Pivot - America’s Progress Has Stalled — with Derek Thompson | The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway
Episode Date: February 21, 2023Happy President's Day! Pivot will return on Friday. Today, an episode from our other favorite podcast: The Prof G Pod. Derek Thompson, a staff writer at The Atlantic and host of the Plain English podc...ast, joins Scott to discuss why he believes America is at a standstill when it comes to progress, including the lack of trust in institutions and a need for an abundance agenda. Follow Derek on Twitter, @DKThomp. Scott opens by discussing potential business opportunities for WhatsApp. He then shares his thoughts on Buzzfeed’s decision to use OpenAi to create content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic.
Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey.
Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in.
On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working.
Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you.
delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you.
Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast.
Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.
Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast.
Indeed.com slash podcast.
Terms and conditions apply.
Need to hire? You need Indeed.
Hey, Pivot listeners.
Today we've got an episode from our other favorite podcast, the Prop G Pod.
If you like what you hear, you can subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.
Enjoy.
What a thrill!
Episode 232.
232 is the area code of Sierra Leone.
In 1932, Amelia Earhart completed the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic by a woman.
True story.
Last week, I had a colonoscopy, and the prep was a little much, but I think we found her aircraft.
Can you come to the back of the plane with me so we can have a talk?
Go, go, go!
Welcome to the 232nd episode of the Prop G Pod.
In today's episode, we speak with Derek Thompson,
a staff writer at The Atlantic and the host of the podcast Plain English.
I like Derek a lot. Nice kid. Looks like he's eight. Is that true? That's probably not true. Looks like he's 19.
Anyways, super impressive, nice young man.
We discuss with Derek why he believes America is at a standstill when it comes to progress, including a lack of trust in institutions, the detriment of strong political biases, and polarization. What's happening? What's going on? The dog is in
Miami. Alert the media. That's right. And guess what? The weather is much better in Miami than
in London. I'm just figuring that out. And I'm also figuring out that the weather has an enormous impact on my mood. And you don't want the dog more of an asshole than
he usually is, because that's like all caps, A-double-S-H-O. I do know how to spell asshole.
Anyways, it's great to be in the great state of Miami. And let's be honest, Florida's got
its own thing going on, right? Whenever you hear about
some dude who like, I don't know, murders his family and then goes and takes his dog for a
walk or something and gets his dog, takes his dog to the groomer after killing everybody,
you know that dude is from Florida. However, there's Florida and there's Miami. Miami just
is totally different. Florida is a wonderful place
to live. It gets about 1% less wonderful every meter you travel from the ocean. You're 100 meters
in from the ocean. There's very few redeeming qualities about Florida. You're on the ocean.
It is a wonderful place, a wonderful state to hang out in. Anyways, a bit of a digression. We have housekeeping,
however. We want to break down how our show works for those of you who are new around here,
and honestly, for those of you who've been around since the start, as our programming has changed
quite a bit since March of 2020. There's something called brand architecture, actually, in the world
of brand strategy, and that is you try and figure out the relationship between different brands and
how you endorse them.
Initially, it was Gap's Old Navy.
Then it was Old Navy by Gap.
And then it was just Old Navy.
You know, there's Halo strategies, endorsement strategies, sub-brands.
It's not, you know, it's not Tab.
It's Diet Coke, et cetera.
Anyways, I did that shit.
I literally got paid a lot of money for about 10 years to help brands, among other things, figure out their brand architecture. And why
is brand architecture such a big sector in the consulting world? Because of mergers and
acquisitions and spins and what have you. By the way, it used to be, I think, Dayton Hudson Target
or Target, a Dayton Hudson company. Oh my God, the fun facts keep rolling in. On Mondays,
our market show delivers an update on the news impacting the capital markets, and you hear
our insights on the top business stories, market
performance, and predictions for the week ahead.
That's on Mondays, our Market Show.
Markets Mondays. Mondays Markets. I'm helping
you. On Wednesdays, it's Office
Hours, where we answer your questions. By far,
my favorite part
of the week.
Is that my favorite part of the week?
It's probably my favorite part of the work
week. Occasionally when I'm writing my newsletter, No Mercy No Mouse, which comes out on Friday,
I get the right balance of alcohol and THC and I write something that I think is actually worth
reading maybe again at some point in my life. That's the most rewarding part of the week,
at least professionally. But the part of the week that is consistently most rewarding is
office hours where people call in. So that's on Wednesday. We answer your questions and we love hearing your questions. Anyways, let's review
Monday markets, Wednesday office hours. It doesn't really roll off the tongue. On Thursday, we dig
beyond the headlines of the business and tech worlds and then bust into a conversation with
a blue flame thinker. In addition, on Thursdays, beyond digging the headlines, blah, blah, blah,
on our blue flame thinker, you get Algebra of Happiness segment delivered by yours truly. This is when we get in touch
with our softer side. And on Saturdays, our friend, actor, and rock on tour, George Hahn
reads our No Mercy, No Malice newsletter. Monday markets, Wednesday office hours, Thursday
our conversation, Saturday, No Mercy, No Malice. Oh, my God. Enough about us.
Let's get on with the news.
We often harp on the fact that meta is a net negative for society.
We don't harp on it.
We just point out facts.
But arguably one leg of its business that we don't give enough attention to, WhatsApp.
We're talking about it today because CNBC reports that a growing number of London Brits are using WhatsApp for luxury home purchases.
I would not have guessed
that. And that off-market home sales in London reached a record high in the last quarter of 2022,
accounting for 22% of transactions. One in five home transactions are done off-market.
Is that sort of surprising? Maybe. But what's really surprising is that WhatsApp, a lot of
them are happening on WhatsApp. Facebook bought it for $19 billion in 2014.
Roughly 2 billion people use it.
So think about this.
Everyone thought it was just a crazy acquisition.
And that is one of the biggest acquisitions in tech history.
And people thought that Mark had overpaid, given that he only paid a billion dollars for Instagram,
which is arguably maybe next to YouTube, the best acquisition in the history of tech.
But roughly 2 billion people use it now.
So think about it this way.
They paid about $9.50 per user.
And even though they don't really monetize it now, you got to think at some point they're going to be able to get more than $9.50 per user.
I also think it's one of the strongest brands globally.
So many people use it.
WhatsApp makes money through its WhatsApp Business API.
What is that? I don't know.
WhatsApp Business API. What is that? I don't know. Business of Apps estimates that WhatsApp brought in $8.7 billion in revenue in 2021, with the majority of it coming from the B2B side of the app. So I take that back. I didn't think it was being monetized. I guess it is. So that's $9 billion. This is just a fraction of Meta's annual revenue in 2021, which was around $118 billion. In 2020, WhatsApp launched a payment feature in India,
its largest market with roughly 400 million users. My God, think about that, 400 million people
in India using WhatsApp. So this sounds like something that could end up being the growth
vehicle that Meta is so desperate for. For a long time, it was Instagram. Instagram's growth appears
to be flatlining. So what would be the right business strategy here? What would you advise the Zuck if you were on the
board? By the way, it's not a real board. We have dual-class shareholder companies. You're just an
advisory board. You're just showing up, having dinner, and collecting a check. You really have
no real meaning. Anyways, what would I do if I were on that board and I actually had any teeth
and could get anything done? I would say, hey, boss, what the fuck are you doing?
Put a billion dollars into a legless universe that nobody is using.
By the way, true story, Horizons World, that is the premier metaverse constructed by Meta, is getting less traffic than MySpace.
MySpace now.
MySpace gets triple the traffic of Horizons or Horizons World or whatever it's called.
And more than 90% of the world's created get less than 100 people that come to them.
This thing is just so hilarious what a failure it is.
I mean, this is right up there with Diem or Portal or name whatever else Meta has tried to home grow.
It just doesn't work.
It is not an innovative company.
It is a great acquirer and it's great at growing its current assets. And what could they do? They made a great
acquisition with WhatsApp. They should double down with that. It is a global brand. It could
be the largest payment and communications company in the world. And that is probably worth somewhere
between $100 and $300 billion. And now Meta's entire company is worth $300 billion. So what
could you do or what would you do
if you were on the board
and actually gave a good goddamn about shareholder value?
You would say, hey, boss,
we need you to double down on WhatsApp.
We need to stop this silliness around the metaverse,
and then what are we going to do?
We're going to spin WhatsApp,
and that thing on its own is worth more than Orange,
Verizon, AT&T, Vodafone.
You name the telco. This is the premier telco in the world. WhatsApp, AT&T, Vodafone, you name the telco.
This is the premier telco in the world.
WhatsApp, oh my God, this is where you come for the insights.
How do you say insights in Espanol?
I don't know.
All right, what else is happening?
Let's talk about, hmm, let me think about it.
AI, as in artificial intelligence.
Let's talk about, let me think about it. AI as an artificial intelligence. BuzzFeed plans on using OpenAI, the firm behind ChatGPT, to create personalized content, including quizzes. The new Cent BuzzFeed stock soaring. It's currently up more than 200% over the past five days. Think about it. The stock tripled in five days. That being said, the stock is still down 30% over the past year. The trailing 12 months free cash flow is a negative $39 million. That's not terrible. It's almost break-even.
And they laid off 12% of their workforce in December 22. Now, what's going on here? What's
going on here? ChatGPT, the majority of people or companies are looking at it through the lens of
not value creation, but cost reduction. And when BuzzFeed
announces they're going to use AI, the market doesn't go crazy because it thinks, wow, it's
going to differentiate its service and it's going to have great articles. No. The reason that the
stock triples is they assume that 50% of the people at BuzzFeed are dead woman or man walking.
And that is they had just got fired. They just don't know it yet. And when likely 70 or 80% of your expenses at BuzzFeed are individuals who are editing or
writing or creating algorithms to try and create new content. And they say, oh, okay,
chat GPT, we'll get a site license or a company-wide license. And slowly but surely,
we are going to massively reduce our workforce. What robotics did to manufacturing, this has the potential to do
to media, information-based companies, maybe in certain parts of education.
I think over the long run, it'll create jobs. There's always a panic with a new technology
that we, in fact, are going to destroy jobs. But over the long term, people come up with
new applications and you actually increase the number of jobs. It's just that what we're really bad at, especially in America, is protecting the people who are put
out of work. We don't want to invest in retraining them or supporting them while they try to figure
out a new career. That's what we're really bad at. But generally speaking, these innovations
in technology result in more productive economy, more jobs, and better paying jobs. Having said that, having said that,
something that fascinated me, fascinated me, and it just struck me as like, wow,
this just makes so much sense. You know when you read something and you go, this is true?
So my friend Raoul Pal, Raoul Pal, I think I'm saying it as nice, Raoul Pal, anyway, super bright,
super nice guy, kind of like this rare breed of rational Web3 guy. He's
been talking about Web3 and crypto for a while, but I find him reasonable, which makes him 0.0001%
of that community. Anyways, he said something that really struck me. He said, he had put out a tweet
that said, chat GPT is one of the biggest deflationary shocks in all of history.
And that just struck me as so right on the money.
Because think about just, even if ChatGPT doesn't, or AI doesn't live up to the hype,
the perception that your job is under threat means that the most stubborn part of inflation, right?
Let's back up.
Inflation, what is inflation?
Inflation is when there's too much money chasing too few goods. There's a demand side and a supply
side. People have money and want to buy shit. That's the demand side. The supply side, that is
our ability to produce goods for people to buy, got a huge shock in the form of COVID and then
the invasion of Ukraine. So we had food and energy shocks, right? That seems to be fixing itself.
The gunk is coming out of the supply chain.
China is coming back online.
We had reports of huge earnings misses from the chip makers.
Why?
Because they couldn't make enough during COVID because everyone wanted to be home and wanted
more processing power and wanted a new laptop and wanted to upgrade their home audio system,
what have you. But all of a sudden, boom, they build in or they build up their infrastructure,
their production capabilities, and wham, fears of a recession or a more normal state of income.
And all of a sudden, there's a mismatch between supply and demand and people can't get rid of
these chips. Look what's happening at Tesla. They're cutting prices. Why? Because their
production ramped up and it looks like they're producing too many cars. The price of chicken is coming down. The cost for containers to ship stuff from China to here, petroleum, natural gas, you name it. These things have absolutely plummeted in price, even back to pre-pandemic levels. So on the supply side, we are seeing real relief around inflation. In other
words, we are producing more goods. The thing that has been most stubborn when you look at the levers
around inflation have been wages. It has been really hard to slow the increase in wages. And
okay, that's good on many levels, but when everyone is having to pay people more,
it is inflationary, right? They have to raise the price of their products so they can afford to keep
their people on the front line, and prices go up, and it becomes this inexorable upward spiral.
Now, having said that, chat GPT might be the ultimate deflationary vehicle because, quite
frankly, it not only reduces your dependence on certain
employees and certain jobs, but I think this is the key. I think it's psychological. And that is,
that is, for the last 10 years, and I know this firsthand, if you were the CEO of an information
age company, every conversation around HR was, how do we keep our people happy? And it usually
came down to compensation,
economic and non-economic.
What's interesting is that I find non-economic compensation is more powerful.
People want to work in a nice office.
They want to have fun off sites.
They want you to spend more time
thinking about their career and coaching them.
That's what they want.
They really value non-economic compensation,
which was weird because when I was their age,
I was all about the Benjamins.
I could give a shit, but maybe that's because I worked in a horrible atmosphere called Morgan
Stanley. Anyway, they also want to be paid more. And the general belief, or my general belief,
was that if you weren't increasing someone's compensation by 10, 20% a year and they were good,
they were probably going to leave because there was such a war on talent for the last 14 years.
was such a war on talent for the last 14 years. Now, if you're under the age of 40, meaning you kind of came of professional age in the midst of the most historic bull market in history,
you're under the impression or the delusion, quite frankly, or the hallucination that your labor is
always in demand, that you could just be you, just do you, and your compensation is going to go up dramatically the
following year. Well, guess what? Capital and management has the upper hand, or at least the
perception of the upper hand, and aren't going to feel the same pressure to raise compensation
as quickly as they have over the last 14 years. And that is going to bring down
inflation. And what was one of our predictions in Q3 of last year, when inflation was roaring, that it would come down as fast as it went up.
And one of the reasons, one of the reasons it's coming and giving it real wind or real headwinds
around inflation, AI, chat GPT. Chat GPT's biggest impact on society over the next 12 months
won't be the new things it can do, but the people it can replace.
We'll be right back for our conversation with Derek Thompson.
Fox Creative.
This is advertiser content from Zelle.
When you picture an online scammer, what do you see?
For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer
with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night.
And honestly, that's not what it is anymore.
That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.
These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists.
And they're making bank.
Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion.
It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world.
These are very savvy business people.
These are organized criminal rings.
And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better.
One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them.
But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple.
We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you
do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send
information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller
dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other.
Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital
payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust.
Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty.
Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to
get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, live laugh lovers. In, knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire.
Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.
Welcome back. Here's our conversation with Derek Thompson, a staff writer at The Atlantic and the host of the podcast, Plain English.
Okay, Derek, let's bust right into it. Your recent feature story for The Atlantic, you wrote,
We have become too enthralled by the eureka myth, and more to the point, too inattentive to all things that must follow a eureka moment.
So let's start there.
What is the eureka myth and why is it problematic?
The eureka myth is my name for this idea in science and technology that the most important
thing when it comes to human progress is that we discover new things.
It's that we invent new things. So for example, if you're telling a story about progress in the 19th century, you'd say,
you know, the moment that Thomas Edison built the first incandescent light bulb, 1879,
that's really what the great leap forward was. Or if you are looking at the story like smallpox,
which is the story that I wrapped this article around, you'd say that the big moment
in history was 1796, May 14th, when a physician in London, Edward Jenner, administered the first
vaccine in human history to young James Phipps to inoculate him from smallpox. But what that idea,
this idea that eureka moments are the most important stories in progress, what that overlooks is the fact that at the moment of invention, nothing has really happened that changes people's
lives. At the moment that the first vaccine was administered, there were a billion people in the
world and one of them had been vaccinated. That's not progress. That zero to one moment is not full
progress. The one to one billion job of extending the vaccine around the world,
that is true progress. Same thing with electricity or same thing with something like the computer
chip. The invention of these things is wonderful. It's really great to have it be birthed into the
world. But real progress requires that we actually build what we invent. You need the rest of the
story. You need to actually build what we invent. And the U rest of the story. You need to actually build what we
invent. And the U.S. does not build enough houses. We don't build enough solar panels. We don't build
enough nuclear reactors. We invented all of this stuff, and we do not build enough of it. And that
is what I want us to do in this century, not just invent, but also implement. I mean, isn't this,
to a certain extent, that we're big, bold
thinkers and we also just want to get rich quick, that people, I'll just relate this. I've been an
entrepreneur my whole life and I've always thought, okay, it's the small stuff that determines whether
you win or lose, that it's the last 10%. All we need to do is take an existing consulting service,
an existing analytic service, and just be a little bit better than anybody else
across a number of dimensions.
We didn't need to reinvent the wheel here.
Is it, do you see companies,
is it a function of the,
and I hate to say this,
they're spending too much on R&D
and not enough on operations?
I think that that is exactly what's happening
at the national level.
And so I want to distinguish my critique
of what's happening at the national level and then a I want to distinguish my critique of what's happening at the national level and
then a critique of what might be happening inside of individual companies.
So it is absolutely the case that at the national level, we have become enthralled to the Eureka
myth and we are operationalizing that illusion by spending more money than ever on research
and development.
But even as we've become this country that invents the elevator in the
19th century, and then the solar chip and the microchip in the 1950s, and then the first mRNA
vaccines in the 21st century, we are not the country that does the best to actually build
out these things. We have a housing shortage. We don't build enough solar panels. We don't
have the technological frontier in advanced semiconductors. We fell very quickly from third in the world to 37th in the world in terms of vaccination
rate.
I would diagnose this at the broadest level as being a problem of culture.
I think that the culture is the universal substrate here.
One of the reasons why I think we have this problem in the U.S. is that we have a trust
problem in American culture.
You look at Democrats and Republicans
and you look at their trust in institutions,
it is plummeting across the board.
We don't trust media as much as we used to.
We don't trust each other as much as we used to.
We don't trust whether companies or government.
And I think that in a world where trust is impermanent,
mayday, mayday decline, it is often harder to build what we invent.
And why do you think, I mean, Jonathan, my colleague at NYU talks a lot about it's difficult to have a democratic society that prospers without having a certain set of collectives or shared values as evidenced by trust in institutions.
Where do you think our erosion in trust in institutions sprang up, or where did it begin? I think there's a couple different sort of waterways that feed into this collective decline in trust.
I think one of them is the fact that you look at something that happened in U.S. society
since maybe the 1960s and 1970s, when a certain kind of
apocalyptic thinking became very in vogue in intellectual circles and then in the general
public. You had the 1960s and 1970s, people becoming much more concerned about the environment,
often for good reasons, about overpopulation, I think for sometimes less good reasons,
about the fact that the government was hiding things from them, that we had built nuclear weapons and that we would use them to
destroy the world. And we moved, I think, from a society that was broadly optimistic about science
and technology to a society that was broadly fearful of science and technology, and by
extension of elites. So I think that's one headway for this. Another, I think, is the fact
that, and I struggle with exactly how to talk about this, but actually in a previous conversation on
my podcast, I think, Scott, you and I talked about it a bit. I think that as society becomes more
media-focused, as we all become players in an attention economy, we all learn the same strategy.
And one really, really effective strategy for getting attention is catastrophizing the world. There is something about human nature that responds very predictably to catastrophe.
Being really negative in a high arousal way is a great way to do it.
And so as more people, more scientists and academics,
but also more politicians,
more people on podcasts certainly,
become more negative about the world
without having any kind of positive prescription,
I think it leads to a world
where we have less trust in each other
because every new media source is telling us
that the media, capital T, capital M, is wrong.
And that reduces any kind of public trust in a shared set of facts or in a shared set of institutions.
So there's a lot of reasons why I think trust is declining overall.
But I would just at least first offer a historical reason and then a kind of sort of attention economics reason.
A third reason, just to quickly gloss, and maybe you're going to hit it anyway, or certainly some of your listeners were thinking
about it, is that I think that some of this is macroeconomic. I think that as the middle class
has lost its footing in the U.S. economy, and you've written and talked about this quite a bit,
I think there's just become less trust in the system, the system. And this you can trace back
to globalization not working
out for everybody, letting China into the WTO, that not working out for anybody. And so when
you put all these things together, the political climate, the media climate, and the economic
climate, I do think that all of them are feeding this general decline in trust. Yeah, it also feels
as if a lot of it, I hadn't thought through some of the stuff you thought through about science and nuclear weapons and the dangers of technologies eroded trust around institutions.
But also, I think, have you thought about, or what I think a lot about is kind of the 80s, and that is Reagan and Thatcher, you know, the dangerous words, I'm here from the government and I'm here to help, that we went after the biggest institution. And when the president started saying you can't trust
the government, we kind of lost our connective tissue. And for the last 40 years, we've been
on this kind of screed against government, which is sort of, I think, obviously, I would think for
most people, kind of the premier institution. If you can't trust your government, it's sort of
like what institution are you going to trust? I couldn't agree more. I think that different paradigms, different
political economic paradigms suit their moment and create a vocabulary through which we understand
the world. And for a certain period of time in the 20th century, that vocabulary was a New Deal
vocabulary. It was a, we're all in this together.
There are crises outside of the US and within the US
that require an all hands on deck approach.
And we all need to come in to help the middle class.
That worked for a while.
That helped to define politics for a while.
But then, as you just mentioned,
something happened around the 1970s, 1980s.
Whether it was the oil crisis or the inflation crisis or
a general decline in trust in government because MLK and JFK and RFK had all been assassinated,
and we just thought, what the hell is going on? You suddenly had an opening for a new paradigm
to replace the New Deal. And that new paradigm was Reaganomics. It was neoliberalism. It was
whatever you want to call it. It was this idea that the
government is a force of evil and pure incompetence, evil or pure incompetence, I should say, to be
fair. And as a result, since then, you've had a really clear decline in public-private partnerships,
and you've had this, I think, really adversarial relationship between business and government.
I think it's time for a new paradigm. I think that when you look at the biggest problems in the US,
they are often problems of scarcity.
We know what we need to do
in order to accelerate some treatments for cancer therapies,
but we aren't putting in place at the FDA or at the NIH
the kind of rules that would get us better cancer therapies.
And that's why I have been thinking a lot
about this new concept that I hope can replace neoliberalism, which I call abundance politics,
right? You identify a handful of areas that are essential to human flourishing, whether it's
education, housing, healthcare, and you think, what are the bottlenecks? What are the key bottlenecks that are holding back abundance
in these sectors? How do we resolve those bottlenecks? Where's the biggest debate? Is it
housing? Is it healthcare? Where do you see the greatest dearth of abundance or scarcity?
We can start with wherever you want, but I'll take the first two H's that you mentioned,
housing and then healthcare. So on housing, we know this is a great example
of the fundamental theory
that we've already invented the technology.
The problem is implementation.
The problem is that there are rules at the local level,
at the state level, that in too many places,
and in particular,
in some of the richest left-leaning places,
blue metros like San Francisco or New York or Boston,
we have too many rules that make it impossible to build because of nimbyism or because of certain
regulations that make apartment buildings hard to construct. So obviously, we need to resolve those.
But that's a common area that people know a lot about. Here's something that might surprise people.
The U.S. obviously has a healthcare cost crisis. In many cases, that's an access problem. The U.S. obviously has a healthcare cost crisis. In many cases, that's an access problem.
The U.S. has the fewest general practitioners,
general physicians per capita of any country in the OECD.
Why?
Well, one reason is that we've designed a system
that is the longest and most expensive
medical education system in the world.
No other country takes as
long and is as expensive to educate their future doctors as the U.S. Now put yourself in the
position of someone who's just spent eight, nine, ten years going through undergraduate medical
school and your residency programs. You're $300,000 in debt. Do you want to become a physician to help
many, many people but not earn very much money? Or do you want to become a physician to help many, many people but not earn very much money?
Or do you want to become a specialist where you're sure you could earn a higher wage and discharge that debt that you picked up in order to punch your ticket as a doctor?
Well, of course, most people are going to want to become specialists.
But that means you've designed a system where we are strategically short on general practitioners, on physicians.
strategically short on general practitioners, on physicians. So fewer people, especially fewer low-income people, have that early touchpoint into the healthcare system, which means that more
Americans die of preventable diseases, which means they tend to incur much higher costs as they get
extremely sick. So here again, I think one of the big problems we have in healthcare is a crisis of scarcity.
If we want an abundance agenda in healthcare, I think we need more of an abundance in physicians.
We need to understand where's the scarcity and how do we remove that bottleneck.
Yeah, it feels as if we have sort of adopted this rejectionist luxury culture where once I have a house, try and figure out a way to create scarcity in housing,
a degree, make admissions more difficult. Once I have a company, a tech company, try and weaponize
government, such a new entrance can't get out of the crib such that I can develop monopoly power.
There's definitely something to this notion that everyone is sort of, we have an economy of people
pulling the bridge up behind them. What have you thought at all about, you talk a lot about
polarization.
Are there any, I don't imagine there are any quick fixes, but what are some fixes to trying to
solve the issue of polarization on our side, on our politics?
It's one of the hardest questions to answer. I don't know how to do it necessarily at the
national level, but let me tell you about some conversations that I've had, just one-on-one
that I think might be sort of illuminating. I was talking to a friend in California,
an older friend who was talking about their situation
living in Beverly Hills and their son's situation.
They were complaining about construction down the street, right?
So they're living in Beverly Hills,
they're complaining about construction down the street.
And they're like, oh my God,
they're constantly trying to put up
these new ugly apartment buildings near our homes. It's absolutely, it's so disgusting and it's so loud. And I really hate how it's disrupting traffic. And then I was asking, you know, what about your son and his search for a new house in Los Angeles? And she said, oh, it's impossible. He can't find a place to live in this city. There's no new houses being built.
And so it's so interesting
because so many people seem to allow both these paradigms
to exist in their head at the same time,
that they don't want the circumstances
that would allow their children to thrive,
but at the same time,
they're complaining about the lack of success
for their children's generation.
I think that people need to think more intergenerationally
about abundance.
We already do think intergenerationally about abundance.
We already do think intergenerationally about some other things, like, say, education.
People who send their children to private school typically don't also ask to not pay local taxes that might go to education.
There's a general understanding that you pay to educate the next generation, and you should
pay to educate the next generation and you should pay to educate the next generation. We do this in the US. And I personally don't see
a lot of people complaining constantly about it until unless they're relatively right wing.
So it's interesting, I think that we do think generation to generation about some things like
education and retirement. But we don't think generation to generation about other things like
housing availability. But if we did adopt this forward-looking,
intergenerational approach to building more in America,
I think we'd be in a much better place.
And I think it would make us less polarized
because we'd be thinking not about
how do I most efficiently pull the ladder up
once I become settled.
We'd be thinking about what is the nature of the ladder
that ensures the success of the latter that ensures
the success of my children and their children's generation. Yeah, it sort of all ties. I've been
fascinated recently with all these articles or new data on kind of this birth implosion. And you
talked about how in the 70s, we were worried about population explosion. Now it appears that we were
wrong and it's population implosion that threatens
the West. And this rejectionist or this lack of, as you call it, abundance mentality where there's
less housing, less education, less healthcare, and it just drives up costs. And I can't imagine
that that hasn't played into the calculus of a new generation of people saying, you know what, I just can't, I either can't afford kids or I don't want the stress, the economic stress of kids.
Because with kids comes the need for a house, the need for education, the need for additional health care, all of which have become much more expensive.
Have you linked it or thought about how all this plays into our kind of our birth dearth?
Yeah, two thoughts on that.
One is you're absolutely right.
kind of our birth dearth. Yeah. Two thoughts on that. One is you're absolutely right. People like Paul Ehrlich were predicting that we'd have this absolutely catastrophic population bomb in the
1970s. What he didn't pay attention to is the fundamental core law of population and fertility
growth in the world, which is the richer you get, the fewer children you have. Or the more educated.
Or the more educated, right. And then education and income seem to have this thing.
And you finish the sentence, especially women.
But basically, if you want, right,
I guess the most demographically accurate thing
would be that as women's education rises,
country by country, fertility rate declines.
And certainly that is a good thing.
We want families to be able to control how many children they have. We don't want women put in positions where they have no say over their lives and therefore they feel obligated to have six, seven children because they have no say in their politics and in their economy. I think there are absolutely problems at the national level, right? Not at the family level,
but at the national level of population decline. And one of them is that there's only two ways
that an economy grows. You either add more people or you add more productivity. That's it. There's
no other way that an economy grows. And if you aren't growing productivity and you aren't growing
population, you have a shrinking economy. And in a shrinking
economy, zero-sum thinking is rational thinking. It is literally zero-sum. The pie is fixed. In
fact, it's declining. In economies that don't grow, they are zero-sum. And that, I think,
is a problem. We want to avoid that kind of zero-sum thinking. We want to give people an opportunity to overcome it. And so I'm a fan of growing economies. I'm a fan of growth. And
therefore, I'm a fan of, in the US, more liberalized immigration policies. Because while I would love
to have a population that has maybe a natural replacement rate, the truth is we're probably
not going to get there. If you look at the situation in Japan and Europe,
there's sort of a little bit further ahead of the story
than us here.
If we're not going to have a natural fertility rate
that's above the population replacement rate,
we should have a liberal immigration policy
that allows more people to move into this country
and contribute to a growing population.
I'm a fan of that.
I would say one more thing about this concept
of a zero-sum mentality, a zero-sum economy
that is flat or shrinking forever,
which is what you get in a world with low productivity
and persistently shrinking populations.
There's a concept in the book, Scarcity,
which is a book about economics.
I think Sundeel Malanathan might be one of the authors.
He talks about that one of
the things that happens in environments with scarcity is a psychological phenomenon he calls
tunneling, that people become very, very focused on a handful of things when they feel it necessary
to be a zero-sum thinker. And part of the abundance mindset that I'm trying to propagate here is that
we can't be so tunneled in on ours, ours, ours, that actually the way to grow the pie
is to think more collectively, not just in terms of the here and now, but also intergenerationally.
To the extent you're comfortable talking about it, what's your calculus around having kids? You're a successful, thoughtful, well-resourced, you know, couple. And I find that more and more people like yourself who are kind of out of central casting for who you would want to have kids are not having kids.
are not having kids.
Yeah, we want two kids.
And it's also the case that, you know,
in addition to the phenomenon of more education leads to smaller families,
it's also the case that more education
tends to lead to later family formation,
that people tend to have kids later in their life.
And there's all sorts of debates happening right now about the degree
to which that is the right move. I think there's certain benefits to having financial security
before you have kids, especially in a place like Washington DC or London or New York City,
where the cost of having a kid is really, really high. And just like getting them through pre-K is a financial
chore that you want to build a certain amount of savings before you start that part of your life.
But that again, might be something that touches upon an abundance agenda. Maybe in a world where
childcare is a little bit more abundant or less expensive, the calculus for some families might change so that they don't need
to feel like they have to save so much money before they begin the process of growing their family.
Derek Thompson is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of the Work in Progress newsletter.
He's also the author of the book, Hitmakers, How to Succeed in an Age of Distraction.
He joins us from his home in Washington, D.C. Derek, appreciate your time.
Thanks, Scott.
We'll be right back.
As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans,
and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month. At Fizz,
you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs
and policies apply. Details at fizz.ca.
Algebra of happiness. So I've got into a fight with my, or not not fight I think conflict and debate are part of progress
my producer over at pivot keeps editing some of my more profane or salty or edgier comments and
it really pisses me off and we've gone back and forth and she is just doing her job and doing
her level best to protect the enterprise and probably protect me and there's a method to the
madness and there's I think, I think you want to be
thoughtful around how provocative or how, I don't know, what's the term? I guess provocative is the
best term for it. I'm a vulgar and profane person. And it's not an act. And if you listen to this
show, you know that it's authentic. This is how I think. I curse a lot and make a lot of, I don't
know what the term is, off-collar comments. And a lot of people come to me and say, well,
I love how provocative you are, and I'm trying to think about how to incorporate that into my
professional life. And my advice to you is don't. So this comes from a place or this tone of being
aggressive and profane and vulgar sometimes. It comes from a place or this tone of being aggressive and profane and vulgar sometimes.
It comes from a place that is more strategic than you might think.
And that is I consider myself a progressive on almost every social value, political value, economic value.
I am, you know, I say I'm center left, but the reality is I'm probably pretty far left.
I'm probably pretty far left. And something that I think has weakened progressive policies or ability to get anything done is that we have become so sensitive. We have become so easily
offended. We have become so focused on how we divide each other by making a cartoon of each
other's comments and then making assertions and getting into this game of guardians of
gotcha and trying to get virtue points.
To be offended in our nation is to be right, and it's total bullshit.
Being offended is your emotion, and productive conversations are, this is why I think you're
wrong, or this is my view and how it contrasts with yours.
That's a productive conversation.
And the left is spending so much time trying to find virtue points by calling out each other that it makes a cartoon of the important work we need to get done around systemic racism, around income inequality, around women's rights.
And it ends up hurting us because we're seen as people who are worse than anything, that we're just fucking humorless.
thing that we're just fucking humorless. And also we've incorrectly conflated vulgarity and profanity with being a sexist or bigot. And the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If you
look back in history, the real liberals in media were comedians, Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor,
George Carlin, and they were the most profane comedians. And part of the power of communicating
ideas is humor. And I see with the modest platform I have, and I generally believe this,
I want to take profanity or help take profanity and vulgarity back for progressives. And it's okay.
And one of the things I value so much about my relationship with Kara on the Pivot podcast
is I say inappropriate or edgy jokes about my sexuality, about her sexuality, about how
hot someone is or what have you.
And there'll be a pause, an uncomfortable moment, and then she laughs and it gives everyone
else permission to laugh, realizing that part of accepting each other is recognizing and ribbing each other for our differences. It should never be mean-spirited. It should
never diminish anybody. And if someone were to ever say to me your comments make me feel
diminished, I will stop. But humor, vulgarity, profanity have been incorrectly conflated
with weird, conservative, far-right, discriminatory behavior. And that it just could not be further
from the truth. Having said that, having said that, I'm in a position to do this.
Because while I can be canceled, you know, I can't, I have economic security, I have a certain
number of people in my life, I'm on the back nine of my professional career. And I realize when I
say these things, there's a non-zero probability someone is going to go crazy with it.
And whatever the mood is or the ground underneath us at that time will result in a quick and severe end to this podcast or what have you.
And I care, but it's not profound for me.
And if you are economically secure and have people in your life that love
you, you have an obligation to speak your mind and say things that you think are true.
If you are not, be careful. And that is your job in a corporation, your job in a large organization
is to be mindful and thoughtful and err on the side of grace. And it scares me because I hear
from a lot of people, specifically young men, who say they
want to be more aggressive and provocative in their comments. And my attitude is don't,
because occasionally I get it wrong and I say stupid things. But let me finish where I started.
Vulgarity and profanity are vulgarity and profanity. They do not have anything to do
with your political views. Who is one of my heroes? Michelle Wolf. She's my favorite comedian.
She gave the White House correspondent dinner opening. She is incredibly vulgar, incredibly profane. And I think she's a
genius at getting across in a funny, irreverent way what are some of the just ironic and ridiculous
disparities in our society around women's rights and conservative versus progressive.
in our society around women's rights and conservative versus progressive.
Anyways, a bit of a riff, a bit of a riff, but recognize that when your friends are profane and vulgar, if you don't like profanity and vulgarity, that's one thing.
But don't assume it has anything to do with their political views or the way they treat
other people.
Our producers are Caroline Chagrin, Claire Miller, and Drew Burrows.
Jennifer Sanchez is our associate producer.
If you like what you heard, please follow, download, and subscribe.
Thank you for listening to The Profiteer Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network.
We will catch you on Saturday for George Hahn's reading of Numerous You Know Malice,
and on Monday with our weekly market show. at the end of the day the board is there for two reasons solamente dos
razones um here in miami bring in a little espanol to the to the podcast