Why Do Companies "Need a Million FOREIGN Tech Workers"?
Is it:
1. Citizens of "Western Nations" with College Degrees Cannot Understand Computers as Well as Non-English-Speaking People Do.
💾 ... or
2. HR Managers Are Driven by POLITICAL ACTIVISM (not results and good business practices).
There’s No Shortage of US Talent. There’s Just an Abundance of HR Incompetence…
https://revolver.news/2026/10/theres-no-shortage-of-us-talent-theres-just-an-abundance-of-hr-incompetence/
Note: I think there was a story a few weeks ago, where a business leader ELIMINATED "the HR Branch" of their company.... Maybe I'll look for the article.
UPDATE: Eliminate HR Department (asking Grok about it)
The most likely match is Bolt (the US fintech/payments company) - In May 2026 (see Fortune’s Workforce Innovation Summit), CEO Ryan Breslow said the company had eliminated its traditional HR team. He stated: “We had an HR team, and that HR team was creating problems that didn’t exist. Those problems disappeared when I let them go.” He described traditional HR as “the wrong energy, format, and approach” and replaced it with a smaller “People Ops” team focused on efficiency, mandatory training/compliance support, and empowering managers for faster decisions and execution.
Strongest arguments for downsizing (or eliminating traditional) HR departments
- Creates Unnecessary Problems, Bureaucracy, and Slows Decisions - Breslow’s core claim was that the HR team manufactured issues and entitlement rather than solving them; removing it restored speed and focus in a “wartime” turnaround. This aligns with broader critiques that HR accretes approval chains, multi-round processes, and standardized rules optimized for large stable firms, which strangle agility. The Adam Smith Institute argues HR primarily protects against lawsuits rather than developing talent or culture; pushing responsibilities to line managers makes them better managers because they own the consequences. Core functions (payroll, benefits, compliance) can often be outsourced or automated more cheaply.
- DEI/EDI and Related Programs Bloat HR and Prioritize Non-Merit Criteria - Policy Exchange (UK think tank) estimated that diversity rules and related practices drove HR sector growth of 83% since 2011 - far faster than the overall workforce - costing the economy roughly £10 billion annually versus US levels of HR staffing. It argued this diverts focus from customers, encourages anti-meritocratic hiring and “positive action,” increases compliance burdens, and makes businesses more risk-averse. Employee networks and ESG disclosure (e.g., long reports, training) add further cost and internal political influence without clear productivity gains. Similar US critiques note HR becoming enforcers of racial preferences, identity politics, or fad social issues rather than performance.
- HR Often Acts as an Internal Political or Activist Function Rather than a Neutral Business One - Helen Andrews (The Lamp Magazine) and others have argued that modern HR replaced earlier personnel functions and unions in ways that import “bring your whole self to work” identity politics, creating legal uncertainty that justifies the department’s existence while humiliating or politicizing workers. DEI training has a long record of limited or counterproductive effects; the “business case” often underperforms or creates division. Environmental/ESG add-ons (green HRM, climate targets in incentives or reporting) can produce greenwashing, employee cynicism, extra workload/burnout, or goals that conflict with core operations - without guaranteed returns.
📑
Primary sources for the Bolt story include Fortune coverage via Fast Company, Yahoo Finance/Fortune, Personnel Today, and Canadian HR Reporter. Broader arguments draw from the Adam Smith Institute, Policy Exchange (via Telegraph and Personnel Today), and critical pieces such as those from Unleash Prosperity and The Lamp Magazine.
