluable for dissecting his pivotal role in God’s redemptive plan․ These guides illuminate Abraham’s initial call from Ur, his journey to Canaan, and the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant – a cornerstone of biblical theology․

Detailed commentaries within these PDF resources explore the significance of the covenant promises: land, descendants, and blessing to all nations․ They analyze Abraham’s unwavering faith, tested through trials like the famine and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac․

Study guides also address the complexities of Abraham’s character, including his flaws and moments of doubt․ Understanding the historical and cultural context, as provided in these resources, enhances comprehension of Abraham’s actions and God’s interactions with him․ Exploring this section reveals God’s initiative in establishing a relationship with humanity through faith․

Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26-36)

Genesis 26-36 details the lives of Isaac and Jacob, continuing the patriarchal narrative․ A comprehensive book of genesis study guide pdf proves essential for navigating the complexities of their stories and understanding their contributions to the lineage of Israel․ These guides unpack Isaac’s relatively passive role, contrasted with Jacob’s more dynamic and often deceptive character․

Resources highlight the renewal of the Abrahamic covenant with Isaac and the significance of Jacob’s dream at Bethel, establishing a sacred site․ Detailed commentaries within these PDFs analyze Jacob’s struggles with Esau, his deception to obtain the birthright, and his eventual reconciliation․

Study guides also explore the implications of Jacob’s name change to Israel and the birth of his twelve sons, the progenitors of the twelve tribes․ Understanding the cultural context, as provided in these resources, illuminates the familial dynamics and the unfolding of God’s promises․

Joseph and His Brothers (Genesis 37-50)

Genesis 37-50 recounts the dramatic story of Joseph and his brothers, a narrative rich in themes of betrayal, forgiveness, and divine providence․ A detailed book of genesis study guide pdf is invaluable for dissecting the intricate plot and theological depth of this section․ These guides illuminate Joseph’s early life, his brothers’ jealousy, and his eventual sale into slavery in Egypt․

Resources provide insightful commentary on Joseph’s rise to power through his God-given ability to interpret dreams, his imprisonment, and his subsequent appointment as vizier․ PDF study aids analyze the famine that drives Joseph’s brothers to seek grain in Egypt, leading to a poignant reunion and eventual reconciliation․

These guides explore the significance of Joseph’s forgiveness and his role in preserving his family during the famine, fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham․ Understanding the historical and cultural context, as presented in these resources, enhances appreciation for the narrative’s complexities․

Key Themes in Genesis

Genesis establishes foundational themes crucial to understanding the entire biblical narrative․ A comprehensive book of genesis study guide pdf expertly unpacks these core concepts, including creation, the fall, covenant, sin, and redemption․ These guides highlight the significance of God’s sovereignty in creation and the consequences of humanity’s disobedience․

Resources delve into the establishment of the covenant with Noah and Abraham, emphasizing God’s faithfulness and promise-keeping nature․ PDF study aids analyze the theme of sin’s pervasive influence and the need for divine intervention․ They also explore the concept of blessing and its transmission through the patriarchal line․

Understanding these themes requires careful examination of the text, aided by scholarly commentary found in these guides․ They illuminate how Genesis lays the groundwork for the unfolding story of God’s plan to restore humanity and establish His kingdom․ These resources provide a robust framework for interpreting the entire Bible․

Covenant Theology in Genesis

Covenant theology is profoundly rooted in the Book of Genesis, and a detailed book of genesis study guide pdf is essential for grasping its development․ These guides meticulously trace the unfolding of God’s covenantal relationships with humanity, beginning with the covenant of creation, establishing Adam as the federal head;

Resources highlight the covenant with Noah after the flood, a reaffirmation of God’s promise to preserve life and maintain order․ Crucially, they analyze the Abrahamic covenant – a pivotal point – detailing the promises of land, seed, and blessing, forming the basis for Israel’s identity and God’s redemptive plan․

PDF study materials unpack the conditional and unconditional aspects of these covenants, revealing God’s faithfulness despite human failings․ They demonstrate how these early covenants foreshadow the new covenant established through Jesus Christ, offering a comprehensive understanding of God’s relational approach to humanity․

Theological Significance of Genesis

The Book of Genesis lays the foundational theological groundwork for the entire Bible, and a robust book of genesis study guide pdf is vital for understanding its profound implications․ These guides illuminate Genesis’s contribution to doctrines like creation, the fall, sin, redemption, and the nature of God․

Resources emphasize how Genesis establishes God as sovereign, omnipotent, and the ultimate source of all existence․ They explore the theological weight of the creation account, demonstrating God’s intentionality and goodness․ Furthermore, they analyze the fall’s impact on humanity, revealing the origin of sin and the need for divine intervention․

PDF study materials delve into the proto-evangelium (Genesis 3:15), foreshadowing the coming Messiah․ They demonstrate how the patriarchal narratives, particularly Abraham’s faith, prefigure justification by faith․ Understanding Genesis’s theological significance, through these guides, is crucial for a holistic biblical worldview․

Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Literature

A comprehensive book of genesis study guide pdf often includes comparative analysis with Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature, revealing both unique aspects and contextual similarities․ Examining texts like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Code of Hammurabi illuminates the cultural milieu in which Genesis was written․

These guides demonstrate how Genesis diverges from ANE myths, particularly in its monotheistic worldview and emphasis on a benevolent creator God․ While sharing narrative motifs – like flood stories – Genesis presents a distinct theological perspective․ The PDF resources highlight Genesis’s originality in portraying a covenant relationship between God and humanity․

Understanding ANE literature, facilitated by these study guides, helps discern Genesis’s intentional theological statements․ It clarifies how Genesis wasn’t simply borrowing from its neighbors, but rather offering a transformative and unique revelation․ This comparative approach enriches the interpretation of Genesis’s narratives and themes․

Resources for Studying Genesis

These guides often incorporate scholarly insights, offering historical context and theological analysis․ Online platforms host a wealth of articles, videos, and interactive tools to enhance understanding․ Accessing commentaries by authors like Calvin, available in PDF format, provides historical perspectives․

Digital tools and software, alongside these PDF guides, facilitate verse-by-verse exploration and cross-referencing; Websites dedicated to biblical studies offer curated resources and discussion forums․ Utilizing these diverse materials empowers students to engage with Genesis on multiple levels, fostering a richer and more nuanced comprehension․

Available Commentaries on Genesis

A wealth of commentaries illuminates the Book of Genesis, often accessible as a book of genesis study guide pdf․ Calvin’s commentary, a classic, provides theological depth and historical context, frequently found in digital PDF formats․

Murphy’s “Commentary” offers a new translation and detailed analysis, aiding comprehensive understanding․ Many modern commentaries are available, providing updated scholarship and diverse perspectives․ These resources delve into the literary structure, cultural background, and theological themes of Genesis․

Scholarly editions, like those available through digital libraries, present rigorous academic interpretations․ Online platforms host reviews and excerpts, allowing for informed selection․ Utilizing multiple commentaries enriches study, revealing nuances and fostering critical thinking․ Accessing these resources, often in convenient PDF form, empowers students to engage deeply with the text․

Finding Genesis Study Guides in PDF Format

Numerous websites specialize in biblical studies, hosting downloadable guides and commentaries․ Searching for “Genesis commentary PDF” yields a plethora of options, ranging from concise overviews to in-depth scholarly analyses․

Digital libraries and online bookstores also offer PDF versions of popular study guides․ Consider exploring resources from reputable theological institutions and publishers․ Always verify the source’s credibility to ensure accuracy and sound scholarship․ Downloading and utilizing these PDF guides facilitates convenient and accessible study of Genesis, enhancing understanding of its narratives and themes․

Digital Tools and Software for Genesis Study

Enhancing your book of genesis study guide pdf experience involves leveraging digital tools․ Software like BookxNote, mirroring MarginNote’s functionality on Windows, allows for robust reading, annotation, and organization of biblical texts․

Bible study software, such as Logos Bible Software or Accordance, integrates PDF commentaries and guides with advanced search capabilities, cross-referencing, and original language tools․ These platforms facilitate in-depth textual analysis․

Online platforms offer interactive study Bibles with integrated commentaries and maps․ Utilizing cloud-based note-taking apps alongside your PDF guide enables seamless organization and access across devices․ Consider employing mind-mapping software to visualize connections between themes and characters within Genesis․ These digital resources amplify the effectiveness of your study, fostering a deeper comprehension of the text․

The post book of genesis study guide pdf appeared first on Every Task, Every Guide: The Instruction Portal
.

Swetha Gopinath of Bloomberg reports Canada pension giant balks at paying fees to co-invest with private equity:

Institutional investors will not allow alternative asset managers to start charging them for large deals despite the emerging competition from retail money, according to Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, one of the world’s largest retirement funds.

Large pensions and sophisticated investors like CPPIB have for decades jointly invested with buyout firms in marquee transactions on a no-fee, no-carry basis. An influx of capital from wealth channels now threatens to change that dynamic.

Any moves by alternative asset managers to levy co-investment fees “will undoubtedly have an impact on our appetite for the asset class, because that’s the model we run,” CPPIB chief executive John Graham said in an interview on Wednesday. If the firm can’t keep the traditional structure “we actually will tend not to partner with them,” he said.

Private equity firm EQT, for one, has been working to quell concerns that it might start charging investors to do those transactions after its chief executive officer described it as a potential new source of revenue. Institutions are “economic animals” and if the fee model changes they will reevaluate their allocations to the sector, Graham said.

The shift in the investor base in private equity is playing out even as institutions get more selective about where they park their money after waning performance from the asset class in recent years. Larger investors are also worried they’ll get smaller allocations for deals amid the competition from wealthy individuals.

CPPIB had net assets of $777.5 billion at the end of September. About 29 per cent of the portfolio is made up of private equities, it reported earlier this year. It’s also a big investor in real estate, infrastructure and credit.

It’s still too early to tell how the influx of retail money will impact the industry and co-investments like those favoured by CPPIB, Graham said.

“Institutional investors are still the bedrock investors,” he added. “Retail might be the shiny new thing, but for 20-plus years, institutional investors have helped build these franchises.”

Still, he said, the influx of retail brings in other considerations, like regulatory scrutiny. Investments like junk leveraged credit “are buyer beware markets,” he said. “These are not public equity markets, which is a gentleman’s game.”

CPPIB is also taking a differentiated approach to public markets, deliberately choosing to be underweight the Magnificent Seven megacap technology stocks, which means the manager currently underperforms the S&P 500.

“Diversification is an act of humility,” he said. “The concentration level in the United States equity markets is not a risk we want to take.”

I'll get back to the Mag-7 below, first on the subject of potentially levying fees on co-investments.

Put simply, CPP Investments' active management strategy which was introduced back in 2006 relies heavily on the partnership model, meaning, they invest in private equity funds but they expect big co-investment opportunities in return where they pay no fees to reduce fee drag.

Co-investments serve two purposes: to reduce fee drag and to allow them to maintain a heavy allocation to the asset class.

If they are forced to pay fees on co-investments because of intense competition from wealth management and other retail outfits, then they will be forced to rethink their hefty allocation to this asset class. 

It's that simple, I personally don't see this happening, big institutional pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and insurance funds make up the bulk of the assets private equity manages so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot imposing fees on co-investments for this group.

But this example and John Graham's comments show us that the landscape in private markets is changing, there is intense competition in private equity, infrastructure, real estate, private credit and structural changes there are forcing big pension funds to rethink their strategy.

Below, recent market volatility and geopolitical uncertainty have raised questions about the US' status as a safe haven. But there are still no strong alternative 'safe harbours', says John Graham, President and CEO of CPP Investments, Canada's largest pension fund. Graham says the fund is underweight AI in the US, but seeking more opportunities in large-scale infrastructure. It also remains committed to private equity. He spoke with Francine Lacqua on 'Bloomberg: The Pulse'.

John raises excellent points on the symbiotic relationship between them and private equity and how that model has been a win-win over the past 25 years.

He also mentions they're underweight Mag-7 stocks and here a couple of points. First, there seems to be a bifurcation going on in the Mag-7 where Google and Nvidia are leading the rest (same with Broadcom if you expand to Mag-10). Second, no doubt about it, cyclical stocks like financials and industrials and defensive pharmaceuticals have outperformed technology shares in the last quarter. Whether this continues in 2026 remains to be seen.

On that topic, Ed Yardeni, Yardeni Research president, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the latest market trends, why he's moving away from being overweight on Magnificent 7 stocks, sectors he's in favor of, the Fed's interest rate outlook, and more.

Third, in a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan discusses the Federal Reserve's rate cut decision, the rise of private credit markets, and data centers (Note: Apollo Global Management is the parent company of Yahoo Finance).

Lastly, earlier today, Bloc MP Christine Normandin expressed disapproval for Prime Minister Mark Carney's rumoured pick for Canada's ambassador in the U.S., Mark Wiseman, during question period. 

Mark Wiseman was the former CEO of CPP Investments and it's clear his rumoured appointment is making opposition parties howl. 

Poor Mark, he's getting no respect but he's a born politician and very smart guy so let's give him a shot (and for the record, I don't agree with the Century Initiative, if we increase immigration at the expense of housing, education and health care, we are doomed. We need better coordination).

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a bill that would have extended the number of hours that employers can schedule 14–15-year-olds to work on school nights, in violation of federal law. DeWine vetoed the bill last week after advocates from a long list of child health and welfare, education , organized labor, and economic justice organizations publicly urged him to oppose the bill.

DeWine’s decision reflects conclusions backed up by decades of research and public policy experience. As his veto message emphasizes, existing work hour guidelines—providing young teens (under 16) opportunities to gain work experience “after school up to 7 p.m.”—have been “in place, across this country, for many years” and have “served us well” and “effectively balanced the importance of 14- and 15-year-old children learning to work, with the importance of them having time to study.”

If enacted, the Ohio bill in question (SB 50) would have allowed longer, later work hours—up to 9 p.m. on school nights for children as young as 14—that can interfere with young teens’ education, sleep, health, and development. Studies have consistently shown that intensive work at a young age is associated with poor academic outcomes; longer hours raise the risk of work-related illness and injury; and work later into the night exacerbates sleep deprivation that in turn can interfere with teens’ education and well-being. Allowing employers to schedule young teens to work until 9 p.m. also increases the likelihood of nighttime driving for new drivers (minors can be permitted to drive at age 15.5 in Ohio), an additional risk factor for accidents. Motor vehicle crashes are already the leading cause of death for teens and young adults, who are three times more likely to die in a car accident than adults over 20. For all these reasons, federal law limits the maximum number of working hours for young teens to three hours per night or 18 hours a week and prohibits work past 7 p.m. on school days.

At a moment when the U.S. faces a reemerging crisis of rising child labor violations and when Ohio is taking steps to decrease teen driving fatalities, DeWine’s veto is a sensible, informed response to harmful legislation. It also marks a hopeful next stage in ongoing state-level struggles to maintain and strengthen essential child labor protections in the face of a coordinated, industry-backed campaign to weaken child labor standards—first at the state level, and eventually nationwide.

Veto spares Ohio employers from confusing conflict between state and federal law, while threats to erode federal child labor standards still loom

Governor DeWine also appears to have taken to heart and, wisely, acted on lessons his fellow policymakers learned the hard way in other states where similar legislation has been proposed or enacted in recent years.

Ohio’s SB 50 would have allowed employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds to work until 9 p.m. on school days, two hours later than allowed under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Because states can legislate above FLSA standards but not below, the proposed new state standards would have conflicted directly with federal law, sowing confusion for parents, teens, and employers, and putting employers at risk of being charged with federal child labor violations if they chose to follow weaker state guidelines.

This exact scenario played out recently in Iowa when, despite strong warnings from labor advocates and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) officials, Governor Kim Reynolds signed a 2023 bill that included multiple provisions conflicting with federal child labor law. Once the Iowa bill went into effect, information from state agencies and employer groups (including the Iowa Restaurant Association) sowed confusion by suggesting that employers could now abide by weaker new state standards. Then, after a number of restaurants faced federal child labor investigations and fines for violating the FLSA in 2024, Governor Reynolds publicly defended the illegal employer practices—in part with (unsubstantiated) claims that the businesses were being unfairly targeted by the DOL, and by calling on the federal government to stop enforcing existing child labor laws and instead “look to Iowa as an example” of how to handle child labor.

A concurrent resolution accompanying the Ohio bill, which was adopted by both chambers, similarly called on Congress to weaken the FLSA by adopting Ohio’s proposal for longer school-night hours for young teens as the new federal standard. By repeatedly proposing—and in some cases implementing—standards that conflict with federal law, legislators in states like Iowa and Ohio have attempted to chip away at the already fragile federal floor for workplace protections. Federal child labor standards are also under direct threat. The Project 2025 policy agenda closely followed by the Trump administration recommends lifting prohibitions on hazardous child labor and allowing states to opt out of the FLSA entirely.

In light of continuing threats, states have a critical role to play in defending and strengthening child labor standards

Ohio’s SB 50 and its 2023 predecessor were both sponsored by the same state senator with the support of industry groups whose members would benefit from weaker child labor laws—the Ohio Restaurant and Hospitality Alliance, National Federation of Independent Business in Ohio, and the Pickerington Chamber of Commerce—as well as Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing, billionaire-backed dark money group that has coordinated state-by-state legislative campaigns to weaken child labor laws across the country, often alongside the right-wing think tank Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA).

Governor DeWine now joins a growing number of governors and state legislators who have stood up in opposition to these attacks. For example, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers vetoed an FGA-sponsored bill last year that would have eliminated the state’s effective, commonsense youth work permit system. Some have even gone further to propose or support legislation that strengthens state child labor standards, with lawmakers in more than a dozen states proposing legislation or administrative rules to protect minors from hazardous or exploitative work, deter child labor violations, and increase accountability for law-breaking employers.

Governor DeWine, after hearing the voices of numerous parents, educators, health care, and driving safety experts, concluded that a veto of SB 50 was “in the public interest.” Given evidence that industry campaigns to weaken child labor laws are continuing (and the very real risk that aspects of federal child labor protections could face similar threats from the same forces), more states should pursue critical opportunities and responsibilities in 2026 to—at the very least—defend the long-standing, minimal floor set by the FLSA and, wherever possible, to strengthen state standards that ensure young teens who work can do so without damaging their health or education.

JP Alegre of The Deep Dive reports Ottawa plans to fund worker buyouts with their own pension money:

The Canadian government plans to use public servants’ own pension money to fund early retirement buyouts for 68,000 workers, a decision unions are calling “borderline theft.”

The $1.5 billion program, announced in letters distributed last week, would allow eligible federal employees to retire early without penalties as Ottawa pursues 40,000 job cuts from a peak of 367,772 employees in 2024. But the decision to source funding from the Public Service Pension Fund has ignited fierce criticism from labor groups who say younger workers will subsidize their older colleagues’ departures.

“It’s all well and good to protect the jobs of younger people, but they are the ones who, throughout their careers, will pay half the cost of the program through their contributions to the pension plan,” said Nathan Prier, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees. “In the same vein, the government is using civil servants’ money as if it were its own, which sounds like borderline theft.”

Federal regulations normally impose a 5% annual reduction on benefits for civil servants who leave before reaching retirement age. The new program would eliminate this penalty for eligible participants.

Two categories of employees received the letters. The first group includes workers aged 50 or older with at least 10 years of federal employment and two years of pensionable service. The second covers employees 55 and older who joined the pension plan after January 1, 2013, meeting the same service requirements.

Treasury Board communications director Mohammad Kamal said notification letters reached about 68,000 employees who may qualify for the program. The government estimates the program will save $82 million annually in pension contributions once fully implemented.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing the largest federal public service union, raised separate concerns about the program’s structure. National president Sharon DeSousa said workers considering early retirement might forfeit lump-sum severance payments based on years of service.

“That’s real money owed to workers under the collective agreement that this government seems to be trying to bypass,” DeSousa said in a statement released last week. She added that any early departure program must be negotiated with unions and warned members against making hasty decisions.

DeSousa told reporters in November she does not expect significant uptake given current cost of living pressures. The union is pressing the government to release complete program details before members commit to participation.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada echoed concerns about institutional knowledge loss. President Sean O’Reilly said the program would drive out experienced professionals rather than retaining talent.

“Let’s be clear: this program will drive out some of the most experienced people in the federal public service,” O’Reilly said. “Instead of retaining talent, the government is actively incentivizing its most seasoned professionals to leave. That should concern anyone who cares about effective government.”

The letters sent to employees emphasize that the program is voluntary and note that acceptance of applications is not guaranteed. Treasury Board will set parameters designed to maintain essential services and business continuity, according to the letter reviewed by media outlets.

The government plans to launch the one-year program as early as January 15, 2026, though Kamal confirmed legislation is still required before implementation. The application window would remain open for 120 days following the program’s start or legislative approval, whichever comes later.

Employees whose applications receive approval must retire within 300 days. The letters direct workers to internal pension calculators for personalized projections and caution that the Pension Centre is experiencing increased call volumes.

The federal workforce reached 367,772 employees in 2024 before falling to 357,965 this year through attrition. Budget 2025 targets further reductions to approximately 330,000 positions by 2028-29, a 10% decrease from peak levels.

Kamal did not respond to questions about whether departments would announce job cuts before gauging employee interest in voluntary departures. He said departments will manage workforce reductions through attrition and voluntary programs to the greatest extent possible, working to reassign employees where feasible.

The unions raise a number of concerns but let me tackle an important issue in this post.

Let's discuss inter-generational fairness. I don't agree with unions that younger generations will be paying half the cost of the $1.5 billion pension buyout program.

Typically, the assets in these pension plans are made up of 1/3 pension contributions and 2/3 investment gains.

In fact, the Public Service Pension Plan had a $9 billion surplus mostly owing to investment gains by its investment manager, PSP Investments, which is money that belongs to the federal government.

As I explained in detail here, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (and other unions) are wrong to claim this money belongs to members, it doesn't because this is not a jointly sponsored DB plan where members (retired and active) share the pain or gain of that plan. 

The federal government (ie. taxpayers) are on the hook if there's a deficit so the surplus belongs to taxpayers.

PSP's former CEO Neil Cunningham had good ideas of what the government can do with that $9 billion surplus which he shared with my readers here.

I believe that $9 billion surplus was transferred to a government account. 

A year ago, the federal public service pension plan posted a surplus of $1.9 billion, according to a report presented to the House of Commons by Treasury Board President Anita Anand.  

That surplus which belongs to the federal government is at the centre of debate on who gets to cash out of it:

A $1.9bn pension surplus is at the centre of a sweeping federal plan to shrink Canada’s public service, as the government prepares to offer $1.5bn in early retirement incentives to thousands of eligible employees, according to the Ottawa Citizen.  

The move, part of a broader strategy to cut 30,000 public sector jobs by 2028-29, is set to rely heavily on attrition, with new retirement rules allowing certain public servants to leave with an immediate, penalty-free pension based on years of service. 

Eligibility for the program, as outlined by the Department of Finance, extends to public servants over 50 who joined before 2013, or over 55 who joined after, provided they have at least 10 years of employment and two years of pensionable service.  

The incentive program is expected to run for one year, launching as early as January 15, 2026, or once budget legislation receives royal assent. 

The government’s plan to tap into the Public Service Pension Plan’s surplus has drawn sharp criticism from public sector unions, who argue that the reallocation of the “non-permitted surplus” into a general account lacks transparency and could undermine retirement security.  

Treasury Board spokesperson Barb Couperus confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that the surplus remains at $1.9bn, but the Board has not clarified whether these funds will directly finance the early retirement program. 

Union leaders have responded with public rallies and warnings about the broader impact of job cuts. 

Jessica McCormick, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, told CBC News that “there are real people, real families, lives behind those cuts,” emphasizing the human cost of what the government describes as efforts to “streamline” the public service.  

Chris Di Liberatore of the Public Service Alliance of Canada added that “critical programs and services will be gutted, and communities will be left behind,” urging the government to reconsider its approach. 

Meanwhile, Tom Osborne, parliamentary secretary to the president of the treasury board, acknowledged to CBC News that the public service has grown by 100,000 positions over the past decade, much of it in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Osborne described the current size as “unsustainable,” but said the government is committed to mitigating the impact on workers, particularly those nearing retirement. 

Well, I agree with Osborne, the current size of the public sector is unsustainable and we need to restore balance. Also consider this, more than 27,000 federal public servants now earn at least $150,000 a year, even as Ottawa moves to cut tens of thousands of jobs and roll out an early retirement program funded from the public service pension plan: 

According to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, more than 20,000 employees received total compensation between $150,000 and $199,999 in 2024-25, The Canadian Press reported.  

Nearly 5,000 employees were in the $200,000 to $249,999 range, almost 1,400 were between $250,000 and $299,999, 654 were between $300,000 and $399,999, 42 were between $400,000 and $499,999, and six received $500,000 or more. 

The document says compensation includes salaries, bonuses, benefits and overtime pay. It covers permanent, term, casual and student workers.   

While it's unclear to me whether the $1.9 surplus will be used to pay for these early retirements, it would be the easiest way to fund them and maintain inter-generational equity. 

Discussing the early retirement option with friends working in Ottawa, many are seriously considering it, fed up, they want out.

Are you losing experienced people? No doubt, you'll lose some, but you're also losing dead wood, people that just counting the minutes to retire.    

And unfortunately, from what my friends tell me, there's a lot of dead wood in Ottawa.

Let's not forget the civil service grew exponentially under the fiscal profligacy of the Trudeau Liberals, across all departments.

So even with these cuts (early retirement), we are just getting back to "normal size" of the civil service, hardly draconian by any measure.

Anyways, take everything the public sector unions claim with a grain of salt, they love to play the victim card.

Still, I do believe the $1.9 billion surplus can and should be used to fund this $1.5 billion early retirement program. It's the easiest way to fund this program without asking taxpayers to pitch in.

As far as PSP Investments, it will continue to manage the assets of a shrinking pool of federal workers, the demographics of the plan will change (become younger) and it will need to revise its risk-taking behaviour across all assets.

That's my two cents, please feel free to email me if you have anything to add here (LKolivakis@gmail.com).

Lastly, it's up to every worker to decide for themselves whether or not to take this early retirement if eligible. Unfortunately, I cannot give advice to everyone, please sit down with a financial advisor and see if it makes sense for you.

Below, the Treasury Board is sending letters to approximately 68,000 federal public servants regarding a potential early retirement incentive. The government aims to reduce the public service by 28,000 jobs by 2029 through voluntary attrition to avoid layoffs. Unions like PSAC warn that employees should not be pressured into giving up rights during a tough economic climate. CTV's Stefan Keyes has more.

Dan Primack of Axis Pro Rata reports lawsuit highlights private equity's CV conflict: 

A Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund last month sued to stop a Houston-based private equity firm from selling a portfolio company to a continuation vehicle, with both sides yesterday agreeing to enter arbitration.

• The deal is on hold. For now.

Why it matters: This dispute gets at the fundamental conflict between LPs and GPs when it comes to CVs, which may have just peaked, if you boil away all goodwill and assumption of positive intent.

On the docket: Abu Dhabi Investment Council is a limited partner in PE funds raised in 2011 and 2014 by Energy & Minerals Group. They both hold stakes in Ascent Resources, a large natural gas company that also counts First Reserve among its investors.

• ADIC claims that EMG decided that it could maximize its value for Ascent via a CV strategy.
• It then alleges that EMG tried to force an LP vote on very short notice, provided different data to different investors, and refused to let the LPs confer in private. ADIC also casts doubt on EMG obtaining the requisite votes it claims to have obtained.
• Neither side responded to Axios' request for comment.

The big picture: General partners often claim that they form CVs for their best portfolio companies, the ones they just can't yet bear to part with. Almost as a favor to LPs desperate for liquidity ("We're not selling, but if you need to...").

• LPs, however, are often skeptical but feel boxed in. If they don't participate, might they be blackballed in the next fundraise?
• There certainly are amicable CV situations in which everyone expects to benefit, but there's just as many that create LP unease.

Zoom in: ADIC's complaint, filed in Delaware Chancery Court and recently unsealed, lays out a different narrative. It alleges that EMG told existing LPs that Ascent was in bad shape, unable to go public or be sold, while telling prospective CV investors the opposite.

• Moreover, ADIC claims that the CV would have reset management fees and carry on Ascent in a way that would have benefited the general partner, which is generally frowned upon.
• It's also not too surprising, given that EMG hasn't raised a new fund since 2019 (i.e., the fee stream is running dry).

Look ahead: An arbiter is expected to render a final decision by Feb. 27, 2026, before which EMG has pledged not to complete the CV transaction.

The Financial Times also reports private equity’s hot ‘continuation’ trade leaves some feeling singed:

A recurring theme in 2025 in the world of private equity is “keeping the wolf from the door”. For companies on the brink of running out of money, that manifests through the increasing popularity of so-called liability management exercises, where zombie companies are temporarily kept upright by tapping bountiful debt markets and strong-arming investors.

For companies in private equity portfolios that are not quite hobbled but not exactly thriving either, there are continuation vehicles. These are new funds created by the same private equity sponsor that can purchase a business when the original fund is at its contractual end. A way, in effect, of keeping a promising company in the fold.

A general rule in finance is that where there’s innovation there’s litigation. Liability management has produced a glut of US court cases; now continuation vehicles look likely to follow. A Middle Eastern wealth fund, the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, has sued a private equity firm, Energy & Minerals Group, which wants to shift a natural gas driller it owns from one pocket to another.

The problem, ADIC says, is that the deal is great for the private equity firm but not for the investors in the original fund. It contends the company in question, Ascent Resources, could be worth more than $7bn in a regular sale or an initial public offering, yet in fact the stake being transferred by EMG suggests a valuation of just $5.5bn.

Such blow-ups are inevitable when a buyout firm is on both sides of the deal, as is the case where continuation vehicles are involved. There are certain safeguards, to be sure: transparency, independent advisers, “fairness opinions” and fiduciary duty. Some claims of wrongdoing might be meritorious and others not. Where the original investors don’t get a windfall, disappointment will often ensue.

ADIC describes being forced into a “Hobson’s choice”. It could put in new cash, or roll over its investment on terms it described as “materially worse than the status quo”. It also said in its lawsuit that EMG had not tried hard enough for third-party, arms-length deals — though the Financial Times has reported other buyers passed on Ascent, believing the price too rich.

Private equity groups need to worry not just about selling assets to continuation funds, but the deals that come after. Where a continuation vehicle later makes a big profit by exiting its investment, it will spur claims — sincere or otherwise — that the limited partners in the first fund were taken for a ride. Some sponsors, including Clayton Dubilier & Rice, have netted sizeable profits through a second deal.

There are also examples that work the other way around. Clearlake Capital’s Wheels Pro went bankrupt in a successor fund. More recently, portable toilet company ISS, in a continuation vehicle backed by Fortress, Blackstone and Ares, is expected to be a wipeout, Bloomberg has reported.

Continuation vehicles, like liability management exercises, address real problems over timing and liquidity. Secondary funds, which buy whole slices of private equity portfolios, are another example.

But while the Masters of the Universe are good at navigating deadlines and cash crunches, they’re not always as deft at placating investors who feel they’ve got the rough end of the stick. For those people, litigation may continue to feel like the best medicine.

The person who sent me Dan Primack's comment also shared their perspective:

It’s a noteworthy case: continuation vehicles have become commonplace but they remain fraught with embedded conflicts, and this lawsuit puts several of those tensions in sharp relief.

They added: 

... for background, Alain Carrier (formerly CPPIB infrastructure/international, then CEO of Bregal Investments) has recently joined ADIC as head of private equity. You can likely expect them to take a more active stance going forward.

I don't personally know Alain Carrier but he has a great reputation and I'm sure as Head of PE at ADIC he will lean on GPs heavily, especially if he feels it's not in their best interests. 

These continuation vehicles have mushroomed recently and not surprisingly, they're not always in the best interest of LPs who want to see GPs realize and collect the maximum gain. 

2025 hasn't been a great year for private equity. The environment is improving as rates drop, exits increase but there are a plethora of issues the industry needs to contend with.

This lawsuit against EMG will be monitored closely by LPs and GPs.

If ADIC proves the continuation vehicle isn't in their best interest, then this case might set legal precedence.

We shall see and while not all continuation vehicles are bad, you really need to do proper due diligence or risk having the wool pulled over your eyes. 

At the very least, understand the challenges and potential conflicts of interest. 

It doesn't surprise me that a new report finds continuation vehicles have peaked. 

Below, Steve Balaban discusses everything you need to know about continuation funds.

Sean Conlon and Pia Singh of CNBC report the S&P 500 closes higher, notching four-day win streak and nearing record after light inflation reading:

The S&P 500 edged higher on Friday, securing its fourth straight winning day, as traders digested inflation data that could provide further incentive for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates next week

The broad market index closed 0.19% higher at 6,870.40, putting the index about 0.7% off its intraday record. Friday also marked its ninth positive session in 10. The Nasdaq Composite increased 0.31% to settle at 23,578.13, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 104.05 points, or 0.22%, to end the day at 47,954.99.

The market sorted through a fresh slate of economic releases Friday. The Commerce Department said that the core personal consumption expenditures price index for September – which was delayed due to the record-setting U.S. government shutdown – showed an annual rate of 2.8%, lower than the 2.9% Dow Jones estimate. Core PCE’s 0.2% rise on the month was in line with expectations, as were the monthly and annual inflation readings for headline PCE.

Also on Friday, the University of Michigan’s consumer survey, a report that provides a glimpse at sentiment as well as the view on inflation over the near and longer term, came in higher than expected for December.

The PCE report, which serves as the Fed’s primary inflation gauge, gives the central bank its final inflation view before Wednesday’s interest rate vote. With inflation being mild, jobs remains more in focus after recent reports showed signs of weakening in the labor market. Investors are hoping that this will influence the central bank to lower its benchmark rate by a quarter percentage point when it announces the decision Wednesday.

Traders are pricing in an 87% chance of a cut next Wednesday, far higher than just a couple weeks ago, according to the CME FedWatch tool. The key fed funds futures rate is currently targeted between 3.75%-4%, trading near the high end of that range amid ongoing pressures in short-term funding markets.

“I think it really just solidifies what the market’s already been pricing in, which is almost certainty of a cut for next week,” David Krakauer, vice president of portfolio management at Mercer Advisors, told CNBC. “If inflation does continue to stay somewhat relatively tame and [is] potentially decreasing, then what’s the outlook for more rate cuts into early next year?”

With expectations running high for a rate cut, Krakauer doesn’t necessarily believe that it will serve as a catalyst for stocks to move higher as the new year approaches. That said, he still thinks the market is in a healthy position for some upside, at least enough to reach new highs on the S&P 500.

“It may be a steady move, it may be a choppy move, but I certainly see the path for equities forward as being very positive,” he said.

Stocks posted gains for the week. The S&P 500 finished up 0.3% week to date, while the Nasdaq and 30-stock Dow have added almost 1% and 0.5%, respectively.

During Friday’s trading session, Netflix shares seesawed after initially seeing sizable losses earlier in the day following the company’s announcement that it struck a deal with Warner Bros. Discovery to buy its film and streaming assets for $72 billion — a transaction that’s expected to close in 12 to 18 months. Netflix shares were nearly 3% lower, while shares of WBD jumped more than 6%.

The streaming giant’s stock came off its lows of the session after a senior administration official told CNBC that the Trump administration views the deal with “heavy skepticism.”

Rian Howlett , Karen Friar and Ines Ferré of Yahoo Finance also report the S&P 500, Nasdaq notch fourth day of gains with next week's Fed meeting in focus: 

US stocks moved higher on Friday as Wall Street digested a cooling in the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge, increasing the odds that the central bank will cut rates next week.

The S&P 500 (^GSPC) rose 0.19%, within striking distance of its first record close since October. The Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) also gained about 0.3%, eyeing its ninth positive close in 10 sessions. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) rose around 0.2%, following a mixed Thursday session for the gauges.

Investors continue to bet heavily on a quarter-point interest rate cut from the central bank next Wednesday. Traders are pricing in 87% odds of a move lower, compared with 62% a month ago, according to CME FedWatch.

On Friday, a delayed reading of the PCE price index showed inflation rose about as expected in September. The "core" PCE index — the Fed's favored price gauge — cooled slightly, rising 2.8% on an annual basis. Meanwhile, US consumer confidence rose for the first time in five months as respondents' inflation expectations improved.

The jobs market, meanwhile, has presented more of a mixed bag of data this week. A Challenger report on Thursday showed US companies cut 71,000 jobs last month, the worst November print since 2022. Yet new weekly jobless claims fell to their lowest since September 2022, reinforcing the picture of a labor market cooling gradually rather than rapidly.

Meanwhile, news landed that Netflix (NFLX) will buy Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) studios and its streaming unit for $72 billion, following a weeks-long bidding war. Netflix stock ticked down 3%, while WBD shares moved 6% higher.

In earnings, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) stock rose slightly after the server maker's quarterly sales outlook missed high AI-fueled expectations.

S&P 500 hovers near record, while bitcoin has decoupled from stocks

S&P 500 (^GSPC) was a stone's throw away from reaching a new high on Friday, while bitcoin (BTC-USD) tumbled below $90,000 per token.

The world's largest cryptocurrency is on pace to close out the year decoupled from stocks for the first time since 2014.

Bitcoin is down roughly 3% year-to-date compared the the S&P 500's 17% gain.

It hovers about 30% off its all-time high, north of $126,000 in October. 

Alright, a strong week in stocks all based on expectations the Fed will cut 25 basis points next week. I have no doubt the Fed will cut as employment is trending lower but given the stock market is a leading indicator and all stock indices including small caps are flirting with record highs, it's hard to envision more rate cuts in the new year. Interestingly, Bank of America strategist Michael Hartnett is warning that a dovish Fed rate cut could imperil the rally: 

“Only thing that can stop Santa Claus rally is dovish Fed cut causing a selloff in long-end,” Hartnett wrote in a note, referring to Treasuries with a longer maturity date. US stocks have rallied as investors bet the central bank would reduce rates further to shore up a softening labor market. Wagers on a quarter-point cut at the meeting on Dec. 10 have soared to over 90% from 60% just a month prior, according to swaps markets. Traders have also fully priced in three cuts by September 2026. 

The S&P 500 is now about 0.5% away from its October peak, and seasonal trends generally bode well for a year-end rally. However, this time the market faces two risk events in the form of key jobs and inflation reports due later in December after being delayed by the government shutdown.

Hartnett and his team also note that the US administration is likely to intervene to stop inflation from running hot and the unemployment rate rising to 5%. They recommend positioning for that possibility by buying “inexpensive” mid-caps into 2026. They also see the best relative upside in sectors linked to the economic cycle, such as homebuilders, retailers, REITs and transportation stocks.

The strategists had reiterated a preference for international equities through 2025, a call that proved correct as the S&P 500’s  advance trailed a  rally in the MSCI All-Country World ex-US index. 

So, is Hartnett right, will stocks sell off if it's a dovish rate cut? I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "sell the news" initial reaction but in the weeks following the December rate cut, I expect stocks to continue grinding higher until March, with volatility of course. The reality is with fiscal and monetary policy being accomodative, it's hard to envision stocks selling off right now as we head into the new year.  And even though US Treasuries sold off this week, I expect yields to behave as employment growth and inflation expectations remain muted. The bigger story today was in Canada: 

A much bigger selloff in Canadian government bonds Friday, sparked by stronger-than-expected employment data, was a factor. But US yields had already risen to weekly highs.

The US 10- and 30-year yields climbed more than 12 basis points since Nov. 28, with the 10-year closing at 4.14%.

The move held after the delayed release of September personal income and spending data — which includes the inflation gauge the Fed aims to keep around 2% — showed that it accelerated to 2.8%, as economists estimated. Several Fed policymakers have said the inflation trend should forestall rate cuts.

I know a really good Canadian fixed income trader who got dinged today but I agree with him, employment trends in Canada are not strong, the data was stronger than expected because of part-time workers and I'd remain long Canadian bonds here/ short the loonie. What else? The big news today was Netflix (NFLX) will buy Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) studios and its streaming unit for $72 billion, following a weeks-long bidding war. Netflix stock lost 3% today, while WBD shares gained 6%. Is Netflix a buy here? I have no idea what will happen with this acquisition as it will face political and regulatory scrutiny but it's a good time to initiate a position in Netflix but don't expect it to pop back up to a new high any time soon (can go lower before it stabilizes): 
With or without Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix will remain a global powerhouse and a defensive tech stock that does well even in a downturn (the last hing people cut in desperation in their Netflix). But the stock moves violently to the downside sometimes like it did back in 2022 so you need to remain alert and humble even if I think a nice buying opportunity is emerging here. What else? On Wednesday Oracle reports and we shall see the post-earnings reaction as the stock has sold off recently quite a bit on debt concerns: 
It could pop back over $250 or drop back to retest its recent low of $185, nobody really knows, but sentiment is so bearish on this stock that I wouldn't be surprised if it reaccelerates up if earnings are good. Either way, it's a leader in ts field and just like Netflix, you need to see these selloffs as an opportunity to add or initiate a position (imho). Of course, this week was all about banks (US and Canadian) with a lot of them making new highs. I invite you to carefully scroll down the list of stocks making a new high here (you should be doing this every single trading day to see where strength lies).  Lastly, I know there is a lot of angst on the spillover from surging Japanese bond yields but I agree with Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research, the idea that, past a certain point, Japanese government bond yields could trigger a global stock-market meltdown is pretty far-fetched: 

"There isn't a critical level [for Japanese bond yields] that is going to cause a tsunami of capital flooding back to Japan. That's not going to happen," Joshi said.   

I've seen this "yen carry trade unwind" story so many times in the past 25 years that I tend to be more skeptical about a potential global stock market rout from rising Japanese bond yields. Alright, let me wrap this up with the best performing US large cap stocks this week:  Below, Andrew Davis, Bryn Mawr Trust Advisors SVP & Head of Macroeconomic Research, joins 'Fast Money' to talk the current state of play in teh market and how to position going into next year.

Also, Jeremy Siegel, Wharton professor emeritus and WisdomTree chief economist, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss Siegel's thoughts on equity markets, if investors are afraid of missing out on equity markets growth and much more.

Lastly, Bloomberg's Asia Trade discusses how Japan's 2-year yield hit the highest level since 2008.

This is Part 1 of a two-part series analyzing the impact of an amendment to the House Homeland appropriations bill on the H-2A and H-2B visa programs.

Key takeaways:

• The government funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security may include a rider amendment that would expand the H-2A visa program for seasonal farm jobs. This amendment (originally known as Amendment #1 but later dubbed the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc amendment) proposes to open the H-2A visa program to year-round occupations.
• There were 410,000 year-round jobs in agriculture and 353,000 seasonal H-2A workers in 2024.
• The Trump Department of Labor has issued a new 2026 H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) to set H-2A wages. Based on their own estimates, the 2026 H-2A AEWR will result in a $24 billion pay cut for H-2A farmworkers over 10 years and incentivize growth in the H-2A program to 500,000 jobs a year. EPI has estimated that U.S. farmworkers will lose $2.7 to 3.3 billion in wages per year.
• If employers are allowed to use H-2A visas for year-round jobs via the House Homeland appropriations rider, farmworkers in those jobs will see massive pay cuts of $20,000 to $40,000 per year, starting in 2026.
• The Trump DOL wage reductions combined with H-2A visas for year-round jobs could expand the H-2A program to 900,000 workers in 2034, meaning that workers on temporary visas would account for 42% of average annual employment in agriculture.
• This rider in Congress and the proposed regulation at DOL would only benefit farm employers, allowing them to hire workers they can control for as little pay as possible. These changes would drastically lower pay for all farmworkers and lead to job losses for U.S. workers, a complete reversal from the Trump administration’s original claims that U.S. workers would fill the farm jobs left open due to deportations.

For well over a decade now—time and time and time and time again—Congress has been making policy changes to temporary work visa programs not through the normal process of debating and passing legislation, but through a backdoor process. This involves amendments to annual appropriations legislation (known as “riders”) that fund the U.S. government. Riders that make policy changes are much more likely to pass without much public notice, debate, or pushback relative to dedicated legislation, since they are smaller parts of larger, must-pass legislation to fund the whole U.S. government. The significant changes proposed or passed in riders over the past decade have all pushed temporary work visa programs in the same direction: expanding and deregulating the H-2A and H-2B visa programs, which benefits employers at the expense of U.S. workers and hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who will continue to see reduced wages and poorer working conditions. It’s already clear that low-wage work visa programs won’t be improved during the Trump administration; instead, they’ll be made much worse.

This fiscal year, there is a particular urgency around the riders to expand and deregulate the H-2A and H-2B visa programs, in light of the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort that is arresting and deporting workers at a breakneck pace, as well as canceling temporary immigration protections that provided work authorization to millions. The Trump administration got the ball rolling on this effort with a new proposed H-2A wage regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on October 2, 2025. This proposed regulation contains a stunning admission: The administration’s mass deportation effort is likely to raise food prices. DOL’s solution to this problem of the administration’s own creation is an irrational and anti-worker solution. Instead of pushing the administration from within to stop their campaign of mass deportation, DOL proposes to lower farmworker wages by $24 billion over the next 10 years.

Having seen this proposed rule, employers who are heavily reliant on migrant laborers—especially those in the hospitality, construction, and agricultural industries—can now be confident they have a friendly administration willing to dismantle labor standards and are lobbying furiously for more work visas that allow them to employ a vulnerable workforce. Employers are making the case that H-2 visas are “a workforce issue, not immigration,” as well as an essential service that must continue to function even during the recent government shutdown. A number of lawmakers and the Trump administration seem to agree.

The latest legislative vehicle that has a chance at furthering these goals is a rider that the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee proposed and passed. It was originally known as Amendment #1 but was later dubbed the “Bipartisan Visa En Bloc” amendment. As Politico Pro reported, “House appropriators from both parties came together…to back big changes to visa policies that would boost the number of seasonal workers who can come to the United States.” The rider was cosponsored by three Republicans and one Democrat (but the Democrat was Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), the recent recipient of a pardon from Trump for federal bribery charges). However, it’s worth noting that because rider passed by a voice vote, there is no on-the-record vote tally showing who voted for it.

The rider still has a long way to go before becoming law and will also depend on whether an omnibus government spending bill is ultimately passed for fiscal year 2026. As of the time of publication, the Senate has not yet released their version of a Homeland Security appropriations bill. To become law, the Senate would also have to adopt the same rider provision for it to become part of the broader omnibus appropriations legislation. Nevertheless, the rider is a statement of intent from legislators who are willing to go to bat for employers seeking new exploitable and underpaid migrant workers to replace their long-term immigrant workers who have been deported or lost status.

Below is a summary of the four major changes that the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc rider amendment would make to the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. Only the first major change is discussed in this explainer, but a follow-up to this blog post will discuss the other three changes. Under the rider:

• Employers would be permitted to hire H-2A farmworkers to fill year-round jobs.
• The H-2B visa program would be expanded by at least 100,000 workers relative to its size in 2024.
• H-2B workers employed at carnivals, traveling fairs, and circuses would be moved to the P visa program, a program that has no wage rules or worker protections and over which DOL has no formal oversight role.
• DHS would not be permitted to spend funds to implement the January 2024 regulation that incrementally improves rights and protections for H-2A and H-2B workers. This regulation allows them to be eligible for green cards through existing pathways and helps them more easily change employers, reducing the indentured nature of the visa programs, and requires additional scrutiny on employer applications if they’ve committed certain violations.

The H-2A program has expanded rapidly and is rife with abuse

Employers use the H-2A visa program to fill seasonal and temporary jobs in agriculture, after employers go through a (mostly pro forma) process to prove that they could not find an available U.S. worker to hire. There is no annual limit on the number of H-2A workers that can be hired, and H-2A has in recent years been the fastest-growing U.S. work visa program, tripling over the past decade. Figure A shows the three available data sets on H-2A job certifications, petitions, and visas, as well as an estimate of the total number of H-2A workers between 2015 and 2024, with 352,682 H-2A workers estimated to have been employed in the United States last year. The vast majority of H-2A workers are employed on crop farms, picking fruits and vegetables, and the average duration of an H-2A job is roughly six months.

Figure A

There have been countless exposés from journalists and advocates that reveal how H-2A farmworkers are indentured to their employers, frequently robbed, exploited, victimized, and trafficked, and how the main source of wage and hour violations on farms comes from employers breaking H-2A rules.

The rider adopted in the House would allow H-2A workers to be employed in year-round jobs—which is currently prohibited—expanding the scope of the program and allowing H-2A workers to fill jobs on dairy, livestock, and poultry and egg farms, as well as in nurseries and greenhouses and other nonseasonal agricultural occupations. This would be a major change to H-2A, and it has long been a demand of agribusiness.

Making H-2A year-round raises three key questions:

• How many permanent, year-round jobs might be impacted?
• How will farmworker wages be impacted?
• How much will the H-2A program expand?

There are 410,000 year-round jobs in agriculture

For an answer to the first question, see Table 1, which lists four of the major agricultural industries employing farmworkers year-round, the largest of which are greenhouse and dairy jobs. Together they total nearly 410,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The industries listed do not include the many year-round (or nearly year-round) jobs that can be found on crop farms, including equipment operators and supervisors. In total, it’s possible that up to one-third of the total 1.6 million full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture could be year-round.

Table 1 DOL’s new Adverse Effect Wage Rate will result in a pay cut for H-2A workers and U.S. workers that will line the pockets of employers by billions

Next, let’s consider what would happen to the wages of farmworkers in year-round occupations if the H-2A visa program were expanded to include them.

The wages of nearly all H-2A farmworkers are set by the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), unless the federal, state, or local hourly minimum wages are higher, or if there is an applicable local prevailing wage or collective bargaining agreement in place. The purpose of the AEWR is to ensure that H-2A workers are paid a wage that is consistent with U.S. wage standards and prevent adverse impacts of H-2A employment on the wages of farmworkers in the United States.

On October 2, 2025, DOL issued an interim final rule laying out a new AEWR methodology. A recent EPI post describes in detail how the new Trump AEWR will cut wage rates dramatically by using an inferior data set for agriculture and creating two artificial “skill levels,” which set H-2A wages at the 17th percentile of wages surveyed for farm occupations (skill level 1) and at the 50th percentile, which is the median of wages surveyed (skill level 2).

In the new AEWR, the Trump DOL also removes the previous H-2A program requirement that employers pay for 100% of housing costs for H-2A workers. In its stead, the new AEWR deducts a set amount out of every hour of an H-2A worker’s pay, to compensate the employer for H-2A housing costs. This shifts housing costs to H-2A workers who will have the added burden of paying for housing costs out of the already-low wages they earn. The housing deduction is subtracted from the AEWR—lowering a low wage even further—so low that in many states, the state minimum wage will be higher and become the de facto AEWR.

In total, DOL estimates that over $1.7 billion will be transferred from H-2A workers’ pockets back to farm employers under the new wage rule in 2026, amounting to $24 billion over the next 10 years as the program grows to over 500,000 jobs. EPI’s own estimates are that H-2A workers will see a wage cut of between $1.7 billion and $2.1 billion in 2026, depending on how state minimum wage laws are enforced. Reducing the AEWR for H-2A workers will also lower wages for U.S. farmworkers—one-third of whom are U.S.-born citizens, according to the latest DOL survey. A fall in the H-2A wage will increase demand for H-2A workers, since employers can save significantly on labor costs if they hire them. As a result, it will become relatively more expensive to hire non-H-2A U.S. farmworkers. Employers will therefore reduce demand for U.S. farmworkers, putting downward pressure on their wages, with U.S. farmworkers seeing wage reduction of $2.7 to $3.3 billion in annual pay.

This would represent a shocking upward redistribution of income away from some of the country’s most underpaid and essential workers for the food system.

Under the new AEWR, H-2A farmworkers in year-round jobs would be paid tens of thousands of dollars less annually compared with what U.S. farmworkers earn now

The wage cuts from the AEWR described above currently apply only to H-2A farmworkers, who can only be employed in seasonal jobs. However, if the rider to make H-2A year-round goes into effect, farmworkers in year-round jobs will see the biggest pay cuts.

Table 2 lists a sample of some of the main year-round agricultural industries in major agricultural states, along with average annual employment, which together accounts for about 15% of the total year-round full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture. Table 2 shows how much farmworkers earned annually, on average in 2024 in those industries and states, and compares the annual earnings of farmworkers in 2024 with what H-2A workers would earn in 2026 if they had worked in the same jobs and had been paid the corresponding 2026 AEWR at skill level 1 for the entire year (40 hours per week for 52 weeks), minus the annualized amount that will be deducted from hourly wages for housing according to the 2026 AEWR.1

The final column in Table 2 shows a few examples that illustrate the difference between what year-round U.S. farmworkers in the selected industries earned in 2024 and what H-2A workers at skill level 1 would earn if they were paid the annualized AEWR in 2026. Table 2 shows that the reduction in wages for H-2A farmworkers in year-round jobs could range from an annual pay cut of nearly $21,000 for farmworkers on hog and pig farms in North Carolina to a pay cut of almost $44,000 for farmworkers on poultry and egg farms in Texas.

Outcomes such as these—in which farmworkers paid the 2026 AEWR would earn tens of thousands of dollars less than what U.S. farmworkers earned in major year-round jobs in 2024—are egregious and in violation of the spirit and letter of the AEWR and the H-2A statute, but will be the norm and allowed if the year-round H-2A provision in the rider becomes law. This would hurt some of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in the U.S. labor market and create an almost unstoppable incentive for employers to replace their current farmworkers who now fill year-round jobs with H-2A workers who can’t easily switch employers or effectively complain when their wages are stolen and when they’re forced to work in unsafe conditions.

Table 2 The year-round H-2A rider with the new AEWR rule could triple the current size of the H-2A program and cause wages to drop sharply for farmworkers

The ultimate result of the new H-2A wage rule combined with making the H-2A program year-round would be a likely tripling of the size of the H-2A program to about 900,000 workers, which includes the complete decimation of job quality for the 410,000 jobs in agriculture that can provide stable year-round employment and sometimes a living wage for U.S. farmworkers.

How would this occur? The Trump DOL’s new wage rule estimates that the lower pay for farmworkers it institutes will encourage farms to rapidly increase hiring through the H-2A program, estimating that 515,000 H-2A workers will be employed in 2034. If those low wages remain in effect and the year-round H-2A rider becomes law and is renewed yearly (as the H-2B riders have been every year), employers are likely to ramp up hiring for year-round jobs until nearly all are filled by H-2A workers who can be paid extremely low wages and, because of their precarious immigration status, have little bargaining power or the ability to complain in the face of employer lawbreaking.

For context, the 410,000 H-2A workers in year-round jobs plus the estimated 257,500 year-round equivalent jobs done by H-2A workers in seasonal jobs (i.e., 515,000 H-2A workers employed in 2034 for six months out of the year), would equal 667,500 full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture, or roughly 42% of all annual average employment in agriculture.

Instead of ballooning the H-2A program, policymakers should create a pathway to citizenship for farmworkers to ensure their rights on the job

Policymakers and the public must reject the harmful and unjustified proposals coming from Trump and Congress to pay less to farmworkers who already live on the margins of society, and to keep more of them indentured through the H-2A program. This rider is another example that reveals the truth about the Trump administration’s immigration agenda: They have no real interest in protecting jobs or pay for American or “native-born” workers, only in giving employers what they demand.

Using H-2A, a problematic temporary work visa program—in which workers are virtually indentured to their employers and that accounts for most of the wage and hour violations that take place on farms—to fill permanent, year-round jobs should give pause to all members of Congress. It makes no sense, unless the goal is to keep the workers employed in those jobs from having equal rights and fair pay. If migrant workers are filling true labor shortages in permanent, year-round jobs, then those workers should always get lawful permanent residence (i.e., green cards) that puts them on a path to citizenship.

If members of Congress want a reliable, healthy, and stable farm labor force that can continue to produce food domestically for Americans, they should pass legislation that legalizes undocumented farmworkers and reforms the H-2A program so that all migrant farmworkers have equal rights, fair wages, and a quick path to permanent residence and citizenship. That’s the only way to ensure that the workers who sustain the food supply chain will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve and that honors their contributions to the U.S. economy.

1. The amounts have not been adjusted for inflation. The 2026 AEWR provides two “skill levels” for farmworkers—which are set at specific percentiles along the distribution of OEWS wages surveyed. Skill level 1 is the 17th percentile while skill level 2 is the median of wages surveyed, which is also the 50th percentile. For this calculation, I am only calculating the wage differentials for H-2A workers in year-round jobs who are classified by employers at skill level 1, which DOL estimates will account for 92% of all H-2A workers.

 

In normal times, today would have been a jobs day. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been forced to delay the release until December 16 due to the lingering impacts of the Trump administration radically restricting BLS operations during the government shutdown. Further, BLS has announced that we will never have data from the monthly survey of households for October. This means that valuable information for that month—like the overall unemployment rate or the unemployment rate for various demographic groups—will never be known. During the last federal shutdown in 2018–2019, BLS did not suspend its activities and released its employment situation report as normal. In fact, this is the first time in 12 years that a jobs report was delayed and the first time a month of household data will be missed completely.

Federal statistical agencies (FSAs) like BLS and the Census Bureau provide the gold standard data that are crucial for understanding the labor market. The monthly jobs report provides policymakers, businesses, and the public with the most rigorous and timely labor market data they need to make high-stakes decisions. Unfortunately, without a timely release, the Federal Reserve will meet next week without the best data on the state of the labor market. This will materially harm their ability to make a data-informed decision on interest rate policy.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has sought to weaken FSAs. In August, Trump fired the BLS commissioner for accurately reporting data that the administration found politically inconvenient. Amid these historically unprecedented threats, we assembled a new Data Accountability Dashboard that tracks next-best data from other (non-federal) data sources—including ADP employment data, job cut announcements from the Challenger report, and consumer sentiment reports.

These are clearly inferior to the datasets that have historically been collected and analyzed by the nonpartisan, expert professionals who work at FSAs, but they still provide some insights into the direction the economy is moving. This data would also—over time—provide some potential signal if official FSA data were being manipulated or suppressed to hide an economic downturn. Updates to those next-best data this week suggest some weakening in the labor market. Whether this is supported by the FSA data coming back online in coming weeks is a key question people should be watching.

On Wednesday, ADP’s monthly National Employment Report showed a loss of 32,000 jobs in the private sector in November. Our dashboard uses a three-month moving average to remove some volatility and, in making this adjustment, tracks BLS private-sector employment a bit more closely. As shown in Figure A below, ADP employment has dipped below zero for the first time since the pandemic. BLS data available only through September show a similar slowdown. It is possible that Trump administration attacks on immigrant communities have sharply reduced labor supply and driven some of the radical slowdown in job growth. However, even with reduced immigration, the U.S. economy still needs non-zero job growth to keep the labor market from deteriorating. I’ll be looking closely at the official data for October and November released on December 16 to see if they reflect the trends shown here.

Figure A

On December 9, the BLS will release data for September and October from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). Currently, the latest JOLTS data are only available through August. Data from Indeed on job postings (Figure B) and data from Challenger on job cuts (Figure C) provide some insights into job openings and layoffs, given the current lack of gold standard data. Indeed data are provided on a daily basis but are aggregated into a monthly average, which we use here to compare with JOLTS job openings data. So far, the latest data suggest little change in job openings.

Job cut announcements, while volatile, appear to be slowly rising. The official layoffs rate released as part of the JOLTS data has not yet reflected this rise. But it is concerning given that the hires rate remains depressed, a rate similar to the immediate aftermath of the Great Recession. That makes the downside risk of higher layoffs all the greater if laid-off workers have less opportunity to find another job. Put simply, the only reason the unemployment rate has been able to stay relatively low in the last year even as hiring has been depressed is because layoffs have been extraordinarily low. If layoffs pick up while hiring remains weak, unemployment will quickly spike. This makes layoffs a key indicator to watch when the JOLTS data are released next week.

Figure B Figure C   Once the official FSA data are released and hopefully return to a normal schedule, our Data Accountability Dashboard will still be useful to make sure those gold standard data are not being compromised either because of staffing shortages or for political gain. The first and best line of defense against data manipulation escaping public notice will be whistleblowers from FSAs who are dedicated professionals and will not want it degraded. But if data are being manipulated and whistleblowers emerge, the dashboard can provide useful data accountability checks. For more next-best data, check out the entire dashboard for all nine metrics we are tracking as new data become available.

Jacques Poitras of the CBC reports N.B. pension fund managers accused of costing tech investors millions:

The company that manages billions of dollars in pension funds for thousands of New Brunswick public sector employees and retirees is being accused of causing financial losses for hundreds of investors across Canada.

Fredericton-based Vestcor Inc. and one of its senior executives are the targets of a petition filed in British Columbia that is seeking court approval for a class-action lawsuit.

The company is accused of falsely inflating the value of a corporate merger between two technology companies.

Vestcor invests the pension contributions of New Brunswick civil servants and other public sector employees in various investment vehicles, including stocks.

According to the petition application, Vestcor was the majority shareholder in Exro Technologies, and “orchestrated and significantly influenced” Exro’s 2024 merger with SEA Electric Inc., in which Vestcor also owned shares.

Exro paid $300 million to acquire SEA Electric after telling its shareholders that SEA would make $200 million in profits in 2024 — a figure that proved “delusional,” the court filing says.

“These facts and circumstances reflected within those representations were the basis of the grossly inflated valuation assigned to SEA Electric,” it says.

“Those purported facts and circumstances did not exist, or the manner of their representation in the material change report was false or misleading.”

It alleges Vestcor and its vice-president of equities Mark Holleran “did so in order to manage, or salvage, their significant investment in SEA Electric.”

The assertions in the petition have not been proven in court and Vestcor has yet to file a response.

“Our legal team is currently evaluating the merits of this lawsuit,” CEO Sean Hewitt said in an emailed statement.

“The claims have not been tested in court,” he added. “We have no reason to believe in their veracity.”

Sage Nematollahi, the lawyer who filed the petition on behalf of two shareholders, told CBC News that Vestcor “has lost a lot of money” as Exro’s majority shareholder, tying up “significant funds from pensioners in New Brunswick [with] this investment that has not done great.” 

But in Hewitt's statement, he said the impact was “negligible” to the overall performance of Vestcor’s investment portfolios, estimating it at a fraction of one per cent of the total.

“Given the robust funded positions of our clients’ pension plans, and continued strong investment performance, there is no impact to the monthly income of pensioners,” he said.

The company managed a total of $23 billion in 2024 — an increase of $2 billion over 2023.

Vestcor, owned by the province’s two largest pension plans for civil servants and teachers, was created in 2016, replacing a government-owned agency.

It handles retirement plans for hospital workers, nurses, Crown corporation employees, provincial court judges, MLAs and others. It also manages other investment funds, including the University of New Brunswick’s endowment. 

Exro was delisted by the Toronto Stock Exchange in October.

The company revealed in November 2024 that its revenue projections would fall far short of what it had claimed, recording a loss of $226 million, including a $211 million loss to the value of SEA Electric’s assets.

The losses led to “the complete collapse” of Exro, the filing says.

The petition alleges that Vestcor and Holleran “acted in bad faith and/or conflicts of interest” as “de facto directors and/or officers” of Exro.

The petition was filed by two shareholders, British Columbia resident Bryan Irwin, who held  27,500 common shares worth $22,000 at the time of the merger, and Ontario investor Mike Zienchuk, who had 900,000 shares worth an amount not disclosed in the court filing.

Nematollahi told CBC News that about 500 other shareholders have contacted his office about joining the lawsuit if it is certified as a class action case.

“There could be thousands of shareholders out there,” he said.

Zienchuk and another investor, Allan Crosier, have also filed a lawsuit in Alberta against Exro, two former company officials, the company’s financial advisors and its insurance underwriters.

Exro billed itself as a clean tech company that would design and build power electronics to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of electric vehicles and energy storage systems. 

Vestcor was a majority shareholder in Exro at the time of the merger and also held 14.3 per cent of preferred stock in SEA, meaning Vestcor was “acting both as a seller and a buyer,” the filing says. 

I read this earlier this week and to be honest, I didn't contact Jon Spinney, CIO at Vestcor who I know because the allegations in the article are absurd.

What do I mean? Vestcor "orchestrated" Exro Technologies'  buyout of SEA Electric Inc to save it on its book? It just seems like such nonsense. 

The only thing leading to this accusation was this:

Vestcor was a majority shareholder in Exro at the time of the merger and also held 14.3 per cent of preferred stock in SEA, meaning Vestcor was “acting both as a seller and a buyer,” the filing says.  

To which I say so what? It's not like Vescro forced Exro to merge with SEA.

But this is the part that really caught my BS detector:

Sage Nematollahi, the lawyer who filed the petition on behalf of two shareholders, told CBC News that Vestcor “has lost a lot of money” as Exro’s majority shareholder, tying up “significant funds from pensioners in New Brunswick [with] this investment that has not done great.” 

But in Hewitt's statement, he said the impact was “negligible” to the overall performance of Vestcor’s investment portfolios, estimating it at a fraction of one per cent of the total.

“Given the robust funded positions of our clients’ pension plans, and continued strong investment performance, there is no impact to the monthly income of pensioners,” he said. 

I categorically refute claims that Vestcor is losing or has lost a lot of money. Complete and utter nonsense!

Back in April,  I went over Vestcor's solid 2024 results with CIO Jon Spinney and they were truly excellent on all fronts. You can read that comment here.

Moreover, as CEO Sean Hewitt notes, the loss from Exro's implosion was negligible so this story is much ado about nothing.

Basically, Sage Nematollahi (featured above), the lawyer representing plaintiffs used some contacts of his at CBC to make a big stink about Exro's implosion trying to tie it to Vestcor, making all sorts of unfounded and in some cases completely false accusations.

These lawyers are a dime a dozen in the securities field, typically they make all the money and recover little to no funds for their clients who subscribe to a class action lawsuit after a stock collapses.

Anyways, Vestcor will fight these allegations in court and if they are proven guilty of any wrongdoing, I will let my readers know.

I think this article is a bunch of nonsense that Jacques Poitras of the CBC got suckered into reporting (warning to all reporters, if unsure, before publishing contact yours truly, I will set the record straight).

More importantly, I want civil servants and teachers in New Brunswick to know that Vescor is doing an excellent job managing the assets of their pension plans.

Don't let this negative CBC article lead you to conclude otherwise.

Below, learn more about Vestcor and what it does. It's the most important pension fund in that region of the country and they are doing great work in my opinion. 

Also, Keystone Financial made a clip on whether Exro has a chance at recovery. Take the time to watch this, he covers all the details well.