Politics

Years after the infamous Goldman Sachs slide deck, wherein junior bankers complained about working long hours on…of all places, Wall Street…it appears that banks like JP Morgan and Bank of America are taking steps to monitor and limit junior banker hours.

The move comes after a Wall Street Journal investigation into what it calls a “dangerous culture of overwork” on Wall Street.

JPMorgan is now capping junior bankers’ hours at 80 per week, while Bank of America is rolling out a tool requiring detailed time tracking, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.

These changes follow a Wall Street Journal investigation revealing that junior bankers at Bank of America were told to lie about their hours to stay within limits. The debate over junior bankers’ workloads, with entry-level salaries up to $200,000, has long divided Wall Street.

Many new bankers are drawn to the promise of wealth but report that excessive hours take a toll on their mental and physical health.

The report once again brings up the death of 35-year-old Bank of America associate Leo Lukenas III, who worked multiple 100-hour weeks on a $2 billion deal.

An autopsy revealed he died from a blood clot in a coronary artery. In response, JPMorgan introduced its first-ever cap of 80 hours a week for junior bankers, the same limit as for medical residents in New York.

JPMorgan already offers a protected window from 6 p.m. Friday to noon Saturday and guarantees one full weekend off every three months, though bankers often work 80 to 120 hours during intense projects.

Bank of America had previously capped junior bankers’ hours, but the Wall Street Journal found the rules were often violated, with some managers instructing employees to lie about their hours. After the Journal’s initial report, the bank urged staff to report any pressure to falsify time records.

Recently, Bank of America introduced a new tool requiring U.S. junior bankers to log their hours daily and specify which deals they’re working on and the overseeing senior bankers. The tool, set to launch next week, also allows junior staff to report their workload capacity on a scale of 1 to 4. It was developed prior to Lukenas’s death.

“We successfully piloted this improved technology platform earlier this year to help our team more efficiently serve our investment banking clients,” a B of A spokesperson told the Journal. 

We wrote back in July that junior bankers were working 100 hour weeks again. We’ll be interested to see how long this ‘close tracking’ of hours lasts. Our guess is not a second longer than it needs to in order to get the desired PR effect and get the public off their backs. Old habits die hard on, on Wall Street in particular. 

Authored by Jacob Burns via HeadlineUSA.com,

Might the New World Order use biased, pre-manipulated artificial intelligence programs to try to “deprogram” those with unpopular opinions by persuading them that their logic does not compute?

A recent study on that subject underwritten by the John Templeton Foundation might give so-called conspiracy theorists one more thing to be paranoid about, according to Popular Science.

Critics have already sounded the alarm that leftist radicals in Silicon Valley and elsewhere were manipulating the algorithms used to train AI so that it automatically defaulted to anti-conservative biases.

The next step may be programming any verboten viewpoints into the realm of “conspiracy theory,” then having powerful computers challenge human users to a battle of logic that inevitably is stacked against them with cherrypicked data.

The study, titled “Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI,” attempted to counter the common view that some people will not change their minds, even when presented with facts and evidence.

Addressing the problem of “widespread belief in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories,” researchers postulated that conspiracy theories can, contrary to the scientific narrative, be countered by way of systematic fact-checking.

Among those theories tested were more traditional conspiracies such as those involving the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the possibility of alien landings that were known to the United States government.

But others included more immediately politicized claims, such as the lawfulness of COVID lockdowns or the validity of the 2020 presidential election, both of which are a “major source of public concern.”

The study was conducted by having conspiratorial participants engage in brief conversations with AI, with the aim of “curing” the participants of their ostensibly false opinions.

Researchers concluded that “the treatment reduced participants’ belief in their chosen conspiracy theory by 20% on average,” suggesting that “treating” people with certain facts can indeed alter their opinions, particularly when those facts come from AI bots.

The “treatment” received also reportedly “persisted undiminshed for at least 2 months,” meaning that such conditioning could eventuate in regular treatment for those deemed conspiracy theorists.

Ultimately, then, AI conditioning was determined to be a potentially useful tool in addressing the “psychological needs and motivations” of such people. Researchers speculated that the technology could be implemented online in the coming years, particularly in online forums or on social media.

David Rand, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who co-authored the study, told reporters that he was optimistic about the future of AI conditioning.

“This is really exciting,” he said. “It seemed like it worked and it worked quite broadly.”