Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Guowei (Wayne) Tu, Ph.D. Student in Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan

People have been using flat, ribbonlike materials, such as reed strips, to make woven baskets for thousands of years. This weaving method has reemerged as a technique for engineers to create textile and fabric structures with complex geometry. While beautiful and intricate, these baskets can also be surprisingly strong.

We are a team of structures and materials scientists at the University of Michigan. We wanted to figure out how basketlike structures that use traditional weaving techniques can be so sturdy, load-bearing and resilient.

To explore the resilience of baskets, we designed a series of small woven units that can be assembled into larger structures. These woven designs provide almost the same stiffness as nonwoven structures, such as plastic bins. They also do not fracture and fail when bent and twisted the way nonwoven, continuous systems (made out of a continuous sheet material) do.

Our basketlike woven structures have many potential applications, including tiny robots that are very damage resilient – these robots can be run over by a car and still do not fail. We could also make woven clothes to help protect people from severe impacts such as car crashes. We made these woven structures using Mylar (a type of polymer material), wood and steel.

Testing woven baskets

Early humans made baskets by weaving slender strips of bark or reeds, and some Indigenous societies use these techniques today. Basket weaving was an efficient way to turn one-dimensional strips into three-dimensional containers.

This geometric benefit is a direct motivation for basket weaving, but in our study published in August 2025 in Physical Review Research, we wanted to find out whether basket weaving can provide more than aesthetic value in modern science and engineering.

In our experiment, we compared woven and nonwoven containers that had the same overall shape and were fabricated using the same amount and type of materials.

The “ribbons” we used were 10 millimeters wide and two-tenths of a millimeter thick. They were always woven in the same over/under/over/under pattern. We wove baskets from the flat ribbons and then created models using 3D scans of these woven containers that helped us examine the underlying similarities and differences between the woven and continuous structures.

We found that these containers had similar stiffness to containers not made from woven materials, and they also went back to their initial shape after we bent or twisted them.

When you place a heavy object on a woven structure, the ribbons are mainly being stretched instead of bent. This stretching makes them stiff because ribbons are much stiffer when they are stretched compared to bent. On top of that, the ribbons are not rigidly connected in woven structures, which gives them their extraordinary resilience.

By harnessing basket-weaving techniques, engineers can potentially create better materials for cars, consumer devices such as smartwatches, and soft robots, which are robots made from soft materials instead of rigid ones. Essentially, these techniques could improve any device when the material needs to be stiff and resilient.

What’s next

Our research team is still exploring a few big, unanswered questions about these woven baskets.

First, we want to understand how the geometry of the woven baskets determines their stiffness and resilience, and create an analytical or numerical model to describe this relationship. We’d then like to use that model to design woven structures that fit a target stiffness and resilience. Most woven baskets are handmade because their geometry is complex and difficult for a machine to manufacture.

Second, we’d like to figure out how to create a machine that can fabricate woven baskets autonomously. Automated machines can produce two-dimensional woven fabrics, but we’d like to learn how to modernize and digitalize the ancient craft of three-dimensional basket weaving.

Third, we want to understand how to integrate electronic materials into three-dimensional basket weaving to create next-generation robotic textiles. These robotic textiles could sense, actuate, move around, bear a load, stay resilient to accidental overload and safely interact with humans at the same time.

Basket-weaving research and applications

Ours isn’t the only study exploring the complex geometry of basket weaving and the potential of applying basket-weaving techniques to architectural design.

For example, researchers teamed up with an artist to tweak a popular basket-weaving approach, finding ways to weave the ribbons and produce any curvature they desired. Later, the same research team used this methodology to fabricate woven domes. They found that they could tune the stiffness and stability of woven domes by varying the curvature of the ribbons.

In another relevant study, researchers built algorithms that optimized the size, shape and curvature of ribbons, then used those ribbons to weave together a geometrically sophisticated structure.

Our new work and these other teams’ work is putting a modern spin on technology that has likely been around since the dawn of humanity.

Evgueni Filipov has received research funding from AFOSR.

Guowei (Wayne) Tu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Woven baskets aren’t just aesthetically pleasing – materials science research finds they’re sturdier and more resilient than stiff containers – https://theconversation.com/woven-baskets-arent-just-aesthetically-pleasing-materials-science-research-finds-theyre-sturdier-and-more-resilient-than-stiff-containers-265567

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rahim Kurwa, Associate professor of Sociology, University of Illinois Chicago

The U.S. housing market has been ensnared in a growing affordability crisis for decades.

The problem has gotten dramatically worse in recent years. Since 2019, home prices are up 60% nationwide. A record-high 22 million renters are “cost-burdened” – spending more than 30% of their income on housing.

Meanwhile, stagnant wages, limited housing supply and lagging federal assistance have helped leave more than 770,000 Americans homeless.

Despite these varied reasons, Vice President JD Vance has blamed the housing affordability crisis on undocumented immigrants. In August 2025, he attributed rising housing costs to immigration: “You cannot flood the United States of America with … people who have no legal right to be here, have them compete against young American families for homes, and not expect the price to skyrocket.”

Deportations, he argued, would lower housing prices. “Why has housing leveled off over the past six months? I really believe the main driver is … negative net migration.”

Despite Vance’s claims, research shows that immigration is not a substantial cause of unaffordable housing. In fact, studies have found that deportations exacerbate housing shortages through reductions in the construction workforce, which lead to lower production of housing units and higher prices.

From this perspective, its hard to see the administration’s deportation policy as a real effort to solve the housing crisis. Rather, it is using the housing crisis as a way to justify mass deportations to the public.

The current administration’s anti-immigrant housing policy reflects a long history of xenophobia in housing. As a sociologist of housing, I’ve traced the history of racial segregation in housing in Los Angeles County. I have found that the same far-right groups that sought to defeat public housing construction and maintain racially restrictive agreements in post-World War II Los Angeles also advocated to ban immigrants from U.S. housing programs.

Earlier anti-immigrant housing plans

Among the leaders of these efforts was the far-right politician and activist Gerald L.K. Smith. Described in 1976 by historian John Morton Blum as “the most infamous American fascist,” Smith helped bridge the American right’s 1940s conspiratorial and isolationist America First era and its 1960s anti-civil rights era.

Smith traveled the country advocating a Christian nationalist vision for American society, offering a religious justification for anti-communism and opposition to civil rights. He also ran for president unsuccessfully in 1944, 1948 and 1956.

After settling in Los Angeles in 1953, Smith led Red Scare campaigns – driven by hostility to communism – across the country.

In my research, I found that Smith was an early proponent of anti-immigrant housing policy. His 10 principles included a call to “Stop immigration in order that American jobs and American houses may be safeguarded for American citizens.” Elsewhere he called to “Release housing units occupied by aliens in order that they may be occupied by veterans and other American citizens.”

Smith wasn’t alone. His efforts were part of a broader environment in which public officials and local media worked to stop construction of public housing in Los Angeles in the 1950s, accusing its proponents of communism.

Recent anti-immigrant policy in housing

State and federal policymakers have also incorporated anti-immigrant stances into American housing policy over the past half-century.

The 1980 Housing and Community Development Act was the first federal legislation to specifically bar undocumented immigrants from public housing programs. Welfare reform in 1996 further restricted public housing assistance to only legal permanent residents and those with asylum or refugee status.

Echoing the alien land laws of the late 1800s that prohibited foreign property ownership, policymakers in the 2000s in states such as Pennsylvania and Texas passed laws forcing landlords to check immigration status as a condition of rental – though this was struck down by the courts.

Today, immigrant tenants experience fewer housing rights than citizens. These inequalities fall particularly hard on unauthorized immigrants who experience high rates of housing cost burden, crowding and poor housing conditions.

The Trump administration aims to expand restrictions on immigrants in public housing even further. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is in the process of adopting rules that will evict entire families if even one member is ineligible for assistance based on immigration status. Current law allows those families to live in public housing, while prorating their benefits to account for an ineligible member.

From Smith to Vance, anti-immigrant housing policies have been cast as a way for citizens to get more housing. But they fail to prevent or solve the housing shortage driving the crisis.

For example, the Trump administration’s effort to evict mixed status families from public housing will affect roughly 25,000 households. Setting aside the fact that those families may then be made homeless, that number is only one-tenth the amount of housing that the U.S. has lost due to the defunding and demolishing of public housing since 1990.

Indeed, many of the Trump administration’s immigration and economic policies are likely to exacerbate the housing crisis. The Trump administration has made deportation a priority and has significantly increased deportation rates compared to recent years, while instituting historically high tariffs on imports.

Deportations reduce the housing construction workforce, lowering the number of units built and increasing costs. And tariffs raise prices on building materials such as lumber, steel and aluminum. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that recent tariffs have raised building costs by US$10,900 per home.

In early 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency canceled or delayed a series of HUD grants for housing assistance programs. And the Trump administration has announced plans for more cuts to the nation’s already insufficient housing assistance budget.

Vance, like Smith before him, presents the issue like a pie, where citizens can get a larger slice only by deporting immigrants. But the reality is that the pie can be bigger: The government can fully fund the housing needs of all Americans for less than it has spent on its other priorities. The recently passed “big, beautiful bill,” for example, allocates more funding to border and interior enforcement per year than key rental assistance programs, public housing and Housing Choice Vouchers allocate for housing.

In Smith’s time, everyday Americans resisted this gambit, speaking out to protest his views. Today, as Smith’s anti-immigration housing ideas have ascended to the national stage, the housing justice community is speaking out against anti-immigrant housing policy and offering an alternative vision of how the U.S. can provide housing for all.

Rahim Kurwa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Trump administration’s anti-immigrant housing policy reflects a long history of xenophobia in public housing – https://theconversation.com/the-trump-administrations-anti-immigrant-housing-policy-reflects-a-long-history-of-xenophobia-in-public-housing-263860

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stanley S. Litow, Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University

No industry has perhaps felt the negative effect of a radical shift in federal policy under the second Trump administration more than higher education.

Many American colleges and universities, especially public institutions, have experienced swift and extensive federal cuts to grants, research and other programs in 2025.

Meanwhile, new restrictive immigration policies have prevented many international students from enrolling in public and private universities. Universities and colleges are also facing other various other challenges – like the threat to academic freedom.

These shifts coincide with the broader, increasingly amplified argument that getting a college degree does not matter, after all. A September 2025 Gallup poll shows that while 35% of people rated college as “very important,” another 40% said it is “fairly important,” and 24% said it is “not too important.”

By comparison, 75% of surveyed people in 2010 said that college was “very important,” while 21% said it was “fairly important” and 4% said it is “not too important.”

Still, as a scholar of education, economic development and social issues, I know that there is ample and growing evidence that a college degree is still very much worth it. Graduating from college is directly connected to higher entry-level wages and long-term career success.

A growing gap

Some people argue that a college degree does not matter, since there might not be enough jobs for college graduates and other workers, given the growth of artificial intelligence, for example. Some clear evidence shows otherwise.

An estimated 18.4 million workers with a college degree in the U.S. will retire from now through 2032, according to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. This is far greater than the 13.8 million workers who will enter the workforce with college degrees during this same time frame.

Meanwhile, an additional 700,00 new jobs that require college degrees – spanning from environmental positions to advanced manufacturing – will be created from now through 2032.

The gap between those expected to leave and enter the workforce with college degrees creates a serious problem. One major question is whether there will be enough people to fill the available jobs that require a college degree.

In 2023, foreign-born people made up 16% of registered nurses in the U.S., though that percentage is higher in certain states, like California. But restrictions on immigration could limit the number of potential nurses able to fill open positions.

Nursing and teaching are two fields expected to grow over the next few decades, and they will require more workers due to retirements.

Other fields, like accounting, engineering, law and many others, are also expected to have more college-educated workers retire than there are new workers to fill their positions.

Worth the cost

The average annual salary of a college graduate from the class of 2023 was US$64,291 in 2024, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

The overall average salary for this graduation class one year after they left school marked an increase from the average $60,028 that the class of 2022 earned in 2023, equivalent to $63,850 today.

While there is not available data that offers a direct comparison, full-time, year-round workers ages 25 to 34 with a high school diploma earned $41,800 in median annual earnings in 2022, or $46,100 today.

Overall lifetime earnings for those with college degrees is about about $1.2 million more than people with a high school make, according to the recent Georgetown findings.

People who earn more generally have more money to support their families and contribute to their immediate communities. Their higher taxes also contribute to the U.S. economy, supporting needed services like education, public safety and health care.

People with college degrees are also more likely than those who are not college graduates to vote, volunteer and make charitable donations to help others in need.

College matters for individuals, but it clearly also helps improve the economy.

With 64 public colleges across the state, the State University of New York system is the largest post-secondary network of higher education schools in the country. For every $1 the state of New York invests in SUNY, the SUNY system returns $8.70 to the state in terms of economic growth, according to 2024 findings by the Rockefeller Institute, an independent public policy research organization affiliated with SUNY. And that is only one state.

A new way forward

It isn’t likely that the expected number of college-educated people who will soon retire will suddenly decrease, or that the anticipated number of people entering the workforce will unexpectedly increase.

There are practical reasons why some people do not want to go to college, or cannot attend. Indeed, the percentage of young people enrolled as college undergraduates fell almost 15% from 2010 through 2022.

For one, tuition and fees at private colleges have increased about 32% since 2006, after adjusting for inflation. And in-state tuition and fees at public universities have also grown about 29% since 2006.

The total of federal student loan debt for college has also tripled since 2007. It stood at about $1.84 trillion in 2024.

I believe that in order to ensure enough college-educated people can fill the anticipated work openings in the future, universities and the government should embrace needed changes to increase both enrollment and completion rates.

Artificial intelligence will transform work worldwide, for example, and that shift should be incorporated into higher education curriculum and degrees. Soft skills – like problem-solving, collaboration, presentation and writing skills – will become more important and should be prioritized in the learning process.

I believe that universities should also prioritize experiential education, including paid internships that offer students academic credit. This can help students gain experience that is both accredited and is connected to direct career pathways.

Universities and high schools could also expand how much they offer microcredentials – or short, focused learning programs that offer practical skills in a specific area – so students can connect their education with clear career pathways.

These reforms aren’t easy. They require a commitment to change, and all of this work will require deep partnerships with the government. While that might be a heavy lift currently at the federal level, it is both possible and achievable to make advances on these and other changes at the state level.

American universities and colleges have always been key to preparing the workforce for economic opportunity. At the end of World War II, for example, Columbia University and IBM worked together to help create the academic discipline now called computer science.

This action did more than help one university or one employer. It fueled change across higher education and across private companies and the government, leading to massive economic growth.

Universities have made countless other contributions to strengthen and expand the economy. Considering solutions to some of the challenges that stop students from going to college could help ensure that more students see the value in a college education – and a tangible way for them to connect it to a future career.

Stanley S. Litow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Despite naysayers and rising costs, data shows that college still pays off for students – and society overall – https://theconversation.com/despite-naysayers-and-rising-costs-data-shows-that-college-still-pays-off-for-students-and-society-overall-267612

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Murugan Anandarajan, Professor of Decision Sciences and Management Information Systems, Drexel University

The consulting firm Accenture recently laid off 11,000 employees while expanding its efforts to train workers to use artificial intelligence. It’s a sharp reminder that the same technology driving efficiency is also redefining what it takes to keep a job.

And Accenture isn’t alone. IBM has already replaced hundreds of roles with AI systems, while creating new jobs in sales and marketing. Amazon cut staff even as it expands teams that build and manage AI tools. Across industries, from banks to hospitals and creative companies, workers and managers alike are trying to understand which roles will disappear, which will evolve and which new ones will emerge.

I research and teach at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, studying how technology changes work and decision-making. My students often ask how they can stay employable in the age of AI. Executives ask me how to build trust in technology that seems to move faster than people can adapt to it. In the end, both groups are really asking the same thing: Which skills matter most in an economy where machines can learn?

To answer this, I analyzed data from two surveys my colleagues and I conducted over this summer. For the first, the Data Integrity & AI Readiness Survey, we asked 550 companies across the country how they use and invest in AI. For the second, the College Hiring Outlook Survey, we looked at how 470 employers viewed entry-level hiring, workforce development and AI skills in candidates. These studies show both sides of the equation: those building AI and those learning to work with it.

AI is everywhere, but are people ready?

More than half of organizations told us that AI now drives daily decision-making, yet only 38% believe their employees are fully prepared to use it. This gap is reshaping today’s job market. AI isn’t just replacing workers; it’s revealing who’s ready to work alongside it.

Our data also shows a contradiction. While many companies now depend on AI internally, only 27% of recruiters say they’re comfortable with applicants using AI tools for tasks such as writing resumes or researching salary ranges.

In other words, the same tools companies trust for business decisions still raise doubts when job seekers use them for career advancement. Until that view changes, even skilled workers will keep getting mixed messages about what “responsible AI use” really means.

In the Data Integrity & AI Readiness Survey, this readiness gap showed up most clearly in customer-facing and operational jobs such as marketing and sales. These are the same areas where automation is advancing quickly, and layoffs tend to occur when technology evolves faster than people can adapt.

At the same time, we found that many employers haven’t updated their degree or credential requirements. They’re still hiring for yesterday’s resumes while, tomorrow’s work demands fluency in AI. The problem isn’t that people are being replaced by AI; it’s that technology is evolving faster than most workers can adapt.

Fluency and trust: The real foundations of adaptability

Our research suggests that the skills most closely linked with adaptability share one theme, what I call “human-AI fluency.” This means being able to work with smart systems, question their results and keep learning as things change.

Across companies, the biggest challenges lie in expanding AI, ensuring compliance with ethical and regulatory standards and connecting AI to real business goals. These hurdles aren’t about coding; they’re about good judgment.

In my classes, I emphasize that the future will favor people who can turn machine output into useful human insight. I call this digital bilingualism: the ability to fluently navigate both human judgment and machine logic.

What management experts call “reskilling” – or learning new skills to adapt to a new role or major changes in an old one – works best when people feel safe to learn. In our Data Integrity & AI Readiness Survey, organizations with strong governance and high trust were nearly twice as likely to report gains in performance and innovation. The data suggests that when people trust their leaders and systems, they’re more willing to experiment and learn from mistakes. In that way, trust turns technology from something to fear into something to learn from, giving employees the confidence to adapt.

According to the College Hiring Outlook Survey, about 86% of employers now offer internal training or online boot camps, yet only 36% say AI-related skills are important for entry-level roles. Most training still focuses on traditional skills rather than those needed for emerging AI jobs.

The most successful companies make learning part of the job itself. They build opportunities to learn into real projects and encourage employees to experiment. I often remind leaders that the goal isn’t just to train people to use AI but to help them think alongside it. This is how trust becomes the foundation for growth, and how reskilling helps retain employees.

The new rules of hiring

In my view, the companies leading in AI aren’t just cutting jobs; they’re redefining them. To succeed, I believe companies will need to hire people who can connect technology with good judgment, question what AI produces, explain it clearly and turn it into business value.

In companies that are putting AI to work most effectively, hiring isn’t just about resumes anymore. What matters is how people apply traits like curiosity and judgment to intelligent tools. I believe these trends are leading to new hybrid roles such as AI translators, who help decision-makers understand what AI insights mean and how to act on them, and digital coaches, who teach teams to work alongside intelligent systems. Each of these roles connects human judgment with machine intelligence, showing how future jobs will blend technical skills with human insight.

That blend of judgment and adaptability is the new competitive advantage. The future won’t just reward the most technical workers, but those who can turn intelligence – human or artificial – into real-world value.

Murugan Anandarajan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI is changing who gets hired – what skills will keep you employed? – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-changing-who-gets-hired-what-skills-will-keep-you-employed-267376

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Joshua Stillwagon, Associate Professor of Economics, Babson College

President Donald Trump seems to want to have it both ways on the U.S. economy.

On the one hand, he recently said the economy is in its “golden age” and referred to the U.S. as the “hottest country anywhere in the world.”

Yet at the same time, he has outright demanded that the Federal Reserve sharply slash interest rates to fuel economic activity. And his recently handpicked governor, Stephen Miran, has led the charge in pushing for a bigger cut than preferred by his new colleagues at the Fed.

When an economy is strong, central banks typically don’t cut interest rates and may even raise them to avoid spurring inflation. And so to support his argument for large cuts, Miran has played up “downside risks” to the economy and a weakening labor market, contrasting with Trump’s talk of a “golden age.”

Trump and Miran also seem to be ignoring the problem of inflation, which the president has said “has been defeated” and Miran considers close enough to the Fed’s target of 2%. Yet, inflation remains high and has been picking back up in recent months – one of the core reasons the Fed has taken a gradual approach to lowering interest rates.

I’m a macroeconomist, which means I study big-picture factors affecting an economy, such as interest rates.

It’s well known that lower rates spur faster growth, and of course all presidents want a stronger economy on their watch. But the Fed’s job when it sets interest rates is to deal with whatever reality the data shows – and make decisions accordingly.

Is the economy hot or not?

In the simplest terms, the Fed raises interest rates when the economy is “hot,” or inflation is above the Fed’s 2% target, and lowers them when there are concerns about unemployment.

At its most recent meeting, in September, the Fed lowered rates a quarter of a point, citing slowing jobs growth, and increased economic uncertainty. Trump nominee Miran was the only one of the 12 members of the Fed’s policy-setting committee to instead vote for a more aggressive half-point cut.

The only credible rationale for that large of an interest rate cut, in the face of still-high inflation, is by believing the labor market is incredibly weak. According to the Fed’s preferred measure, the personal consumption expenditures index, inflation has been accelerating all summer and was 2.7% at the end of August, well above the Fed’s 2% target.

There’s no doubt jobs growth has slowed considerably in recent months, but enough to completely ignore the risk of driving inflation higher? At this point at least, the Fed doesn’t think so.

And if the economy were in fact running hot, as the president claims, the Fed would have little choice but to keep rates flat or raise them, especially given elevated inflation.

Risks of following political whims

This situation gets at the heart of why central bank independence matters.

Trump’s efforts to influence the Federal Reserve have not been subtle and break with Congress’ intention to insulate the Fed from political manipulation. Besides pressing for big rate cuts, he has tried to fire a member of the Board of Governors over questionable allegations and mused about removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The risks of following the wishes of a president in the face of what the data shows were starkly demonstrated in 2021, when Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, fired the head of the country’s central bank. The central banker was pushing rates higher to tame inflation, which was at about 20%, but Erdogan demanded they be lowered. In response, Turkey’s lira plunged to record lows and inflation soared to over 70% in 2022.

Something similar could happen in the U.S. if Trump continues down the same path of meddling with the Fed. As a sign of how much Wall Street worries about this risk, a recent study estimated that if Trump followed through on his threat to fire Powell, the stock market could lose an estimated US$1 trillion as a result.

That’s because the Fed’s credibility rests on its ability to make decisions driven by economic evidence, not political expedience. That independence means policymakers must weigh data on inflation, jobs and growth rather than election cycles or partisan demands.

Justifying deeper rate cuts

Looking ahead to the Fed’s next meeting Oct. 28-29, policymakers face a delicate balancing act. With inflation still running above target and signs of slowing jobs growth, it needs to lower rates enough to prevent a downturn but not so low that inflation spirals out of control.

Traders are putting near-100% odds of two more quarter-point cuts this year, one on Oct. 29 and another in December. This would bring the Fed’s benchmark interest rate to a range of 3.5%-3.75% by the end of 2025, down from 4%-4.25% now.

Based on Miran’s own interest rate projections, he’s likely to again push for a larger cut of a half-point or more at both meetings, as he believes the Fed’s benchmark rate should be below 3% by the end of the year.

To me, as an economist, the only way a Fed acting independently could reasonably justify such a significant cut in rates in the next few months is if the unemployment rate begins rising steadily, with the economy clearly at risk of slipping into a recession.

Joshua Stillwagon was a long-time organizer and judge for an academic competition hosted at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and has presented research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

– ref. Trump’s ‘golden age’ economic message undercut by his desire for much lower interest rates – which typically signal a weak jobs market – https://theconversation.com/trumps-golden-age-economic-message-undercut-by-his-desire-for-much-lower-interest-rates-which-typically-signal-a-weak-jobs-market-266969