The Young Turks - Corporate Catastrophes

Episode Date: February 9, 2023

A new Iowa bill would bring some nasty changes to child labor laws. BP is cutting climate pledges after raking in $28B. Some states have been passing laws that ban Chinese citizens from buying property. Free Market “champions” are frantically lobbying to block this Trade Commission Bill. Insurance agencies and hospitals have rules that enforce price transparency. Host: Ana Kasparian Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. USA, USA. Welcome to Tixti, I'm your host, Anna Kasparendi, I'm your host, Anna Kasperian. And we're here in the great, big, beautiful USA. USA, USA. USA.

USA. USA. You know, I'm surprised that conservatives aren't offended by her delivery there. I mean, if you're going to chant USA, you really got to put some pizzazz into it, right? But Sarah Huckabee Sanders seems like she's not as proud of the USA as she should be. Who knows? Anyway, as always, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream if you're watching us live right now. A good way to get the TYT message out there, the progressive message out there.

We've got a great show ahead for you today. As always, we do things a little differently on Wednesdays where I get to indulge in stories I actually really do care about and we'll get no views in the first hour. But it's okay, it's okay, at least those who are in favor of the deep dives will get just that. We're going to talk about child labor and how Republicans want to roll back child labor laws. We're also going to discuss the latest in foreign investment. in United States, real estate, particularly housing that, you know, ordinary Americans

desperately need, but somehow we are allowing foreign nationals to buy that real estate and never live in it. So we'll talk about that as well. In the second hour, Ron DeSantis, what are you going to do, guys? What are all the Republican voters going to do about this growing civil war within the Republican Party, Ron DeSantis has responded to Donald Trump's accusations that Ron is a groomer. So we'll get to that in the second hour. John Iderola will be joining me for that portion of the show. For now, though, let's discuss what I'd argue is one of the most important stories of the day, not getting enough attention if you ask me, and it has to do with child labor.

Republican state lawmakers in Iowa have introduced a pretty reprehensible child labor bill that would legalize minors as young as 14 years old to work in jobs that include things like, you know, no big deal, just a little bit of manual labor, stuff like mining, logging, animal slaughterhouses, those kinds of jobs, you know? I mean, what could go wrong? It's not like the United States has a history, a brutal, dark history with child labor, which we'll get to in just a moment. But first, a few details about this legislation.

Senate File 167 introduced by state senator Jason Schultz would expand job, expand job opportunities available to teens, including letting children as young as 14 work in freezers and meat coolers and loading and unloading light tools under certain conditions. Now, there is a very real reason why Republican lawmakers in this state in Iowa are pushing for this. The tight labor market might have something to do with it, employers not wanting to, you know, pay the workplace compensation for anyone who might get injured, that's another part of this. It's just so gross how far companies with the help of Republicans, with Republicans aiding and abetting them, how far they'll go just to get their hands on cheap labor, but more importantly, labor they can take advantage of. And that's what I see this as.

Now, this is a proposal. It hasn't passed yet. We're going to keep an eye on it. But what else do we know about it? The proposed law contains an entirely new section that would allow the Iowa workforce development and state department of education heads to make exceptions to any of the prohibited jobs for teens between the ages of 14 to 17, participating in work-based learning or a school or employer administered work-related program.

So not only would these employers get away with paying these minors less for these incredibly dangerous jobs, but workmen's comp, that wouldn't apply to teenagers who are harmed in the process of doing their jobs, right? So if they're working at a meatpacking plant and something goes awry and they're injured as a result, well, the way this bill is written would ensure that the companies would not have to deal with any lawsuit or liability. So before we get to those details, I do want to just give you a sense of what it was like when we allowed for child labor to be carried out in this country. Because luckily, labor unions fought hard to reverse that practice. And now

you have Republican lawmakers clawing back to a time in America where this is what we experienced with children. The kinds of jobs you would find children working in ranged from the mines, the factories, the cotton mills, to working out on the streets selling newspapers. Injuries, even deaths, were very common among children. The parents would often say that they needed the income that their children brought in, that that was what allowed them to continue to survive. A number of parents were advocates for child labor, and their children thought that that was the way life was.

Well, luckily that changed. There are still companies today who break child labor rules and regulations, and they get fined for it. And then they do it again because the profits they make from taking advantage of vulnerable people outweighs the fines they end up paying. We should probably do something about that to, you know, ensure that we're actually enforcing our laws against child labor. But nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, the thing that makes this proposals particularly disgusting is that knowing that these jobs are dangerous, knowing that these jobs could get these kids hurt, Republicans wrote the proposal in a way to ensure that should they get hurt, the companies employing them wouldn't have to face. any type of lawsuit or liability for it. It exempts businesses from civil liability if a minor is sickened, injured, or killed due to the company's negligence.

So again, it takes workman's comp out of the equation entirely. The bill, in addition, would allow 16 and 17 year olds with the written permission of a parent, legal custodian or guardian, to serve alcohol to people who are drinking it on the premises of a business. It is insane. And what should terrify you is that when Republicans say they want to do something and when they have the backing, the financial backing, the political backing of big business, if they're persistent enough, more often than not, they get what they want. And we should be concerned about that because we do not have what this country had previously

to fight back against child labor. And that is strong labor militancy, labor unions, all of that has been decimated considerably. So what did it look like when workers fought against child labor earlier in this country's history? Well, let's take a look. It was easy to find school aged kids like Furman Owens, who started working in a South Carolina mill when he was only eight. He said he and others like him didn't even know their ABCs, and that they wanted to

to learn, but they couldn't, because they worked all the time. Individual workers and social reformers in the 1800s and 1900s fought against child labor, dangerous working conditions, long hours and bad wages, but they had little power, until labor unions were formed. Striking was an effective bargaining tool, but going on strike was not just a parade. It was more like a rebellion and the situation could be terrifying and dangerous. Local and national governments treated strikes as civil unrest and often dispatched armed troops to break them up. Workers were injured and many died as they clashed with police and National Guard.

Unions worked very hard to demand legislation that brought about an end to child labor in this country. So the unions obviously had a major impact on various labor laws, including regulation. pertaining to child labor. The thing that concerns me is labor membership, I'm sorry, union membership, I should say, has gone down significantly since then. In fact, I thought that there was more labor militancy in 2022, but I guess I would be mistaken because according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership or the union membership rate was 10.1% in 2022, which was actually down from 10.3% in 2021.

So unless you have an organized workforce, unless you have strong labor unions that are willing to fight back to protect workers' rights and to ensure that children are not being preyed upon by big business, you need to organize, you need to ensure that you have the backing, the support of a union should you want to strike, right? We don't have that now. And that is what concerns me the most. This is why you have Republicans constantly bad-mouthing unions. This is why big businesses want to squash any talk of their employees unionizing.

It's because you actually have the ability to fight back against some of these more disgusting business practices, including employing children in incredibly unsafe jobs that require working with heavy machinery that could lead to them losing a limb, that could lead to them dying. And by the way, we were already in a bad situation, even before this proposal, because we've been consistently covering more and more stories involving child labor regulations being violated by various companies. They get a slap on the wrist, they pay the fine, and then they're likely to do it again. One of the more insane stories that came out this year had to do with Hyundai, which severed its ties with two plants in Alabama because of how they had been violating child labor laws. Let's take a look at that.

Local authorities learned of the plant's practice of employing underage workers after a Guatemalan migrant child went briefly missing in February. It was later discovered that the girl, who was 13 at the time, had been working at Smart along with her 12 and 15-year-old brothers. Reuters says the siblings were, quote, among a larger cohort of underage workers who found jobs at the Hyundai-owned supplier over the past few years, and cites interviews with a dozen former and current plant employees and labor recruiters. The report adds that the facility has a history of safety violations and amputation hazards. Amputation hazards.

So again, you have Alabama plants hiring immigrant minors to work in these plants. Luckily, Hyundai took a stance and severed ties with these two plants as a result of that. But the point here is companies are going to focus on what they're supposed to focus on, maximizing profits. And they're willing to do that at any and all costs. There is no question of morality for them. This is not a discussion about whether or not a company is a good company or a bad company. It's a discussion about how the system is set up and what the motivating factors are. The motivating factors for big business is to return on, provide a return on investment for their shareholders, maximize profits. That is what

their responsibility is. And if they can claw away at any regulation that stands in their way, they will do it. And so if you think the federal government is going to step in and protect you or your children or anyone in the workforce from the terrible behavior, the bad treatment coming from corporate executives or these various businesses, I think you'd be mistaken. Because even when we finally did accomplish the labor regulations that we desperately needed, it didn't just come out of nowhere. There wasn't a group of politicians who were self-motivated and wanted to do the right thing. No, you had an organized outside pressure campaign in the form of organized labor unions fighting back

and making sure that these politicians bend to their will and get the regulations that they desperately needed and wanted. I think that we're far too comfortable with this ridiculous idea that all we need to do is vote And then that's it. I mean, the politician campaigned on all the things I liked. So they'll take it from here, right? Except no. Why would they?

They're motivating factors within Congress as well, including the desperate need to get along with your fellow colleagues. Well, if we had an outside pressure campaign that was well organized, maybe some of these progressive politicians, for instance, would remember who elected them in the first place and who they're supposed to be working for. Definitely not for their colleagues, for their constituents. The problem is the constituents are not organized, and the outside pressure campaign that we so desperately need doesn't exist right now. All right, well, let's move on to some other news because, man, Democrats have been bad for a while, and here's a good example of it.

I don't like when American presidents pit U.S. companies against people. I know what the president's trying to get at, but we need a fair tax system. But farmer was good to us during COVID. Big oil is important to us as we now find ourselves at a war in a war in Ukraine. So I think that us of us for us and them thing is not necessarily a thing to do. but we need a fair tax code. Even you and I start talking about how we could agree on the Medicaid expansion by making work requirements. Farma was good to us during COVID?

I'm going to debunk that with actual facts in a minute. Before I do, who was that guy? Well, it's former Democratic representative, Harold Ford, telling Americans that corporations are freaking awesome. And that Joe Biden pitting Americans against big business is, He's very, very naughty, so bad. So that was his response to Biden's state of the union address last night. And the lies told are pretty incredible.

Now I should also note, Harold Ford, who's no longer in Congress, he served up until 2007, now has his own lobbying group of some sort. So he is a lobbyist himself, he loves government corruption. So when we talk about big business corrupting politicians, he finds that to be fine and dandy because he's a beneficiary of that. He loves it. Okay, he also provides cover for the bad behavior of pharmaceutical companies and big oil because they're likely his clients. But let's actually debunk what he said there, okay? He mentioned how pharma's been good to us during COVID. No, pharma was able to collect quite a bit of taxpayer money in what was referred to as Trump's

operation warp speed. So that was public money that was funneled to private pharmaceutical companies to speed up the development and the manufacturing of the vaccine. They didn't do it out of nowhere. In fact, when it comes to research and development, the National Institute of Health, institutes of health, happened to provide quite a bit of money, $30 billion a year to pharmaceutical companies so they can actually, you know, do the research. and development for new drugs. I mean, because God forbid they take the risk with their capital when it comes to the research and development.

The U.S. taxpayer has to pay $30 billion for research and development so we can later be price gouged by the same pharmaceutical companies. But Harold Ford tells you you should like that. You should sit down and take it. I mean, it is pathetic. This is a Democrat. That's a Democrat. Okay?

I mean, it's remarkable. Now, what set him off? Why don't we go back to Joe Biden's state of the union address just last night? We pay for these investments on our future by finally making the wealthiest and biggest corporations begin to pay their fair share. I'm a capitalist, but pay your fair share. I think a lot of you at home, a lot of you at home agree with me and many people that you know the tax system is not fair. It is not fair. The idea that in 2020, 55 of the largest corporations in America, the Fortune 500, made $40 billion in profits and paid zero in federal taxes?

Zero? Folks, it's simply not fair. Corporations ought to do the right thing. That's why I propose we quadruple the tax on corporate stock buybacks and encourage long-term, long-term. investments. That, that is what set off Harold Ford. Oh, God forbid, businesses pay their fair share in taxes. Now, remember the corporate tax rate prior to Trump cutting it was 35%. When you consider all the corporate tax loopholes that went into effect, all the possible deductions that corporations could take advantage of, the effective tax rate for corporations

was actually closer to 17% on average. And the Biden administration claimed that they were going to reverse the Trump-era tax cuts, but he didn't want the corporate tax rate to go up to 35%. He proposed that the corporate tax rate go up from 21%, which is what Trump did, to 28%, not 35%. So like the idea that Biden is some fire breather, some socialist fire breather, he's so tough on corporations is laughable to say the least. He didn't even fight for that provision. At the end of the day, that provision failed. It was scrapped from any legislation.

And really, the corporate tax rate never went up to 28%. Okay, so the effective, 21% not effective, but the 21% corporate tax rate that was accomplished by Donald Trump remains, along with all the corporate deductions and loopholes that they can take advantage of. So their effective tax rate is even lower than that. That's what the reality of the situation is. But just based on the rhetoric we heard from Biden, Harold Ford got real salty, very upset. Why could that be? Why don't we take a look at what his political career looked like, including his fundraising efforts? He raised quite a bit of money. So he raised around $1 million in every election cycle, except for 2006.

So in 2006, for some reason, all of a sudden he saw this massive jump in contributions to his campaign. Now, he served until 2007, so I'm happy to say that that money apparently didn't work. But nonetheless, $14 million he had contributed to his campaign in 2006. Why don't we look at the top industries? Securities and investment is right at the top of the list. Which is relevant, because when Biden talks about corporations paying their fair share in taxes, what does that often lead to?

Well, paying more in taxes means the federal government is going to cut into your profits. Profits mean that the shareholders might not collect as much in, you know, increase in share prices or through dividends. On July 18th, get excited. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited.

Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. And so he's still working for the same people. Same people who funded his campaign. He's still looking out for them. God forbid they pay anywhere near percentage-wise what we pay in our taxes. That might need to wait their profits.

that might have a negative effect on these poor, poor shareholders. What are we going to do? It's just, it's incredibly gross that we keep hearing the same ridiculous commentary, coming from people, politicians, former politicians who pretend to be on the side of ordinary Americans. By the way, let's go back to the point that he made about oil, which was also equally ridiculous. So, oil companies are doing real well this year. Why don't we look at their profits? I should say last year.

2022, their profits were pretty gigantic. BP, for instance, $28 billion. This is not revenue, folks. This is profits. BP made $28 billion in profits in 2022. Chevron, $35.5 billion. Shell, $40 billion. ExxonMobil, $56 billion.

You want to know why? They took advantage of the Russian invasion into Ukraine to price gouge the hell out of us. They price gouged us like crazy. And what are they going to do now? Well, they're going to further enrich themselves with, you guessed it, corporate stock buybacks. Let's talk about that. So BP plans on spending $2.75 billion on corporate stock buybacks. Shell, $4 billion, Exxon Mobil, $35 billion. Oh man, Exxon Mobil shareholders must be salivating over that number. Chevron, $75 billion. This is how the system works.

And you have a former democratic lawmaker not only loving the system, but going out of his way to go on Fox News to protect that system and speak out against Biden's rhetorical. Like, just as rhetoric, really. It's so offensive to hear Biden just posture about something that he's not going to do or accomplish that he has to go on Foxx. news and speak out against him. I get it, man. It's tough. It's tough to earn an honest living in this country and survive, be able to pay your rent, be able to pay your mortgage, your car payment, whatever it is.

But I could never be a bitch for corporations the way some of these corporate Democrats are. Just couldn't, couldn't sleep at night. Something tells me that Ford has no problem, though. We got to take a break when we come back. Foreign investment in U.S. real estate, should it be banned? I think some of you already know how I feel about it. But seems like some Democrats are against it.

We'll tell you why when we return. What's up, everyone? Welcome back to the show. I'm just going to read one quick super chat because I want to promote what is mentioned here. So Kelly says, congratulations, Anna, on having your audio clip featured in Bernie Sanders' new video along with David Dole of Rational National Progressive Power. So I actually tweeted that video out for those of you who want to check it out. I loved it, not only because I was included in it, but because Bernie, unlike most other politicians, is so principled in his message and what he fights for, I mean, talk about never being distracted and just constantly being focused on what you want to accomplish on behalf of your constituents

and the American people. He's incredible. So, you know, we do criticize him here and there because we want to see him fight more. I get that that's not his style, but he is promoting and working hard toward the policies that we so desperately need in this country, including single payer health care. All right, well, let's move on to some housing related news. This housing complex in Irvine, California is being built for Chinese buyers, separate walk cooking rooms, no unlucky fours in the addresses, and multiple entrances for multi-generational living. Now that video is actually from many years ago. However, for decades now, foreign investors have been buying up the limited housing supply we have here in the United States.

As you all know, we're dealing with a very serious housing crisis. We absolutely need to build more housing. And because of the lack of inventory in terms of single family homes or properties that ordinary Americans can buy, it's actually leading to more demand in the rental market. That is driving up prices when it comes to rent. it has been a disaster. And so now we're hearing from some Republican lawmakers on a state and local level attempt to ban specifically Chinese nationals from buying up real estate in their states. Now, I'm going to stop for a second and say, I am against targeting one country, which is what

we're seeing from these Republican proposals. But in general, I do think that we need regulation. banning investment from foreign nationals into United States real estate, especially housing when we are dealing with a housing crisis. If you don't live here, if you're not gonna live in the house, you don't get to buy the house. And by the way, this isn't some crazy right wing idea. They've passed similar laws in places like Canada where their housing market was being negatively impacted by foreign nationals all over the world. up single family homes.

This is something that isn't even on Congress's radar, and it's concerning me. And since Republicans have a more targeted approach against Chinese nationals, for obvious reasons, right, they want to fearmonger about China and all of that, Democrats are responding the way that they typically respond, oh, this is racist, this is hateful, we're not having a conversation about it. Okay, but we should have a conversation about whether it makes sense to allow for foreign into United States real estate in the middle of a housing crisis, in the middle of a situation where places like Los Angeles have 60,000 people living on the streets.

We should have that conversation. But Democrats are not having that conversation. That is an issue. So let's talk about what some of these other states are doing and what Republicans are proposing. At least 11 states are considering some form of new legislation related to foreign ownership of farmland or real estate. state, according to the national conference of state legislators. Now, lawmakers have expressed concern over the security of the nation's food supply and

worry that several land purchases were deliberately made near American military bases. I'm going to say, I'm just going to admit that is a little bit concerning, right? So we do unfortunately have an increasingly adversarial relationship with China. I probably would feel uncomfortable with allowing for a, you know, China. national to buy farmland right next to a military base. Now the United States Air Force weighed in on a Chinese company's purchase of a corn mill in North Dakota, not far from a base, declaring it a significant threat. So again, the motivations for Republicans are very different from what my motivations are.

My motivation is we need to protect the limited housing supply we have for Americans and not allow foreign nationals who don't live here, don't want to live in those houses to park their money in our real estate. And by the way, oftentimes when that money is used to buy U.S. real estate, it's also meant to launder the money that they've made, right? So that's also a problem. But anyway, for Republicans, they're concerned about national security, allegedly. Okay. Now, a Chinese company also bought land near an Air Force in Del Rio, Texas. And so that's part of the reason why Texas Governor Greg Abbott, with the help of Republican lawmakers in his state, are pursuing legislation to ban Chinese nationals from purchasing real estate in their state.

Now, there are, again, some issues with how the proposals are written, right? So some of the new and proposed laws go beyond targeting Chinese nationals to broadly take aim at ownership by all foreign governments, businesses, and here's where I have an issue. New immigrants. So if you're a new immigrant, you're here in the United States. United States, like the, you're gonna live here. I don't think you should be included in this conversation. My issue is with people buying up our limited housing supply just as an investment or as a way to launder their money. Because that hurts us, US citizens who desperately need the housing. Other laws like the one under consideration in Texas do in fact single out

countries seen as particular security threats, including Russia, Iran, and North Korea, in addition to China. Are North Koreans buying up U.S. real estate? Like, I like how they gratuitously included North Korea. I don't know, maybe they are. I'm just completely unaware of it. In Texas, Democratic leaders, though, said that the broad measure now before the legislature appear to be prompted more by a rising anti-China political environment than any legitimate concern over espionage or foreign ownership of the food supply. Well, look into it and research it and see if there's actually a threat because I think it would be a bad idea to just automatically dismiss what Republicans are worried about

because you don't like Republicans, right? So if there's evidence to prove that these are unfounded concerns, then by all means, reject what Republican lawmakers are trying to do in the state of Texas or any other state where they have similar proposals, but they should do their due diligence and at least hear them out on that. Now, there are some other concerns, right? Such a bill would raise a host of constitutional issues because the measure does not distinguish between targeting people who are already here and those outside the United States. It raises serious due process and equal protection issues, and that's according to a law professor over at the University

of Texas. And I think that is a legitimate critique. And so in response to an inquiry from the New York Times about that, Texas state senator, one Texas state senator said, you know what? Good point. We're going to do better and make sure that we're more specific in how we write this legislation to ensure that there are no constitutional violations by the proposed legislation. Now in California, a bill to rein in foreign ownership of farmland passed both democratically controlled houses last year. The bill sponsors, Senator Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat, said it was an effort to stop the purchases while trying to better understand the motivation behind them.

But notice how it focuses on farmland. It does not focus on what I think it should focus on, which is housing. Now, the California bill, by the way, did make it through the state legislature, but it was then vetoed by Gavin Newsom, curious. and I should note that Chinese investors are among the top foreign purchasers of residential real estate along with Canadians, and that's according to the National Association of Realtors. I think in Oklahoma they might have a better plan in place. In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Constitution limits land ownership to U.S. citizens.

Those laws, unlike the proposal in Texas, do not single out citizens of particular countries. In Canada, a sweeping ban on foreign ownership of residential property went into effect this year, which sounds pretty good, a move that the country's liberal leadership said was aimed at curbing soaring housing prices. Canada gets it. That is what I would like to see implemented here. Again, if you live in a different country and you have no intention of actually living here or living in the house that you have purchased, you don't get to purchase the house. Sorry, we need housing. Now, foreign buyers purchased $59 billion worth of U.S. existing homes from April of 2021 through March of 2022, an 8.5 increase from the previous 12-month period. China and Canada remain

first and second in U.S. residential sales dollar volume at $6.1 billion and $5.5 billion, respectively, continuing a trend going back to 2013. India, Mexico, and Mexico. in Brazil also top the, or they rounded out the top five. So it's not just China, it's not just Canada. There are other countries involved. I'm not trying to single out any particular country. Again, for me, it's about making sure that we save our housing for people who actually need that housing because they need to live in it. They need shelter. Finally, couple that with the other issue that we're seeing in the housing market. And it's a growing issue. It's the in the institutional investors, the private equity firms that have now started snatching up single

family homes in various big cities across the country. Now, they'll argue, no, it's just, I mean, if you look at the percentage of home sales that go to institutional investors, it's a small amount. But if you take a look at places like Atlanta, right, it's really concentrated in certain parts of the country, they consist of most of the home sales. So why don't we take a look at this next video to see what kind of impact the investment in real estate is already having? 3% of all homes purchased in the U.S. were bought by investors. Often Wall Street-backed companies with multi-billion dollar funds. The colliers currently rent in a town near fissures from one of the

nation's biggest house rental companies. Their rent recently raised, eight, Percent. Good to see you. Come on in. Four times in recent weeks, they've been outbid by investors with all cash offers. It can be, you know, discouraging when you get overbid by, you know, companies. How do you save when you're spending $2,200 a month just to rent? So these companies have you on both ends.

Yeah, it's definitely a conundrum. In some Fisher's neighborhoods, investors own more than half of the homes, according to realtor Laura Turner. This is one of the neighborhoods. that investors have really targeted. They're coming in, they're buying it at cash, and then they're going to hold them as rentals. They're going to hold them as rentals because their next big business move

is to become corporate landlords. And with the limited supply of housing for you to be able to purchase, obviously the cost of that becomes more and more unaffordable, astronomical. So you have no choice but to rent. And when institutional investors and private equity firms are the ones

who uphold the majority of rentals, you're really at their mercy. That needs to be banned too. So we have two major issues, foreign investment in U.S. real estate, institutional investment in U.S. real estate. No conversation in Congress about curbing that whatsoever. And the people who suffer the consequences for that are people like you and me. Yes, we need to build more housing. No question about that. But we also need to deal with some of the lack of regulation that would

allow for institutional investors to swoop right in and purchase that new housing because they've got a leg up. They have the resources to do it. You can't compete with an institutional investor that can make an all cash offer. So if we build the new housing, but we don't deal with the regulations necessary to curb that behavior, who's to say that they're not going to purchase all the new housing that's built or the majority of new housing that's built. A lot of issues at play here, a lot of things to think about. I know that there's just this ideology of, no, just build more housing. Just do it, just do it.

No, no, no. Yes, we do need to do that. But there are other issues that we have to make sure that we deal with to make sure that the people who get to take advantage of that new housing are ordinary Americans who need it, not institutional investors and not foreign nationals looking to launder their money. All right, we got to take a break when we come back. We've got some more news, including how corporations want to prevent you from getting paid higher at a different company, how they want to control you and prevent competition. That and more coming right up.

Welcome back to the show, everyone. Let's get right to our next story. Freedom. Freedom to dream, to create, to grow, and pursue. We are a nation where competition and collaboration coexist, a nation whose rich tapestry of people and ideas create innovation and opportunities and opportunity. Oh, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce loves competition, guys. Competition means freedom. Except they don't really, because when the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, announced a new rule banning so-called non-compete agreements, oh man, they got their lobbyists ready to fight back. because fact of the matter is, if you happen to be a worker who sees a better paying job opportunity and you want to maybe leave your job or use that new job opportunity as leverage to get a pay raise, well, that non-compete agreement that the company had you signed, that'll squash your efforts immediately,

which is why the FTC made an excellent move in wanting to ban non-compete agreements. Okay, fact of the matter is, companies are not fans of competition at all. No, they love monopolies. They want to control the market. And more importantly, they want to prevent you from asking for more money. So what's going on here? Well, let's give you the details. On January 5th of this year, in a move that I loved, the Federal Trade Commission announced a ban on non-compete agreements.

Now, if you're unfamiliar with non-compete agreements, they can take many shapes and sizes, but generally they forbid employees from quitting to work for a competitor or even starting at a competing business, or starting a competing business, right? So the FTC estimates that one in five Americans, that is a huge number, about 20% of Americans have basically been pressured to sign these non-compete agreements. And that's not good because according to the Washington Post editorial board, yes, the Washington Post editorial board, non-compete agreements, depress wages, hamper people's ability to change jobs and have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship. Okay, so corporations are now scrambling to extend the 90-day period of public comment on the FTC's proposed ban.

Okay, so it hasn't gone into effect yet. The way things work is there needs to be a certain amount of time for the public to comment on the proposal before the proposal goes into effect. The Chamber of Commerce-led Industry Coalition includes the American Hospital Association, the American Bankers Association, National Restaurant Association, and dozens of other employer-led groups that represent the very largest corporations in America. And they're the ones who are fighting back and hoping to extend that. 90 day comment period, so they can eventually squash this FTC rule banning non-compete agreements.

Now, opposition even extends to the media. The National Newspaper Association, which represents community newspapers across America, signed onto the chamber letter sent earlier this week. News outlets, like virtually every other industry, have increasingly adopted non-compete clauses in employment contracts, not only for top editors and executives, but also for low-level journalists and other employees. If you see an on-air person delivering the news, even reading a teleprompter, very likely that they had to sign some sort of exclusivity clause in their agreement, in their contract. And that's because the platform or the channel that they're on doesn't want you to appear

on any other place, right? On any competitor show. I think that's incredibly stupid and short-sighted because it's a great way to get the word out there about your show or whatever you're working on by going on other shows. But, you know, executives, what are you going to do? Anyway, but let's move on. What else? So this is not a new effort. Corporations have been lobbying in favor of non-compete laws for quite some time now. So Ken Klivenstein wrote about this in The Intercept, the HR Policy Association, which represents major employers, including McDonald's Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, and Johnson, and Johnson, has closely tracked the reform effort around non-compete clauses. The National Association of Manufacturers, which represents

Toyota, ExxonMobil, BNSF, and other large employers reported lobbying the FTC and other federal agencies over non-compete issues. Now, even if the FTC's ban on non-competes does pass, big business is apparently not worried, and that should make you worried. Because look, another really good example of how these non-compete agreements have been utilized to essentially hurt labor and the ability to earn higher wages, is if you're working at, let's say, a fast food restaurant, there have been instances of those employees signing non-compete agreements that prevent them from working at a different store within the same fast food umbrella. So a McDonald's worker wouldn't be able to leave and

work at another McDonald's that offered him or her more money. That's how insane it is. Okay, so the chamber, by the way, has threatened a lawsuit to block the FTC rule. There is no need to panic, Jackson Lewis, one of the most aggressively anti-union law firms, in the country, which advises businesses, wrote in a special report on January 10th. Quote, it is still early in the process. If the final rule is issued, there will be significant and substantial legal challenges to it. And this is how the game is played. Anytime there's even a little bit of a win, a little bit of a win for ordinary Americans,

for American workers, well, the business community gets all their resources together and they fight it tooth and nail, likely to the point where it makes it to the Supreme Court, and who serves on the Supreme Court? How many federalist society judges, conservative judges, pro-business, pro-corporate judges now serve on the Supreme Court? Yeah, that's why they're not worried. So while I talk about the need for organizing labor in order to have an effective outside pressure campaign toward congressional lawmakers, it's still really, really important to vote. And yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils is still important because if the more evil individual gets voted, well, that person gets to nominate all sorts of nefarious figures

for the Supreme Court. And that's what happened with Trump. He nominated and succeeded in confirming three pro-corporate right-wing judges. And we have to suffer the consequences of that for decades to come. All right, well, we're going to, let's do it, let's do it. We're going to cut into the second hour a little bit, but I think this hospital pricing story is important, so let's do it. A damning new report revealed that only 25% of hospitals in the United States are complying with pricing transparency laws.

Now, these pricing transparency laws were the big idea of Donald Trump. It was something that he talked about quite a bit during his presidency. On July 1st of 2022, a federal rule went into effect requiring health plans to disclose the negotiated prices they pay physicians and facilities for each. item and service they provide. But prior to that, a year before that, hospitals based on this new rule had to clearly post how much they charge for the various services and screenings that they offer. Well, it turns out, according to this report, they're just not really complying with it. And part of the reason why is because there's really no harsh enforcement

mechanism here. Okay. So the analysis was published by the patient rights advocate on Monday, and they surveyed the websites of 2,000 large hospitals across the United States to determine whether or not they were compliant with these federal hospital transparency rules, which again were implemented at the start of 2021. Now, the law requires hospitals to post their negotiated prices online in an accessible and searchable format. They also required, they're also required to prominently, publicly, and in plain language, display their prices for 300 of the most commonly used services. So these are the terms, this is what the law says.

And the goal, of course, was to prevent consumers from the incredibly frustrating surprise billing situation that we all deal with at some point. And also, it was meant to disclose rates for medical services that also allows consumers to shop around. because that's how that's how you make decisions about your health, right? You shop around for the best price. I mean, look, transparency is good, but my biggest issue with this was it was Trump's attempt to put a little tiny baby bandaid, little baby bandaid on a gushing wound.

And that gushing wound is a broken health care system that needs to be entirely reformed to a single payer system, which of course Trump was not in favor of. But nonetheless, here's what the report said. The report said that about 75% were not compliant with the new rule, and even though the majority posted files with wide scale noncompliance, I'm sorry, the wide scale noncompliance was due to most hospital files being incomplete, illegible, or not having prices clearly associated with both payer and plan. The other issue is, look, we all know this. The hospital is going to charge patients different prices, different rates based on whether they're insured. If they're uninsured, it's likely that they will be charged a lesser amount.

If the person is insured, they try to overcharge to essentially start the negotiating process. They go back and forth and eventually agree on a price. The system is so screwed up. So it's a lot more complicated than this is what the hospital charges. Because the fact of the matter is they charge different, they charge different prices for different patients, depending on what their insurance situation is. Now the report also found that 6% of hospitals had not posted any standard charges, data, and therefore were in total noncompliance.

Additionally, none of the hospitals from the country's largest hospital system, HCA healthcare, as it's known, were in compliance. And this has real impacts on Americans, of course. The noncompliance obstructs the ability of patients, employer and union purchasers, and technology developers to comparatively analyze prices, make informed decisions, and have evidence to remedy errors, overcharges, and fraud. Like, the most positive thing that comes out of this is that you're, if they're complying, you're able to at least know what to expect to some extent. And not having to worry about the surprise billing is a big deal, right? That's a big positive. But the reason why these facilities, these hospitals don't comply is because

they're not really worried about consequences, okay? All they would deal with is some monetary penalties, okay? So hospitals with 30 or fewer beds are subject to a fine of at least $300 per day for noncompliance. Hospitals with more than 30 beds face a penalty of $10 per bed per day with a maximum daily dollar amount of $5,500. This methodology means that some hospitals could face a fine of over $2 million for a full calendar year of noncompliance. Obviously, they're not concerned about those fines because they're not complying. So you got to take into account what their profits are relative to what their fines would be if they refuse to comply. And as of June of 2022, CMS had issued 352 warning notices and 157 corrective action plan

request to hospitals. CMS has also fined two hospitals in Georgia. The fines amounted to only 0.04% of the hospital's net patient revenue. So not only was this a tiny little band-aid by the Trump administration in response to a severely broken healthcare system, it also really does nothing at the end of the day because the hospitals aren't really concerned about the ridiculously weak enforcement mechanism. So that Band-Aid got even smaller. Okay. So with that said, I turn to this video, which gives us a little more information about the flaws baked in to this price transparency idea.

What they've proposed is mostly elective procedures. I suppose cancer surgery in theory could be elective. But it's going to be guided by your doctor. The goal, I think, here is to make sure that you don't wind up. up with a surprise. You know what's going, how much it's going to cost you. I think your example is a really good one because most of medical care is not elective procedures. And most, you would not choose a hospital for cancer surgery based upon price. You would choose on quality of the surgery that might be divorced from price. I look just ahead of our talk. And HCA stock, just to pick one,

was up today with the knowledge of this announcement. That tells you not very afraid. And one reason they're not very afraid is the penalty for not revealing the information, $300 a day. In the whole hospital industry, it's a few hundred million dollars. That's in an industry that makes $1.3 trillion. You know, ignoring this executive order is not going to be very painful for most hospitals. The weakness of Trump's executive order was not the bug. It was the feature. It allowed for him to appear as though he was fighting on behalf of his voters, ensuring that he was doing something in response to a broken health care system, when in reality, for anyone who did their due diligence and scratched beneath the surface, you can see that it was all

a pathetic game all along that really did nothing for Americans who desperately need a better health care system. Finally, here's a table showing you where we are with compliance on this, okay? So as of February of 2023, the percent of hospitals who were compliant only 24.5 percent. That's where we're at. And again, that is by design. All right. John Irola joins me for the second hour of the show. We will begin with Ron DeSantis, responding to Donald Trump's accusations that DeSantis is a groomer. That and more coming right up. Can't let that happen.

support our work listen ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon