Jimmy Carter’s public service heralded by Southern California lawmakers on either side of the aisle

tinyVision.ai to showcase USB3 and edge vision technology at the Lattice Developers Conference 2024Tech Stocks Soar! Are You Missing Out?TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” A small problem, but wide support for a fix Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. Why the courts rejected the Kansas citizenship rule After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” Would the Kansas law stand today? The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Born in Illinois but unable to register in Kansas Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The Justice Department and Google are set to make closing arguments in a trial alleging Google’s online advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly. The arguments in federal court Monday in northern Virginia come as Google is already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine. The Justice Department says it will seek the breakup of Google to remedy its search engine monopoly. The case focuses not on the search engine but on technology that matches online advertisers to consumers on the internet. A judge is expected to rule by the end of the year. ‘Busiest Thanksgiving ever’: How the TSA plans to handle record air travel DALLAS (AP) — The Thanksgiving travel rush is expected to be bigger than ever this year. AAA predicts that nearly 80 million people in the U.S. will venture at least 50 miles from home between Tuesday and next Monday — most of them by car. Thanksgiving Day falling so late this year has altered traditional travel patterns. At airports, the Transportation Security Administration says it could screen a record number of U.S. air travelers on Sunday. Meanwhile, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration says a shortage of air traffic controllers could cause flight delays. Transportation analytics company INRIX says roads could be congested on Monday with both commuters and returning holiday travelers. Macy’s says employee hid up to $154 million in expenses, delaying Q3 earnings Macy’s says it’s delaying the release of its fiscal third-quarter earnings results after it discovered an up to $154 million accounting-related issue. The company did provide some preliminary results for its third quarter, including that net sales fell 2.4% to $4.74 billion. It anticipates reporting its full third-quarter financial results by Dec. 11. 'Buy now, pay later' is more popular than ever. Experts warn shoppers not to overdo it NEW YORK (AP) — More shoppers are using ‘buy now, pay later’ plans heading into Black Friday and the holiday season, as the ability to spread out payments looks attractive at a time when Americans still feel the lingering effect of inflation and already have record-high credit card debt. Experts say the short-term loans can lead consumers to overextend themselves and warn that those who use credit cards for the service face higher interest expenses. The data firm Adobe Analytics predicts shoppers will spend 11.4% more this holiday season using buy now, pay later than they did a year ago. Warren Buffett gives away another $1.1B and plans for distributing his $147B fortune after his death OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Investor Warren Buffett renewed his Thanksgiving tradition of giving by announcing plans Monday to hand more than $1.1 billion of Berkshire Hathaway stock to four of his family's foundations, and he offered new details about who will be handing out the rest of his fortune after his death. Buffett has said previously that his three kids will distribute his remaining $147.4 billion fortune in the 10 years after his death, but now he has also designated successors for them because it’s possible that Buffett’s children could die before giving it all away. Buffett said he has no regrets about his decision to start giving away his fortune in 2006. Workers at Charlotte airport, an American Airlines hub, go on strike during Thanksgiving travel week CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Service workers at Charlotte Douglas International Airport have gone on strike during a busy week of Thanksgiving travel to protest what they say are unlivable wages. Employees of ABM and Prospect Airport Services authorized the work stoppage in North Carolina that started Monday morning. Union spokesperson Sean Keady says the strike is expected to last 24 hours. The companies contract with American Airlines to provide services such as cleaning airplane interiors, removing trash and escorting passengers in wheelchairs. Airport officials say this holiday travel season is expected to be the busiest on record. The companies have acknowledged the seriousness of a strike during the holiday travel season. At the crossroads of news and opinion, 'Morning Joe' hosts grapple with aftermath of Trump meeting The reaction of those who defended “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski for meeting with President-elect Trump sounds almost quaint in the days of opinionated journalism. Doesn't it makes sense, they said, for hosts of a political news show to meet with such an important figure? But given how “Morning Joe” has attacked Trump, its viewers felt insulted. Many reacted quickly by staying away. It all reflects the broader trend of opinion crowding out traditional journalist in today's marketplace, and the expectations that creates among consumers. By mid-week, the show's audience was less than two-thirds what it has typically been this year. Stock market today: Wall Street rises near records as Treasury yields ease NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks are rising near records and adding to last week’s gains. The S&P 500 rose 0.1% Monday and was just below its all-time high set two weeks ago. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 286 points to its own record set on Friday, while the Nasdaq composite was 0.1% higher. Treasury yields also eased in the bond market after President-elect Donald Trump said he wants Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager, to be his Treasury Secretary. Bessent has advocated for reducing the U.S. government’s deficit, which could soothe some worries that had been building on Wall Street. Judge in Alex Jones' bankruptcy case to hear arguments on The Onion's bid for Infowars A federal judge in Texas is set to hold a hearing on whether the satirical news outlet The Onion made a valid bid for the Infowars platforms of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who alleges a bankruptcy auction was marred by fraud and collusion. The hearing is set for Monday afternoon. It's not clear how soon the bankruptcy judge will rule. He could allow The Onion to move forward with its purchase, order a new auction or even name the only other bidder as the winner. Jones filed for bankruptcy after being ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in defamation lawsuits by families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. As Amazon expands use of warehouse robots, what will it mean for workers? Amazon has introduced a handful of robots in its warehouses that the e-commerce giant says will improve efficiency and reduce employee injuries. Two robotic arms named Robin and Cardinal can lift packages that weigh up to 50 pounds. Sparrow transfers items from bins to other containers. The company says it's already seeing benefits, such as reducing the time it takes to fulfill orders and helping employees avoid repetitive tasks. However, automation also carries drawbacks for workers who might need to be retrained for new positions. The Associated Press recently spoke with Julie Mitchell, the director of Amazon’s robotic sortation technologies, about where the company hopes to go from here.The Territory’s 25 best new cafes, bars and restaurants of 2024

In line with the successful implementation of the faceless assessment by the Income Tax department, EEPC India has proposed to the government to roll out a faceless GST audit focusing on empowering the MSME sector . ET Year-end Special Reads What kept India's stock market investors on toes in 2024? India's car race: How far EVs went in 2024 Investing in 2025: Six wealth management trends to watch out for "The faceless GST audit system, by using technology and ensuring anonymity, will reduce compliance costs . A faceless system will streamline procedures allowing MSMEs to focus on growth and innovation," said Pankaj Chadha , chairman, of EEPC India. EEPC India in its pre-budget recommendation has also proposed that Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) related liabilities should be eligible for the Amnesty scheme . Some RCM issues, such as foreign bank charges and foreign business services, pose challenges for exporters who may be unaware of the charges or services provided. Since these issues are not fraudulent, they should fall under Section 73, which addresses genuine compliance concerns . "Exporters should be granted relief under the amnesty scheme, even if Show Cause Notices (SCNs) are issued under Section 74," Chadha said. Many of the EEPC India members have informed that they have received Show Cause Notices related to RCM; hence, an amnesty scheme is urgently needed for such issues. Artificial Intelligence(AI) Java Programming with ChatGPT: Learn using Generative AI By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) Basics of Generative AI: Unveiling Tomorrows Innovations By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) Generative AI for Dynamic Java Web Applications with ChatGPT By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) Mastering C++ Fundamentals with Generative AI: A Hands-On By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) Master in Python Language Quickly Using the ChatGPT Open AI By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Marketing Performance Marketing for eCommerce Brands By - Zafer Mukeri, Founder- Inara Marketers View Program Office Productivity Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide 2024 By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Finance A2Z Of Money By - elearnmarkets, Financial Education by StockEdge View Program Marketing Modern Marketing Masterclass by Seth Godin By - Seth Godin, Former dot com Business Executive and Best Selling Author View Program Astrology Vastu Shastra Course By - Sachenkumar Rai, Vastu Shashtri View Program Strategy Succession Planning Masterclass By - Nigel Penny, Global Strategy Advisor: NSP Strategy Facilitation Ltd. View Program Data Science SQL for Data Science along with Data Analytics and Data Visualization By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) AI and Analytics based Business Strategy By - Tanusree De, Managing Director- Accenture Technology Lead, Trustworthy AI Center of Excellence: ATCI View Program Web Development A Comprehensive ASP.NET Core MVC 6 Project Guide for 2024 By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Pam Moore By - Pam Moore, Digital Transformation and Social Media Expert View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) AI-Powered Python Mastery with Tabnine: Boost Your Coding Skills By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Office Productivity Mastering Microsoft Office: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and 365 By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Marketing Digital marketing - Wordpress Website Development By - Shraddha Somani, Digital Marketing Trainer, Consultant, Strategiest and Subject Matter expert View Program Office Productivity Mastering Google Sheets: Unleash the Power of Excel and Advance Analysis By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Web Development Mastering Full Stack Development: From Frontend to Backend Excellence By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Finance Financial Literacy i.e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By - CA Rahul Gupta, CA with 10+ years of experience and Accounting Educator View Program Data Science SQL Server Bootcamp 2024: Transform from Beginner to Pro By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Nominations for ET MSME Awards are now open. The last day to apply is December 31, 2024. Click here to submit your entry for any one or more of the 22 categories and stand a chance to win a prestigious award. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel )Charting Ethical Waters: How Objectivism Empowers Shipping Companies to Achieve Growth and Influence

NEW YORK — The last of the crystal triangles that make up this year's Times Square New Year's Eve ball were installed Friday morning. It's the first time in 10 years that all 2,688 were replaced at once. Singer Pitbull attends the Times Square New Year's Eve Ball Crystal Installation on Friday at One Times Square in New York. Rapper Pitbull and inventor Joy Mangano were among those on hand to help the organizers of the celebration put the final pieces in place atop One Times Square, the skyscraper from which the 11,875-pound geodesic sphere drops to mark the new year. Singer Pitbull, left, and Joy Mangano, right, founder of CleanBoss, install a crystal Friday during the Times Square New Year's Eve Ball Crystal Installation at One Times Square in New York. A New Year's Eve ball was first dropped in Times Square in 1907. Built by a young immigrant metalworker named Jacob Starr, the 700-pound, 5-foot diameter ball was made of iron and wood and featured 100 25-watt lightbulbs. Six newer versions of the ball were featured in the century-plus since that first celebration. Times Square New Year's Eve Ball is displayed Friday at One Times Square in New York. The only years no ball drop occurred were 1942 and 1943, when the city instituted a nightly "dimout" during World War II to protect itself from attacks. Crowds instead celebrated the new year with a moment of silence followed by chimes rung from the base of One Times Square. As the new year approaches, many people begin thinking about their resolutions—typically focusing on physical health, saving money, or spending more time with family. One area that often gets overlooked is mental health. The pressure to "get fit" or "eat better" is well-known, but taking care of mental well-being is just as important as improving physical health, especially since mental health impacts every aspect of life. At first glance, mental health goals can seem intangible and subjective, but there are scientifically-proven ways to set achievable, measurable, and personalized mental wellness goals that will help anyone thrive in 2025. Vivian Chung Easton, a mental health therapist at Blueprint , a company focused on building AI-powered tools to help therapists, shares recommendations for setting mental health resolutions. One of the most important mental wellness goals for 2025 is to prioritize self-compassion and resilience. In a culture that often celebrates hustle and perfection, it's easy to push yourself too hard, setting unrealistic expectations that only add to stress and anxiety. But research shows that self-compassion and resilience are critical factors in coping with stress and maintaining long-term mental well-being. A 2021 study by Kristin Neff and Christopher Germer highlights that self-compassion—treating yourself with kindness when things don't go as planned—can reduce emotional distress and improve resilience. Instead of criticism for not meeting a goal or making a mistake, practice affirmations or positive self-talk. A simple goal, like being kinder to yourself during setbacks, can help reduce stress and boost mental wellness. A goal can look something like this: Making room for self-compassion this year can be a transformative step toward building resilience and enhancing overall mental health. Social connection is one of the most important factors in mental wellness, yet it's often overlooked in favor of individual self-improvement goals. Physical isolation can lead to loneliness, but social isolation is also strongly linked to mental health challenges like depression and anxiety, according to a study by Juliannee Holt-Lundstad. Meaningful relationships and community support can improve how satisfied you feel in your life on a day-to-day basis. This year, make it a goal to strengthen and nurture social connections, whether that means reconnecting with old friends, regularly scheduling family time, or joining social groups and clubs—like a book club, gym, or church group. For example, a social wellness goal can look like: Building mental wellness isn't just about managing thoughts and feelings; it's also about fostering a strong support network. Social connections are integral to building emotional resilience. Just as physical fitness is associated with physical health, mindfulness is often associated with mental fitness. However, practicing mindfulness is just as important as going for a run or lifting weights when it comes to mental wellness. Mindfulness-based practices—such as meditation, yoga, or breathing exercises—have been shown to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, improve focus, and boost emotional well-being according to research by Stefan Hofman in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Incorporating mindfulness into a routine doesn't have to be time-consuming or difficult. Start small by committing to 5–10 minutes of mindfulness practice a few times a week . Focus on breath, practice guided meditation, or even engage in mindful walking or eating. A simple goal might be: These exercises are called a practice for a reason: doing them consistently and often can strengthen your ability over time. These practices not only reduce stress in the moment but also help to build resilience over time, making it easier to handle future challenges. Whatever New Year's resolution you might have, a large obstacle is setting goals that are too ambitious or unrealistic. Whether it's aiming to exercise every day or cutting out all sugar, overambitious goals can lead to burnout and disappointment when progress isn't immediate. This is especially true for mental health goals, which often require patience and consistency. Using these suggestions for mental health goals, focus on how to personalize them to make them realistic and achievable for your life. Research from the American Psychological Association shows that people are more likely to succeed in their resolutions when they set realistic and incremental goals. Instead of vague, broad goals like "be happier" or "stress less," focus on small, concrete actions that can lead to big changes over time. One effective approach is to use SMART goals—goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. For example: These specific, measurable actions make it easier to track progress and feel a sense of accomplishment along the way. Plus, they're more realistic and achievable, which increases your chances of success. It happens every year—gyms always seem to empty out before spring starts. One of the challenges of New Year's resolutions is that many people abandon their goals as early as January. However, mental health goals require ongoing attention and flexibility. Unlike weight loss or fitness goals, mental wellness is a journey, not an endpoint. Regularly tracking progress is essential. By setting aside time to evaluate personal progress, it's easier to adjust your goals and make necessary changes to keep things on track. Research shows that regular goal check-ins increase the likelihood of long-term success. Consider setting quarterly check-ins with yourself to assess your mental health goals: If you're not meeting your targets, adjust them to make them more realistic. Mental health progress doesn't always follow a straight line, so it's important to be flexible and forgiving with yourself. The new year is inherently a time of change, and that can be a helpful mindset in seeing new potential for growth and taking action. As you set your resolutions for 2025, don't forget to prioritize mental wellness. By focusing on achievable, realistic goals—you're setting yourself up for a healthier, more fulfilling year. Mental health is just as important as physical health, and nurturing it can help to reach other goals more effectively. Even if, in a month or two, you feel like you're falling behind—mental health goals can and should be flexible and adaptable. You can always adjust your approach if things aren't serving you, and check in with yourself regularly to stay on track. Goals are personal, and you're always in control. Here's to a year of growth, balance, and emotional well-being in 2025. This stor y was produced by Blueprint and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Photo Credit: Alberto Menendez Cervero / Shutterstock As anyone who’s ever started a business knows, getting one off the ground is not for the faint of heart. Entrepreneurs face numerous challenges in the early years, from solidifying business plans to navigating the complexities of hiring employees and acquiring licenses and insurance. These hurdles often determine the fate of a startup, making the journey from an idea to a successful enterprise both difficult and uncertain. Each year, millions of Americans file new business applications , but only a fraction of these ventures transition to hiring employees. Among those that do, surviving the critical first few years can still be an uphill battle. However, survival rates differ significantly by location, influenced by a variety of factors such as economic conditions, state policies, and industry-specific demand. The good news is that businesses that weather the initial hurdles see a much greater likelihood of long-term success. This analysis explores the states where new businesses are most likely to survive their earliest years based on the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The findings reveal important insights into how location and time impact the chances of business success. The chances of staying in business increase dramatically after the first few years Source: Simply Business analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data | Image Credit: Simply Business One of the most significant challenges for new business owners is simply staying in operation. The risk of failure is highest during the first year, but it diminishes considerably over time. For those businesses that survive the initial hurdles, the likelihood of long-term success grows each year. According to recent BLS data, only about 79% of businesses survive their first year, making it the most difficult period for startups. However, for businesses that survive their first year, roughly 85% make it to the next. By the fifth year, 91% of businesses manage to continue operations, and for those that reach the 10-year mark, an impressive 93% make it through to another year. These figures underscore the importance of persistence and adaptability, especially during the critical early years when the risk of failure is highest. They also highlight that while starting a business is undeniably challenging, those who endure the startup years enjoy far better odds moving forward. Washington & California lead the country in new business survival rates Source: Simply Business analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data | Image Credit: Simply Business New business success varies widely across the United States, with some states providing a more favorable environment for startups to thrive. Based on survival rates for the first three years of operation, Washington and California stand out as the nation’s leading states. Washington claims the top spot, with businesses in the state enjoying an 86.4% chance of surviving their first year, 89.3% in their second year, and an impressive 91.8% in their third year. These figures highlight Washington's robust support for young businesses, likely fueled by its thriving tech ecosystem and a generally favorable economic climate. California ranks second, with survival rates of 86.0% in the first year, 89.8% in the second, and 91.4% in the third. Despite challenges such as high costs of living and regulatory complexities, California’s strong economy, innovation hubs, and access to venture capital contribute to its high ranking. Outside of the West Coast, West Virginia —whose economy is deeply rooted in energy production, natural resources, and manufacturing—ranks third, boasting the highest third-year survival rates at 91.9%. North Carolina —a major banking center and home of the Research Triangle—follows closely with similar numbers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Minnesota businesses face the toughest challenges in their early years, with only 72.3% surviving their first year and 80.2% their second. These regional differences highlight the importance of local economic conditions in shaping a startup's odds of success. For entrepreneurs planning their next move, this analysis offers insight into where businesses are thriving and where challenges are more pronounced. Factors like industry presence, regulatory environments, and access to resources can create opportunities—or hurdles—that significantly affect survival rates in the critical early years. Choosing the right location isn’t just about personal preference; it can mean the difference between failure and success. This analysis was conducted by Simply Business —an online insurance marketplace for small businesses—using 2024 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For complete results, see the original post: States Where New Businesses Are Most Likely to Succeed . Photo Credit: Alberto Menendez Cervero / Shutterstock The data in this report comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Business Employment Dynamics . To determine the states where new businesses are most likely to succeed, researchers at Simply Business developed a business survival index. This index is based on a weighted average of the most recent survival rates for private-sector establishments during their first, second, and third years of operation, as of March 2024. The survival rates were calculated using sequential benchmarks. The first-year survival rate is the percentage of businesses still active one year after opening. The second-year rate is the percentage of those first-year survivors that remained operational for another year. Similarly, the third-year rate is the percentage of second-year survivors that continued into the following year. The data focuses exclusively on private-sector businesses with at least one employee. For complete results, see States Where New Businesses Are Most Likely to Succeed on Simply Business. Subscribe to stay connected to Tucson. A subscription helps you access more of the local stories that keep you connected to the community. Stay up-to-date on what's happening Receive the latest in local entertainment news in your inbox weekly!Australia’s economic future will be at risk if we stop the wind and solar construction to build nuclear. Big energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as aluminium smelters would likely be forced to close, and the risk of blackouts from forcing coal generators to stay on line would be huge. Wind, solar and firming can clearly do the job. Every hurdle from reliability to inertia has been overcome. There is no need and no reason to change course. Certainly economics is not a reason. To summaries, building a nuclear industry in Australia: • Makes blackouts more likely by forcing coal stations, already expensive to maintain, that require government support and are increasingly unreliable to go for much longer. The idea of replacing the coal plants with gas while we wait is likely not very realistic, largely because gas plants themselves are expensive and hard to permit and because if asked to run in shoulder mode they are not very efficient and require lots of gas. And right now we are already looking at importing LNG. If the nuclear plants are 5, 10 or 15 years late, as is entirely possible, it would require heroic assumptions to see the coal fleet managing the gap. More to the point it’s a completely avoidable and unnecessary risk. Australia is well set on its transition path. There are some inevitable cost up and downs but no show stoppers have been identified. Every hurdle from reliability to inertia has been overcome. There is no need and no reason to change course. Certainly economics is not a reason. • Increases emission costs by between even in the very unlikely event the plants are built on time as compared to the present ISP. • The nuclear plants stand a good chance of being well over budget and late. That’s because: ° Globally that is often but not always the case. By and large the nuclear industry is one of the most likely global industries to be late and over budget. There is no real nuclear expertise in Australia; ° It will have to be more or less forced on an industry set on a different course; ° It will likely be government owned and developed and the record on that in Australia is poor; ° In general for most capital intensive industries there is an Australia cost premium relative to global averages. This in the end will disadvantage us compared to other countries in terms of the cost of energy. • Likely will destroy the value of CER (consumer energy resources – rooftop solar, home batteries and EVs) in Australia. • Will result in the temporary halt in the transition to a firmed VRE system which is already 20 years down the track with a penetration rate of say 50% within 18 months. • Equally the LNP and by comparison Frontier don’t appear to have done the work or to understand the demand forecasts. The LNP bleat on about EVs, but the real differences are hydrogen, large industrial loads and business demand. One suspects that the aluminium industry in Australia will die if it has to wait for nuclear. • Finally the old concept of baseload is changing, but in my opinion firming costs are cheaper the bigger the portfolio. This implies firming should sit at least with a large gentailer or possibly with a State or even Federal Govt. The biggest, by far, reason for the electricity industry to push back against the ideological LNP Nuclear plan is its far, far too risky. Australia has a plan to decarbonise. It’s not a perfect plan, no plan survives first contact, but it’s capable of and is in fact being achieved. We are roughly already at 40% VRE. We have at least 20 years experience at developing and integrating wind, solar, behind the meter assets and batteries. We know the issues around transmission and social license and cost and reliability. There are well developed plans for each issue and a wealth of industry finance and expertise. The assets to take us from 40% VRE to 50% are already under construction, some are just starting to enter service. The insurance finance to add another 12 GW of VRE and 4 GW of firming assets (essentially batteries) is already either awarded or in tender through the CIS. The LNP wants to bring this to a crashing halt, keep our few, increasingly ageing and unreliable coal stations going for another 20 years while it starts up an industry in which Australia has zero comparative advantage and zero experience. Only in politics could conmen say things with such a straight face. The risk of the coal stations failing is very high. Other stations like Eraring have full ash dams. Yallourn is already on Government support, Vales Point and particularly Mt Piper have coal supply issues. Gladstone Power Station in Queensland is ready to close. And so on. It simply isn’t prudent for Australia to depend on these stations as a group to do another 20 years. It’s a completely unacceptable risk that politicians want to expose Australians to, purely for the sake of politics. I could, but won’t. go into the politics. It is quite sufficient to point out the risk, and really I could close this note at this point completely confident that the argument is made. The LNP might argue that they would build more gas stations. To start with they take time and planning and secondly: Where is the gas? Wherever it comes from it will be expensive. By all means build a peaker or two but it’s a sideshow to the main game, which is bulk energy and shifting it through time and space. For what it’s worth. the following figure shows the closing of the Crocodile jaws. The top jaw is coal and gas generation and the bottom jaw is wind, solar and hydro. The jaws didn’t close much this year, due to wind drought and some utility solar price constrained off but they surely will next year as about 2.5 GW of wind currently in commissioning gets to full production and some more solar farms as well. In addition there is 6 GW, count them, 6 GW of batteries under construction. Using a 180 day moving average allows the informed view to see the Winter v Spring Summer impact. Like many another analyst I’m prepared to look at any technology on its merits. If Frontier Economics had any interest at all in bringing the industry to their point of view then the report is an abysmal failure. Its failings are so obvious that it hardly needs me to do a me to, but I have. As I’ve stated before, a presumption of bias can be attached to the report for three reasons. There are lots of estimates of the cost of carbon. These range from the Gillard Government’s cost which the LNP revoked adjusted to $ of today which Frontier states would be about $40/t, through to the European price presently around Euro 68 = $A113/t, through to a major, multi author estimate published in Nature with a mean of $US185/t = $A 296/t (but the range is US$ 44 to $US 413/t) to the USA official estimate of $US 51 =81.54 AUD $A 81/t through to the AER estimate of $A 75/t in 2025 rising to $221 by 2040. And finally there is the set of numbers adopted by the AER which rise strongly over time and which I have used Frontier could have used any of these numbers, but they don’t. The extra carbon emissions are not regarded as a cost worth considering in Frontier’s numbers! On my numbers the NPV of the increased emissions is between $57 bn and $72bn. The method for calculating this was: I might add that the social cost of carbon is normally calculated with discount rates of 2%-4% given that the damage is long lasting but I haven’t considered the methodological issues around that here. The overall point remains that there can be no excuse whatsoever for Frontier ignoring the cost difference. Frontier could have used some other carbon price estimate, but there is no doubt that carbon emissions have a cost, that is why we decarbonising and not considering that cost renders the Frontier exercise fairly useless. In an AFR article, Frontier’s Danny Price states that the AER carbon cost does not represent the “economic cost”, and produces not a shred of evidence to support this view. The comment seems to me to be revealing of the underlying philosophy of Frontier that global warming is overstated as an issue. Some of the justified criticism of Frontier is in the way it adds up “real costs”. For instance: However, since the use of “real costs” for investment analysis is in any event fatally flawed from the outset and contrary to the laws of Finance, and because I think Price knows that perfectly well, I tend not to worry about methodological flaws of “real costs”. Equally, Steve Hamilton in his excellent noted that AEMO incurs its capital costs from today onwards but the the nuclear costs are only start to be incurred from 2035. In NPV terms costs that are incurred later have a lower NPV than costs that incurred earlier, and Steve noted that if we just compared costs in 2050 there is only a 12% difference between the nuclear and AEMO difference. However, in NPV terms, if we allow for the difference in carbon costs, these differences matter less. In effect Frontier defers capital spending improving NPV but incurs carbon costs which reduce NPV. It’s just that Frontier doesn’t count the carbon cost. Also, once the capital spending on VRE has been made the annual operating costs fall sharply compared to existing coal. Wind opex, for instance, is around A$10/MWh compared to say A$50/MWh for existing black coal, maybe less for brown coal. However, in my opinion it’s unlikely that AEMO captures all the maintenance capital expenditure required on end of life coal assets that are not just end of life but also have to be ever more flexible, ever more capable of ramping. I won’t take the time to illustrate this issue, but just look at the costs being incurred by AGL, and the Government support offered to Yallourn and Eraring. Frontier estimates a nuclear cost today in Australia of A$10,000/Kw, which then falls by 1% per year from today. So the A$10,000 is effectively a misleading number. In that Frontier’s estimate of cost is actually in real terms as Hamilton calculates about A$8,500/KW in 2040 and continues to fall. I don’t have any problem with learning rates in an industry: Solar, wind, batteries and many, many other technologies have a learning rate, representing the reduction in unit costs for a doubling of installed capacity. But I think any reasonable person would question whether it’s appropriate to apply a learning rate to an industry that hasn’t even started in Australia and where the year 0 number is still very much in question. And, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t been much of a global learning rate in nuclear, although there may be one in China. In fact academic articles suggest that the experience curve for nuclear depends on the time and country. One oft cited reference is “How Big Things Get Done” by Betty Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner, 2023. A key figure from that book is: The horizontal axis represents on time, expectations, further to the right is more on time, the vertical axis shows on budget. industries in the bottom left quadrant tend to have “fat tails” which means that the outcomes vary. Perhaps in China nuclear goes well, but in the UK or the USA it goes badly. On average it goes badly. Solar and wind go well. The figure is based, I believe on data summarised in the following table. The fact that olympics and nuclear have cost over runs most of the time surely cannot be a surprise to anyone. To me this is so intuitively obvious as to not need stating. Wind and solar projects take a couple of years to build, the technologies are modular, capable of being repeated and relatively small scale. Even a 1 GW wind farm represents 150 concrete pouring, each more or less the same, 150 turbines erected each the same way and so on. And Australia has done 1000s of turbines already. By contrast, Lucas Heights notwithstanding, Australia has absolutely zero nuclear experience or expertise, nuclear plants require much more planning, contracts that inevitably will need to be renegotiated and so on. The mind truly boggles. And in the end we would have zero comparative advantage. Whatever Australia’s nuclear cost it wont be lower than anyone else’s. How could it be? Modern nuclear plants with higher levels of automation might employ 500-800 people. According to a rough industry source about 50% -70% of those jobs will be in operations, maintenance and technical support. Roughly 25%-50% of the people will be engineers of one kind of another. Uranium mining and processing is not going to be taking place where nuclear plants are located. The idea that coal miners will down tools and suddenly start working in a nuclear plant is something only an LNP ideologue could truly believe. Of course, like any business, there will be second order GDP multiplier effects. However, I think it’s reasonable to assume that both the primary and secondary GDP impacts of building out regional REZs will be higher per $ of capital expenditure because by and large they come off a lower base. Building out the Central West Orana renewable energy zone in NSW will have major impacts, not all good, and not all sustainable on the regional economy. But for ever after the regional economy will have a more diversified industry base that, in my opinion, will enable it to better withstand the vicissitudes of the Australian climate and its ever more extreme drought and flood cycles. As far as I know the electricity industry in Australia has expressed zero interest in nuclear and obviously some parts of the industry that are busy building wind and solar will be actively opposed. Clearly this in itself is likely to raise costs. That is, the nuclear plants will have to be forced on the industry to a greater or lesser extent. Again although the plans are very vague the understanding is that they will Goverment funded and owned. Leaving aside all questions of ideology, in my opinion having the Goverment manage the program rather than industry means that there will be less expertise at almost every stage. I could rant on about this, the mind truly does boggle a bit at the possible negative outcomes, but perhaps it is sufficient to say that having the Goverment step into this area where it has no expertise raises the odds of cost and delay outcome substantially. Frontier provided no shapes to their demand or supply forecasts, just the annual totals. This has led to questions on how 13 GW of flat supply will impact the output of other fuels. Price stated that once the 13 GW was forced in the system, it was “re optimised” and the capacity factors, 90% in the case of nuclear, are a model output. And to be fair there is presently must run coal generation in the system which effectively provides a level of flat supply. That level continues to decline, and at least in Spring, the must run nature of coal already forces prices below zero and results in utility solar spillage. As to what fuel gets spilled that is a matter so far of policy and economics. Utility solar, and wind contracts can be written so that negative prices are not covered, the CIS has such a contract. Each contract for differences may have its own wording and since I don’t see any of them I’m cautious about generalising. AEMO provides via the ISP, as Frontier does not, half hourly demand traces by region and POE (10% and 50%). ITK has spent more time than I care to admit looking at these demand traces over the past four years and puzzling over what and what not is included in say “OPSO modelling”. A good starting document is: and for the half hourly data we want Section 6 starting at p57. AEMO is thorough with its demand forecasting, but that does not make the outcomes reliable, that’s the point really, some things are just hard to forecast no matter how thorough. Still, I find its well worth reading that Section 6 several times, because as Dylan sang way back in the early 1960s “dont criticise what you cant understand”. And this stuff ain’t that easy to understand. The following figure shows the shape of average daily demand in 2050 for both the Progressive and Stepchange scenarios with the horizontal red line showing average nuclear output at 90% capacity factor. It’s fair to say that rooftop supply is always a bit out of place on a demand figure but that is the way its done. Operational demand is gross demand less rooftop supply. Time of day averages are just averages. Particularly in the step change case in the ISP view of the world much of the lunch time surplus goes to charging storage to meet some elements of demand in non solar hours. The way I’ve constructed this figure in the Progressive case nuclear replaces virtually all the exiting rooftop and a significant portion of utility supply. In the Step Change scenario it’s still cutting out quite a bit. And that’s out in 2050 when in either Progressive or Step demand is a lot higher than in 2025. It seems intuitive that if nuclear is supplying say 50% of operational demand (more in the Progressive case) that some other sources of supply are going to be running at fairly low capacity factors. However, Frontier’s modelling apparently doesn’t show that.. This remains an unresolved issue. The numbers appear to show that with nuclear meeting 50% of Progressive Scenario demand in 2050 that capacity factors of other fuels will be impacted even with storage demand included. Frontier says this is not really the case and they have the gold standard PLEXOS modelling to prove it. One potential path to reconciliation would be for Frontier to show more results including those with behind the meter PV and storage and some average daily shapes, but I’m not holding my breath. Frontier did such a poor job the first time round the wise course for them would be to retire from the field and not give their many critics more oxygen. I spent time this year working with AEMO’s demand forecasts. In my view not enough attention is paid to demand as virtually all the mainstream focus is on supply and or price. But price represents the intersection between supply and demand, and the primary way to decarbonise an economy is to decarbonise electricity and then electrify other energy sources. AEMO makes the job hard because their demand portal would, I suspect, confuse even Edward Teller. At the risk of a minor digression, the Progressive demand case assumes that most large industrial loads (LIL) close around 2030. That would be the Tomago and Boyne Island and Portland aluminium smelters. Is that really what the LNP wants to happen? Here are the LIL forecasts for the two scenarios and then the state by state forecast for the Progressive scenario. Assuming, rarely a good decision, that I’ve successfully navigated AEMO’s demand portal and the recut and supposedly easier to follow analysis I show at then I get the following main item comparison between he various demand scenarios in 2050. Note that sum EV load is cotained in the res_sum row below. Nevertheless the point remains that talking about EVs maybe good politics for the LNP, even in Ted O’Brien’s Sunshine coast electorate where there are many EVs but it doest go to the major differences in the scenarios. Ignoring Green Energy Exports (everyone does) you can see that in fact the main differences between Progressive Change and Central are: Traditionally energy intensive businesses in Australia, primarily aluminium smelters, negotiate heavily discounted electricity prices with State Govt’s in return for investment in smelters. Traditionally, there has been a role for base load in the large industrial loads sector. However, in my opinion, the way to provide the firmed power has changed and the same result can be achieved, arguably at a lower cost, especially when carbon emissions are accounted for. As of today the State Govt contracts have often been transferred to private entities eg to AGL and other generators in Victoria in respect of the Portland smelter. However, there is no way the private sector is going to incur losses to support an aluminium smelter. The smelters remain a big industry collectively consuming around 9%-10% of electricity (the share relative to operational supply is higher). The relevance of the term “baseload” is best understood in the context of say an aluminium smelter which in Australia typically wants a flat supply, that is a supply every half hour of about 0.9 GW. Traditionally in Australia a coal generator backed up by contracts in the market and a retailers general supply portfolio was the the way it was done. For instance in QLD the Gladstone Power Station is 42% owned by Rio, in Victoria Portland smelter traditionally contracted with Loy Yang A, although that has now changed. In Tasmania the Bell Bay smelter, surely one of the older smelters in the world, contracted with Hydropower of Tasmania. In each case though there is a State Government providing a subsidy one way or another in the background. As the coal stations go away, several questions arise, but the one of relevance here is how to provide the smelter with its flat load without a coal station. So far the emerging answer seems to be that the smelter will provide the VRE itself, but will depend on the State Govt to provide the firming. For instance in February 2024 Rio announced a deal to buy 80% of the 1.4 GW Bungaban wind project and 100% of the 1.1 GW Calliope solar farm, but so far Rio has not announced any firming of this energy. The output of the two projects should be around 6 TWh per year – enough to power most of the smelter when generating. Clearly there will be too much generation at some points and too little at others, and the missing link is the management of the difference. What it shows to my way of thinking is a requirement for all the parties to think beyond a simple contract for difference whereby Rio buys power from the market and the QLD Govt subsidies the purchases. Now there is a more complex situation seemingly requiring the State and Rio to work more closely together. Ultimately, in a renewables based system, the rule is that the bigger the portfolio the lower the firming cost. That is the cost of firming total QLD supply is lower than the cost of firming just the smelter. According to the oldest rule of finance that risk should go to the party best placed to manage it, it’s therefore entirely reasonable for QLD to carry the firming cost. My point here is that Rio and the State Govt don’t need to think about “Baseload coal” or “Baseload nuclear” – the need is to understand the best way to firm QLD’s excellent solar and wind resource and to allow Rio to access that firmed cost.