CEO of L Street Corp, a growing Chicago based evergreen and diversified holding company. Buy-Build-Invest. 25+ yrs of entrepreneurial finance & SMB strategy.
Chicago, IL
Joined December 2011
- Tweets5K
- Following1K
- Followers826
- Likes6.8K
Pinned Tweet
"Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity beyond resources controlled."
~ Prof. Howard Stevenson, HBS entrepreneurial studies godfather
This is by far and away my favorite definition of entrepreneurship. Why?
Out of the gate it implies motion. The verb "pursuit" is deliberate and is the opposite of sitting and waiting for just the right moment.
But by far the most important piece of that short phrase is "beyond resources controlled."
This is pure gold. You won't see this as deliberately and succinctly applied in any other definition.
What he is basically saying is - you need to go and do things without knowing how you are going to get there or where you are going to get the money/resources/talent/knowledge.
Too many people wait for the perfect moment. Or complain they don't have the capital.
That is not entrepreneurship. That's just day dreaming.
Jay Sebben retweeted
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
Jay Sebben retweeted
CHICAGOANS, ARE YOU TIRED YET?
We can’t afford another four years of this. If we want something different, we must vote differently.
We can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
LET’S SAVE CHICAGO.
Let’s put somebody in office who knows Chicago, knows what’s going on, loves Chicago, and is willing to fight for Chicago,someone who will speak up and not gaslight you with lies.
Someone who will PUT CITIZENS FIRST.
Vote for me, Danielle Carter-Walters, for Mayor of Chicago in 2027.
To donate, volunteer, or see my platform, go to:
dannicformayor.com
#dcwforchi
#commonsensecarter
Jay Sebben retweeted
Listen up Chicago. If Danielle Carter-Walters makes it to the debate stage, she will shock Chicago and the world. This impressive candidate impressed me on The Chicago Way Podcast. Wife of a Chicago police officer, and mom. She speaks common sense to a wounded city. johnkassnews.com/the-chicago…
Jay Sebben retweeted
Chicago may finally have a mayoral candidate speaking the language of everyday citizens.
Danielle Carter-Walters says that if elected in 2027, her first 30 days will include ending sanctuary-city policies, conducting a complete audit of taxpayer spending, and aggressively recruiting officers to address Chicago’s nearly 2,000-person police shortage.
She is a Chicago native, a small-business owner, and the wife of a retired Chicago police officer. She understands these problems from the ground level.
Her governing philosophy is refreshingly perspicacious: “When people know their leadership cares about them, supports them, and has their backs, they don’t mind working hard for you.”
The plan sounds right. Now Chicago must examine the record, demand specifics, and determine whether she possesses the fortitude to deliver.
@Dannic44
#AStoneGroove #SilentMajoritySpeaks
Jay Sebben retweeted
🚨 CFR INVESTIGATES: WHY WAS DANIELLE CARTER-WALTERS LEFT OUT?
The Urban Center is holding a Chicago Mayoral Roundtable.
But one declared candidate is missing:
🔥 DANIELLE CARTER-WALTERS.
And that raises an even bigger question after the latest polling.
An M3 Strategies poll of 475 Chicago public employees found:
Brandon Johnson — 20.1%
Alexi Giannoulias — 17.6%
Susana Mendoza — 11.2%
Willie Wilson — 6.9%
🔥 Danielle Carter-Walters — 6.8%
John Kelly — 5.1%
Mike Quigley — 2.3%
Danielle is essentially TIED with Willie Wilson.
She’s polling HIGHER than John Kelly and Mike Quigley in this survey.
And yet she doesn’t have a seat at this mayoral roundtable?
Danielle isn’t “thinking about running.”
She has an active mayoral campaign committee registered with the Illinois State Board of Elections and is actively campaigning for Mayor of Chicago.
So CFR wants to know:
🔴 Who decided which candidates were invited?
🔴 What were the qualifications?
🔴 Was there a polling or fundraising threshold?
🔴 Was Danielle invited?
🔴 And if she wasn’t — WHY NOT?
The Urban Center doesn’t have to endorse Danielle.
They don’t even have to agree with her.
But if you’re holding a MAYORAL ROUNDTABLE, Chicago voters deserve to know how you decided who gets a seat at the table.
Especially when the candidate left out is already polling higher than some established political names.
CFR WILL BE ASKING. 🔎
Flipsred.com
#ChicagoFlipsRed #CFRInvestigates #Chicago2027 #DanielleCarterWalters
Jay Sebben retweeted
DANIELLE CARTER-WALTERS IS POLLING AT 6.8% — WITH NO BIG-MONEY MACHINE BEHIND HER.
No millions in campaign cash.
No establishment machine.
No army of paid political insiders.
And she’s already sitting essentially neck-and-neck with Willie Wilson at 6.9%.
Meanwhile, 27.4% of voters are still undecided.
Danielle is getting on the board through grassroots work, showing up in communities, talking directly to Chicagoans and getting her name out there.
6.8% WITH LITTLE MONEY. Imagine what happens when Chicago actually gets to know Danielle Carter-Walters.
The race is wide open. 🇺🇸
S/O to M3 Strategies for conducting the poll and putting some numbers behind where this race stands right now. 📊
Flipsred.com
#ChicagoFlipsRed
Great post…
The 401k is just another scam on the working American class, just like employer-tied health insurance.
Biggest tell? The guy who invented it, Ted Benna, has been one of its loudest critics for years.
He has said straight up it was never designed to be what it is today and he got disturbed by how the fees got handled.
When he put the first one together it was only supposed to be a little tax-deferred supplement for higher earners sitting on top of real pensions and Social Security.
It was never meant for companies to kill pensions and shove the entire retirement burden onto regular workers.
Then the fees.
Employers were supposed to cover the admin and recordkeeping. Instead they dumped it all on us.
Total plan costs usually run 0.5% to over 2% a year depending on plan size.
A single 1% difference can wipe out a whopping **30%** of your final balance over a career through pure compounding drag.
Plus the hidden revenue sharing baked into the mutual fund menu your employer picked for you.
You lock the money up for decades with a 10% penalty if you touch it early, zero access when you actually need flexibility, and walk away with way less real spending power than the big number on the statement pretends.
Total scam!
Jay Sebben retweeted
You can now book two humanoids for our cleaning service in SF. One humanoid for 60 minutes is $30, two are $60.
You can book a cleaning at tau-robotics.com. If you don’t have an invite code yet, join the waitlist. Timelapse at 5× speed (~40 minutes in real time).
Jay Sebben retweeted
Lost & found without Pixit: 📦 (box on head, basically)
Lost & found with Pixit: 🙌
01 Snap
02 Track
03 Return
Try it free → PixitHQ.com
Jay Sebben retweeted
Your lost & found process, ranked:
📦 Shoebox + sticky notes: 2/10
📋 40-tab spreadsheet: 4/10
📱 Pixit — digital tracking, 24/7 guest access, automated notifications: 10/10
Try it free 👇
pixithq.com/
Not extrapolate that to social media and everything that comes with it.
Fred Rogers met with a child psychologist every week for 22 years to build his show. She shaped everything: every script, prop, and song. The whole point was to give a child's nervous system time to slow down. In 1984, a single regulatory decision ended all of it.
The psychologist was Dr. Margaret McFarland, who co-founded the Arsenal Family and Children's Center alongside Benjamin Spock and Erik Erikson. She and Rogers understood that the prefrontal cortex in children, the part of the brain that controls impulse, emotion, and attention, takes decades to fully develop. At the start of every episode, Rogers tied his sneakers and changed his sweater while children settled in. Those pauses were intentional, designed to help a child's nervous system shift into a calmer, more focused state.
What ended it had nothing to do with child development science. In 1984, Reagan's FCC chairman Mark Fowler abolished the advertising limits that had protected children's programming from commercial pressure. Toy companies moved within months. Between 1984 and 1985, cartoons tied to toy lines increased by 300%, from a handful of shows to more than 40 animated series. In almost every case, the toy was designed first. The cartoon was built to sell it.
Researchers later put numbers to what parents were already noticing. A 2011 study in Pediatrics from the University of Virginia tested 60 four-year-olds across three groups: one watching SpongeBob, which cuts scene every 11 seconds; one watching a slow PBS show, which cuts scene every 34 seconds; and one drawing. Nine minutes later, all three took tests on attention, impulse control, short-term memory, and problem-solving. The SpongeBob group scored significantly worse across every measure.
In the 1970s, children began watching television around age 4. Research from pediatrician Dimitri Christakis found that by 2009, the average age of first screen exposure had dropped to 4 months, as the content got faster and the audience got younger. Researchers separately found that each additional hour of daily screen time at ages 1 or 3 raised the risk of attention problems at age 7 by 9%.
Jay Sebben retweeted
Under capitalism, socialists are free to build socialism.
Under socialism, capitalists aren’t free to build anything.
Nothing stops a group of socialists pooling their money, forming a company, and splitting every wage and every pound of profit perfectly equally.... Or to donate all profit to the government.
It’s legal. It’s easy. Owning the means of production is as simple as setting up a company.
Marx wrote his manifesto before the invention of limited liability companies. Back then “seize the factory” meant seizing it from the handful of families who could afford one.
That argument expired the day anyone could start a company with limited liability, raise investment and hire who they want.
Socialists are free to lead by example and demonstrate their system works. They can out-recruit, out-motivate, out-build and out innovate based on their ideas if they like. It would prove the philosophy works. Capitalism will happily host their experiment.
The fact that nobody does this tells you a lot.
Jay Sebben retweeted
The best job cut post I’ve ever read.
This should be required reading.
Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why.
First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it.
Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands.
Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition.
I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively.
THE 100X ORGANIZATION
The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago.
Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken.
The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems.
These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now.
The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working.
THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS
— THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS
I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality.
Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment.
AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down.
Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed.
So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code?
And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time?
If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code.
The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x.
The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated.
I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already.
More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well.
— THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS
Product management and design roles are merging.
Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers.
And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers.
The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results.
The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy.
Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on.
To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production.
Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck.
That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time.
— THE SYSTEM MANAGERS
Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp.
The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world.
You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is.
— THE FRONT-LINERS
In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers.
This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings.
One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers.
REWARDING 100X IMPACT
In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go?
In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it.
We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them.
You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace.
Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems.
THE FUTURE
Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next.
The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago.
ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.
Jay Sebben retweeted
Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why.
First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it.
Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands.
Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition.
I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively.
THE 100X ORGANIZATION
The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago.
Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken.
The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems.
These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now.
The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working.
THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS
— THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS
I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality.
Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment.
AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down.
Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed.
So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code?
And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time?
If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code.
The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x.
The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated.
I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already.
More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well.
— THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS
Product management and design roles are merging.
Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers.
And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers.
The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results.
The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy.
Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on.
To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production.
Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck.
That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time.
— THE SYSTEM MANAGERS
Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp.
The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world.
You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is.
— THE FRONT-LINERS
In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers.
This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings.
One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers.
REWARDING 100X IMPACT
In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go?
In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it.
We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them.
You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace.
Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems.
THE FUTURE
Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next.
The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago.
ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.
Great series of posts below. I know this sounds nuts to trained deal people, but I can’t tell you how many brokers (and even lawyers)… then by default of learned behavior, sellers… at the lower end… have tried to tell me “you’re buying assets” (as in the legal structure in an asset sale),
and then expect to hoodwink you out of appropriate inventory or AR levels or cram AP on you, or whatever, without any adjustment to value expectations.
Sometimes it’s out of ignorance. Sometimes it’s deception. Usually it’s because an advisor did a poor job of coaching the seller.
The full value of a business is as a going concern. A moving train. Not a startup where you buy equipment and inventory and then… ready-set-go!
It was the worst business buying story I’ve ever heard.
A buyer moved his family from Georgia to Utah mid-deal.
The negotiation was messy, but he was excited to close.
Working capital started at $800k.
Then dropped to $500k.
Then got negotiated down to $300k at the last minute.
He thought he was getting $300k to run the business.
Within 30 days, he realized he had a problem.
Most of that “working capital” was stale accounts receivable.
Money that was never going to be collected.
The purchase agreement didn’t protect him.
Nothing carved out AR over 90 days.
Within three months, he was running out of cash.
He drained his $200k 401(k) to keep the business alive.
Told his wife it would be a quick blip.
He’d pay it back soon.
Then sales stalled.
He needed more cash just to operate.
Banks said no.
He couldn’t bring himself to ask friends or family.
So he started using cash that was supposed to go back to the seller.
The seller sued him.
Everything unraveled fast.
By month nine, he was in default.
By month twelve, he was in bankruptcy and receivership.
Employees walked off the job.
The business collapsed.
He came to me among others around month eight searching for a solution.
At that point, it was already over.
A post-closing analysis showed the truth.
The business actually needed about $1.5M in working capital to run properly.
He got a fraction of that.
That’s the game.
If you don’t understand working capital, you’re not buying a business.
You’re buying a problem.
In today’s episode of Main Street Deals, Kevin and Sam unpack the most important lesson in business buying.
What working capital actually is.
How to negotiate for it.
And how to manage it post-closing.
Enjoy.
Jay Sebben retweeted
“If AI can make employees more productive, which is widely accepted as fact, then companies are going to want as many productive units of labor as possible. This is a key reason why I am changing my mind.”
This is why jevons paradox is really important to understand with AI right now.
And counterintuitively, this trend is going to increase as AI gets better. The better AI gets at performing tasks, the more companies can take on those tasks, which leads to hiring more people to do the surrounding work of those tasks.
Think about the small business that can’t afford to build complex software. When AI is only a little good nothing changes for them. When it’s really good they can finally hire engineers that have the impact of 5-10X, so they can finally invest in engineering.
The sales team that can automate customer intelligence and outbound demand gen will hire more sales people because they have more leads to go after. The marketing team that can now do higher-end video production than before will hire a video editor. And so on.
This is going to happen in more and more surprisingly ways.
I have changed my mind on how AI will impact jobs in America.
Previously, I believed AI would replace many entry level roles typically filled by young employees. The technology would then work its way up the organization and eventually reduce the total number of jobs in a company.
The data is saying something different, so when I get new information I am willing to change my mind.
The number of software engineers being hired has been increasing. The number of open software engineer roles is growing.
The number of new college grads who get hired has increased 5.6% over the last 12 months. The unemployment level for people aged 20-24 years old who have a college degree has fallen from nearly 9% to almost 5% as well.
The Wall Street Journal recently wrote “AI created 640,000 jobs between 2023 and 2025 in the U.S., according to an analysis by LinkedIn of job posting data, including new white-collar positions such as Head of AI and AI engineer.”
And I am starting to see companies throughout our portfolio aggressively hiring to keep up with the demand for their products and services.
If AI can make employees more productive, which is widely accepted as fact, then companies are going to want as many productive units of labor as possible. This is a key reason why I am changing my mind.
AI appears to be a magical technology that will make companies more productive and more profitable. The net result will be more corporations, more startups, and more jobs.
All three are big, positive wins for the American economy.
Jay Sebben retweeted
This is literally mind blowing
Spencer Pratt exposes Los Angeles Department of Water and Power salaries
- Over 100 LADWP employees earn an annual compensation of over $500,000 per year each
- 26 LADWP employees earn more than $600,000 thousand dollars per year
- 4 top level LADWP employees earn more than $700,000 dollars a year
- The LADWP has a combined water and power budget of 11 billion dollars
I looked into it further, and get this
100% of leadership and oversight of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power are aligned with Democrats
Mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass appointed the 5 member Board of Water and Power Commissioners, which sets policy and approves major decisions like executive hires and salaries
California is essentially run by the mafia
They are literally giving themselves $500,000 -$800,000 EACH and this is just one department
