In 1865, the economist William Stanley Jevons looked at the industrializing world and noted a distinct, counterintuitive rhythm to the smoke rising over England. The assumption of the time, a naive view that persists with a certain obstinacy, was that improving the efficiency of coal use would lead to a conservation of coal. Jevons observed precisely the opposite. As the steam engines became more efficient, coal became cheaper to use, and the demand for coal did not decline; it skyrocketed.

This phenomenon, later called the Jevons Effect, suggests a fundamental truth of economics that we seem determined to forget: When a resource becomes easier and cheaper to consume, and demand for it is elastic, we do not consume less of it. We often consume a great deal more. We find new ways to burn it. We expand the definition of what is possible, not to rest, but to fill the newly available capacity with ever more work.

The result is not a workforce at rest.

We are standing at the precipice of another such moment, perhaps the most significant since the steam engine. The age of AI is upon us, bringing with it efficiencies that promise to do for knowledge work what mechanization did for physical labor. The rhetoric surrounding this shift is familiar. We are told that AI will free us from drudgery, that it will automate the contract reviews, the basic coding, the marketing copy, and leave us with a surplus of time.

Lesson learned?

We have heard this song before. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that by 2030 technological progress would reduce the workweek to 15 hours. He imagined a world in which productivity was so high that we would opt for leisure. As we survey the frenetic landscape of the American workplace in 2026, we can see that he was largely wrong. We did not take our gains in time; we took them in goods and services.

The history of computing serves as a prologue to the current AI moment. When mainframes were scarce and costly, they were tools for the Fortune 500. As costs fell and efficiency rose, through the minicomputer era to the ubiquitous personal computer, we did not declare the problem of computing “solved.” We adopted roughly 100 times more computers with each step change in affordability. The cloud era erased barriers to entry, and suddenly a local shop could access software capabilities that, in the 1970s, were the exclusive province of massive conglomerates.

When high-level programming languages replaced the tedium of low-level coding, programmers did not write less code. They wrote much more, tackling problems that would have been previously deemed infeasible. Today, despite the existence of open-source libraries and cloud platforms that automate vast swaths of development, there are more software engineers than ever before. Efficiency simply allowed software to infiltrate every domain of life.

RELATED: How Americans can prepare for the worst — before it’s too late

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

Now we have LLMs and coding agents. These tools lower the “cost of trying” still further. A task that once required a team — analyzing customer data with advanced models or building a prototype application — can now be attempted by a lone entrepreneur.

From production to orchestration

Consider Boris Cherny, the engineer who created Claude Code and used it to submit 259 pull requests in a single month, altering 78,000 lines of code. Every single line was written by Claude Code. This is not a story of labor reduction; it is a story of a single human scaling his output to match that of a large team. The barrier to initiating a software project or a marketing campaign is falling, and in response, companies are green-lighting projects they would have previously shelved.

The result is not a workforce at rest. Instead we see a shift in which the human role evolves from producer to orchestrator. We are becoming “gardeners,” cultivating and pruning fleets of AI agents. The span of control for a single worker increases, one person supervising what five or 10 might have done previously, but those displaced workers do not vanish into leisure. They move on to supervise their own agents, in different projects, expanding the frontier of what is built. This is the Jevons Effect in a strong form. The “latent demand” for knowledge work is proving to be great.

In the United States, where the cultural ethos tilts toward growth and innovation, this tendency to convert efficiency into more work is acute. Marketing employment, for example, grew fivefold over the last 50 years, precisely during the era when tools like Photoshop and Google Ads made the job in some ways easier. Efficiency turned marketing from a niche activity into a requirement for every business, spawning sub-disciplines that didn’t exist a generation ago.

Why bother?

The danger, of course, lies in the lack of distinction between “can” and “should.” An enduring lesson of the Jevons Effect is that efficiency does not confer wisdom. Technology can tell us how to execute a task faster but cannot say whether the task is worth doing. As roles transition into oversight, reviewing, and coordinating the outputs of AI, we must still ask if those outputs are solving meaningful problems. The crucial factor is human judgment. When more things are possible, the burden falls on us to decide what goals are actually worth the time.

We are not heading toward a 15-hour workweek. We are heading toward a world of expanding projects, in which efficiency lowers the cost of work and raises the amount we choose to do. The coal is cheaper, the fire is hotter, and we are shoveling as fast as we can.

​Tech, Jevons paradox 

The Metropolitan Police banned a “Walk with Jesus” event from taking place in a London borough, citing concerns it would provoke the members of the community.

‘To save Britain, we must reinstate Christianity back into the heart of government.’

In a December social media post, the United Kingdom Independence Party announced a march scheduled for January 31 in Whitechapel, a predominantly Muslim community.

“Join our parade in Whitechapel worshipping Jesus Christ,” the post reads, describing the month as “dedicated to the holy name of Jesus.”

UKIP encouraged individuals who wished to participate in the march to gather outside Whitechapel Tube Station.

“Christ is King,” UKIP wrote. “All the Glory and honour to him.”

The Metropolitan Police revealed on January 23 that it was imposing conditions on the march “to prevent disorder.” Those conditions included a ban on anyone taking part in the event “in the London borough of Tower Hamlets,” which encompasses Whitechapel.

RELATED: Tommy Robinson has the last laugh after politically motivated terrorism arrest: ‘Free speech won!’

Photo by Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

“They have been imposed to prevent serious disorder and serious disruption. Breaching the conditions, or encouraging others to do so, is an arrestable offence,” the Metropolitan Police stated.

“We have encouraged UKIP to consider the very real likelihood that their presence in Whitechapel could lead to serious disruption or serious disorder and to consider an alternative proposal,” Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harman stated. “We are not saying that the UKIP protest, in isolation, will be disorderly. But we do know that many will find it provocative and that provocation is likely to lead to an adverse local reaction.”

“We reasonably believe, based on the information available and on previous similar incidents, that the coming together of the UKIP protest with opposing groups who are hostile to its presence would be highly likely to lead to violence and serious disorder,” Harman added.

He claimed that the decision was not based on politics or whether the event would offend others, but based “solely on our risk assessment for serious disorder.”

Harman insisted that the conditions did not constitute a ban, noting that UKIP was welcome to put on the march elsewhere.

“If they will engage with our teams we are confident a less provocative location that avoids the risk of serious disorder can be identified,” Harman said.

Authorities noted that it was the second time UKIP had proposed a gathering in the Whitechapel area in recent months. However, it did not explain why the area was deemed a greater safety risk.

RELATED: Patriots flood London streets for Unite the Kingdom festival: ‘Cultural revolution has begun’

Nick Tenconi. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

UKIP shared a video from its leader, Nick Marcel Tenconi, on Friday, announcing that participants should gather at Marble Arch, which is located outside the borough of Tower Hamlets.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are fighting for the soul of our great nation,” Tenconi stated. “The battle we are in is to save Britain. The war we are in is a holy war. And the crisis we face is spiritual crisis. … To save Britain, we must unite. But we can only do this if we return to our faith before any kind of unity can be achieved. That’s why we have always failed. To save Britain, we must reinstate Christianity back into the heart of government.”

“We will be marching this Saturday, the 31st of January, meeting at Marble Arch at 12 p.m. to honor the holy name of Jesus Christ and to stand up for our faith,” Tenconi announced.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, U.k., United kingdom, London, Whitechapel, Tower hamlets, United kingdom independence party, Ukip, Christian, Britain, Nick marcel tenconi, Nick tenconi, Politics 

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson (D) on Thursday announced several measures to prepare for a potential increase in federal immigration enforcement activities in the city.

‘The biggest losers are the people she was elected to serve.’

The mayor’s office aims to “protect city residents” from immigration enforcement activities, a press release from the city reads. Wilson’s office stated that it had “no information indicating a surge” of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection agents in the area. However, it claimed there is a “critical” need to prepare, citing the “increased activity over the last year” and the “unpredictable, chaotic, and violent behavior of the federal government.”

As part of these efforts, Wilson declared that she is directing the Seattle Police Department to investigate, verify, and document immigration enforcement activity with “in-car and body-worn video.” Local police will also be required to verify federal agents’ official identification and “secure scenes of potentially unlawful acts to gather evidence for transmittal to prosecutors.”

The SPD will share this information for other city departments and “trusted” local organizations “to ensure everyone has the latest and most accurate information.”

Additionally, Wilson plans to issue an executive order prohibiting federal immigration agents from using city-owned or controlled property for their law enforcement activities. The mayor has called on other local government bodies to take similar action against ICE.

Residents are encouraged to post signs on their properties indicating that federal agents may not enter without a warrant.

RELATED: Fraud thrived under Democrats’ no-questions-asked rule

Photo by Rio Giancarlo/Getty Images

Wilson has also announced that the city will invest $4 million in taxpayer funds to support organizations providing community services and legal defense assistance to immigrants.

“Whoever you are, and wherever you come from: If Seattle is your home, then this is your city,” Wilson stated. “And it’s our responsibility as city leaders to move quickly and get organized so we can keep people safe. That is why I am taking immediate steps today to bar federal agents from using city property for federal civil immigration enforcement activity, update SPD protocols, and support trusted community partners to aid the community response, which is our most powerful tool.”

Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes declared that local law enforcement agents are “here to keep you safe, regardless of your immigration status.”

“The City of Seattle is a welcoming city, and my officers will continue to abide by all laws and regulations that prohibit our participation in immigration enforcement. While we have no authority over federal agents or federal policies, we will document incidents if and when notified. The Seattle Police Department’s primary responsibility is the life safety of ALL people,” Barnes said.

RELATED: Democrat mayor says he has ‘no desire’ to jail repeat criminals — he wants to know their ‘life story’ instead

Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images

The Seattle Police Officers Guild president, Mike Solan, pushed back on Wilson’s directive, stating that the union would not force its members to comply, calling the mayor’s announcement “toothless virtue signaling rhetoric.”

“The concept of pitting two armed law enforcement agencies against each other is ludicrous, and will not happen,” Solan said. “I will not allow SPOG members to be used as political pawns.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told MyNorthwest that Wilson’s actions were “legally illiterate.”

“Enforcing federal immigration laws is a clear federal responsibility under Article I, Article II, and the Supremacy Clause,” the spokesperson stated. “While this Seattle sanctuary politician continues to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto the streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make Seattle safe again.”

“How does this serve the people of Seattle? The biggest losers are the people she was elected to serve,” the spokesperson added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Seattle, Katie wilson, Immigration and customs enforcement, Ice, Customs and border protection, Cbp, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Immigration crisis, Immigration, Illegal immigration crisis, Illegal immigration, Politics 

When former NFL quarterback Cam Newton recently took aim at Jason Whitlock, he boasted about his influence on culture and warned Whitlock that he’s “not plum dumb.”

But Whitlock isn’t buying it.

“One thing about me, Mr. Whitlock, my voice to the culture is way more heavier than I even expected it to be. I owe a service to speak up for the muzzled, for the muted, the forgotten, or the overlooked,” Newton began.

“To make sure my dialect, my tone, my vernacular is not only factual, but it’s also relatable to my kind. My kind is not just a color. … So be careful, Mr. Whitlock, because you fell victim to what I really wanted you and others to understand. I may look some dumb, but I ain’t plum dumb,” he continued.

“So I’m comfortable in my skin. Are you comfortable in yours?” he asked.

“I’ll start with your last question,” Whitlock responds. “Am I comfortable in my skin? And he’s saying that he’s comfortable in his. And so I’m going to deal with your question legitimately.”

“I think what you mean is, am I comfortable being black? But let me answer your first question. Am I comfortable in my skin? My skin is not a color,” he explains, noting that “no,” he is “not comfortable” is his skin.

However, it’s because he has “a biblical worldview.”

“I know that I’m a wretched, lustful ignoramus and that the Bible and Christianity actually teaches me to deny myself — that my instincts, what I want to do, will lead me astray. And so I get up every day and go to war with Jason Whitlock,” Whitlock says.

“Because I have figured out that the things that I want actually hurt me, damage me, and that the Bible and the whole point of Christianity is denial of what I want.

“As it relates to ‘am I comfortable being black,’ which is the question you were really asking,” he continues. “Not only am I comfortable, I enjoy it. I love it. It’s the way God made me. Yes, I’m very comfortable with my skin color. I’m very uncomfortable with who I am. And I fight it every day,” he adds.

And while Whitlock admits he is flawed, he points out that Newton is likely no different from him.

“You’ve impregnated a stripper or two. Sounds like you like strippers. So did I. I had to fight myself and retrain, reprogram my brain so that I would deny myself my lustful thoughts. … If we’re doing life right, we should not be comfortable with our desires. We should be submitting to His desires,” Whitlock says.

“Cam, I think you know this, because your dad’s a minister. And I think you’re in rebellion to this, perhaps because your dad’s a minister,” he continues. “But that is the difference between me and you.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Sharing, Video, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Fearless with jason whitlock, Jason whitlock, Fearless, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze originals, Blaze online, Biblical worldview, Cam newton, Racism, Dei, Cam newton jason whitlock beef 

The FBI is abandoning General Motors.

For generations, the black Chevrolet Suburban has been a rolling symbol of federal authority. Its size, shape, and presence are instantly recognizable — whether pulling up to a courthouse, idling outside a hotel, or leading a motorcade through city streets. That familiarity, however, is precisely why the FBI’s recent decision to move away from armored Suburbans in favor of BMW X5 Protection SUVs deserves a closer look. Despite the political noise surrounding the change, the rationale behind it is not ideological. It is practical.

While BMW is a German brand, all BMW X-series SUVs — including the X5 — are manufactured at the company’s Spartanburg, South Carolina, plant.

Under FBI Director Kash Patel, the bureau has reportedly ordered a fleet of armored BMW X5 Protection SUVs to replace the Chevrolet and GMC models traditionally used for executive transport. The reasons cited by the FBI are straightforward: The BMWs cost significantly less, attract less attention, and are built in the United States. Taken together, those factors point to a procurement decision driven by economics and operational efficiency — not symbolism or brand preference.

Frugal fleet

According to FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson, vehicle fleet decisions are routinely reviewed based on security needs, usage patterns, and budget considerations. In this case, the BMW X5 Protection was selected after comparing costs and capabilities with other armored options. Williamson said the move could save taxpayers millions of dollars by choosing a less expensive vehicle while still meeting the bureau’s protection requirements.

The cost differences are hard to ignore. Government-spec Chevrolet Suburban Shield vehicles produced by GM Defense have been reported to cost anywhere from roughly $600,000 to as much as $3.6 million, depending on armor level, drivetrain configuration, and mission-specific equipment. Even conservative estimates put a new armored Suburban at around $480,000 per vehicle. By contrast, the BMW X5 Protection VR6 is generally priced between $200,000 and $300,000 — less than half the cost of many armored Chevrolet and GMC alternatives.

When multiplied across an entire fleet, those numbers add up quickly. Savings of $200,000 or more per vehicle matter for an agency under constant pressure to justify spending. From a taxpayer perspective, the question is simple: If the required level of ballistic protection can be achieved for significantly less money, why wouldn’t the FBI pursue that option?

The BMW X5 Protection VR6 is not a standard luxury SUV fitted with aftermarket armor. It is engineered from the factory with integrated ballistic protection designed to meet VR6 standards, including resistance to high-powered rifle fire and explosive threats. These vehicles are already in service with governments and diplomatic protection units around the world, including the U.S. State Department, which uses armored BMWs to protect American diplomats in high-risk regions. This is a proven platform, not an experiment.

Stealth mode

Cost, however, is only part of the story. The FBI has also indicated that the BMWs are less conspicuous than traditional government vehicles. That claim may seem counterintuitive until one considers how closely the Suburban is associated with federal authority. A line of black Suburbans with dark glass immediately signals government transport. Their presence often draws attention.

The BMW X5, even in armored form, blends more easily into traffic — particularly in urban and suburban areas where luxury SUVs are common. It does not carry the same visual shorthand of authority. From a security standpoint, reducing predictability and visibility can be an advantage. A vehicle that does not immediately announce its purpose may attract less attention and lower risk in certain situations.

Critics argue that the publicity surrounding the purchase undermines any claim of stealth, and that may be true in the short term. Over time, however, the novelty fades. What remains is a vehicle that looks like countless others on the road, rather than one that announces its role at a glance.

RELATED: A federal ‘kill switch’ for your car is coming — and neither Democrats nor Republicans will stop it

United Archives/Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

American-made

Another point often lost in the debate is where these vehicles are built. While BMW is a German brand, all BMW X-series SUVs — including the X5 — are manufactured at the company’s Spartanburg, South Carolina, plant. It is BMW’s largest production facility worldwide and one of the most significant automotive exporters in the United States by value. The armored X5s used by the FBI are built by American workers on American soil.

That reality complicates claims that the FBI is abandoning American manufacturing. Both the Chevrolet Suburban and the BMW X5 are products of U.S. factories, assembled by U.S. labor, and supported by domestic supply chains. The distinction lies not in where the vehicles are built, but in how much they cost and how effectively they meet the agency’s needs.

Government fleets have always been guided by pragmatism. Federal agencies regularly reassess equipment based on performance, cost, and evolving threats. The FBI’s decision fits squarely within that tradition.

The emotional attachment to the Suburban is understandable. Introduced in 1935 as the Carryall Suburban, it is the longest-running nameplate in American automotive history and has served military, law enforcement, and civilian roles for nearly a century. But symbols come at a price, and in this case that price appears to have climbed sharply.

Time will tell

Imagining a single Suburban costing as much as $3.6 million is enough to give any budget analyst pause. Even at the lower end of reported figures, the cost difference between an armored Suburban and an armored BMW X5 is substantial. In an era of heightened scrutiny over federal spending, paying more than double for a vehicle that may also be more conspicuous is difficult to justify.

That does not mean the BMW choice is without trade-offs. Long-term maintenance costs, parts availability, and service complexity will ultimately determine whether the savings persist over the full life cycle of the vehicles. German engineering can be expensive to maintain, but heavily armored Suburbans are also highly specialized machines with their own costly upkeep requirements. The true comparison will emerge over time.

What is clear now is that the decision is rooted in cost control and operational considerations — not political signaling. The FBI did not choose BMW to make a statement. It chose BMW because the vehicles were cheaper, less visually obvious, and built domestically.

For taxpayers, the takeaway is straightforward. If a federal agency can meet its security needs while spending significantly less money, that is not a controversy. It is what responsible stewardship is supposed to look like. The badge on the grille may spark debate, but the math behind the decision tells a far more practical story.

​Drivers, Lifestyle, Align cars, Fbi, Chevrolet suburban, Buy american, Bmw, Bmw x-5, Made in america, Auto industry, Kash patel 

A bill advancing through the Massachusetts Senate would make reducing how much people drive an explicit goal of state transportation policy. It is called the Freedom to Move Act.

The bill, SB 2246, does not impose mileage caps on individual drivers. There is no odometer check, no per-driver limit, and no new fines or taxes written into the legislation. Instead it directs the state to set targets for reducing total vehicle miles traveled statewide — targets that would be incorporated into transportation planning, infrastructure investment, and long-term emissions policy.

When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, as it is in many states. From that perspective, lawmakers argue the bill simply aligns transportation policy with existing climate mandates. The state already has legally binding emissions reduction goals, and supporters say those goals cannot be met without addressing how much people drive. SB 2246, they argue, is about planning — not punishment — and about expanding alternatives rather than restricting choices.

Planning … or punishment?

The bill also establishes advisory councils and requires state agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to factor VMT reduction into project development and funding decisions. In theory, this means greater emphasis on public transit, transit-oriented development, walking and biking infrastructure, and land-use policies designed to shorten commutes. Supporters emphasize that the legislation does not ban cars, restrict ownership, or mandate lifestyle changes. It simply provides a framework for offering residents more options.

The practical implications, however, deserve closer scrutiny — especially outside the state’s urban core. In greater Boston, where transit access is relatively dense, reducing car trips may be feasible for some commuters. In suburban and rural areas, the reality is very different. Many residents drive long distances to work because there are no viable alternatives. Families juggle school, child care, medical appointments, sports, and jobs across multiple towns. Small businesses rely on vehicles for deliveries, service calls, and daily operations. For these drivers, “driving less” is not a preference — it’s a constraint imposed by geography.

Future restrictions

Critics also worry that while SB 2246 does not cap individual mileage today, it lays the groundwork for future restrictions. Once statewide VMT reduction targets are established, pressure will mount to meet them. That pressure could influence everything from road funding and parking availability to congestion pricing, zoning decisions, and the collection of driving data. Even without explicit mandates, policy signals matter. When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.

There is also the issue of trust and execution. Massachusetts has struggled for years to maintain and modernize its public transportation system. The MBTA’s well-documented reliability problems have eroded confidence among riders and taxpayers alike. Promising expanded transit options while existing systems remain fragile leaves many residents skeptical that alternatives to driving will arrive quickly — or equitably.

RELATED: EPA to California: Don’t mess with America’s trucks

Bob Riha, Jr./Getty Images

National trend

From a broader policy standpoint, SB 2246 reflects a national trend. States and cities across the country are experimenting with VMT reduction as a climate strategy, encouraged by federal guidance and funding priorities. The premise is that cleaner vehicles alone are not enough and that total driving must decline to meet emissions targets. Whether that assumption holds as vehicle technology evolves — including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and increasingly efficient internal combustion engines — remains an open question.

Supporters argue that thoughtful planning now can prevent more disruptive measures later. By gradually reshaping transportation and development patterns, they believe emissions can be reduced without dramatic lifestyle changes. Opponents counter that history suggests incremental planning often leads to more intrusive policies — especially when initial targets prove difficult to meet.

What makes SB 2246 significant is not what it does immediately, but what it signals about the future of transportation policy. It reframes driving not simply as a personal choice or economic necessity, but as a behavior the state has an interest in reducing.

As the bill moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers will have to weigh climate goals against economic realities, regional disparities, and personal freedom.

Massachusetts residents should pay close attention. SB 2246 may not tell you how many miles you can drive today — but it helps define who gets to decide how transportation works tomorrow.

​Climate change, Drivers, Emissions, Freedom to move act, Lifestyle, Massachusetts, Mileage limits, Align cars