Pivot - Predictions on The Future of Work: AI, The Gig Economy, and DEI

Episode Date: March 20, 2024

Kara and Scott are coming at you on a Wednesday with the first of three episodes in our special Future of Work series! They make predictions on what’s to come for the gig economy, DEI, and more. Is hybrid work here to stay? Will vocational training gain traction? How will AI impact the job market in the years to come? Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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 and beyond, and see for yourself how traveling for business can always be a pleasure.

Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Scott Galloway. And you're listening to our special three-part series on the future of work, where we look at the business and technology trends that will shape the workforce, employment, and the very nature of work. Today, we're kicking it off with our very own predictions about how work will change in the coming years. Scott, let's get straight to it, starting with what might be the biggest factor affecting jobs, artificial intelligence. Some quick figures, just in the tech industry alone, AI job listings are up 42% since the rollout of ChatGPT in late 2022. The overall market for IT jobs is down 31%

in the same period. Big picture, how does AI affect the overall job market in the next five years and beyond? You know, interestingly, at an event I had, I was talking to Alex Stamos, who was a CTO, and he thinks this is just going to change and decimate things as people try to get more efficient. And a lot of jobs will be replaced across the workforce. He was talking about tech specifically, stuff that can be automated and done by tech, ideas. Everywhere you go, whether it's writing, especially white-collar jobs, this is not a new and fresh idea. Things are going to change. Law associates, when they used to need, as he noted, five, they're going to need two. That does free people up to do more intelligent stuff that they can work on and more specific, and it pulls away some jobs. But you're not going to have to have law associates. That's a very typical one.

People often point to radiologists. It will give them a better ability to do it, but it will drive efficiency across the universe, essentially, especially white-collar jobs. And that will affect jobs very seriously. And I'm sorry to tell you, CEOs are going to do it because it'll save money. So I think AI will be the most impactful thing in the workforce going forward over anything else remote. I largely agree with that. I would describe AI as corporate ozempic in the short term, and that is it reduces management's cravings for more people. And I don't think CEOs are being straight with their workforces about the immediate impact AI is having, not only on the ground, but just psychologically. I think they are thinking, well, maybe instead of, if our plan was to hire 200 people this quarter, maybe we hire 80 and see if we can use AI to fill in the other 120. And it's not a one-for-one replacement. We've

talked about this. It's not replacing Joe the paralegal. It's saying, okay, we only need two Joes and two Susans instead of six paralegals. So, armed with the correct AI and the correct tools, they should just become more productive. Now, having said that, I don't see any reason why this isn't shaping up to have the exact same curve and cadence as every other technology that was supposed to put everyone out of work. There was huge fears around automation, huge fears around computers. And typically what you see is in the short term, you have job destruction, but then the amount of productivity, the amount of additional capital, the amount of new business niches that pop up end up over the medium and long term actually adding to net employment. And I don't see any reason why that won't happen here.

I'm being pitched every day on new AI startups that will create new jobs. And I think this will free up people to do side gigs. My son has downloaded an AI bot to help him buy sneakers during drops. And I can see, I just think there's going to be a million different AI-inspired businesses that will create new employment. Yeah, it's sort of like talking about the internet did this. Of course, they were going to remember it was going to destroy jobs. I think, look, it's going to destroy some jobs. There's no question. Let's not, you know, try to yell the lily, you know, it's not going to be all up and to the right for people. There, you have to look, if you're a leader, you have to look at every cost, and this will save

costs. If you're a worker, or an employee, often white collar work, how does it help you? And I think I urge people, how can artificial intelligence help you do your job better? And it's not here to save you. It's not here to kill you, either one. But there's all kinds of efficiencies. And I think when Tyler Perry, which I think he was a little dramatic, because he's a dramatic person, you know, stopped this one facility that he was building, a studio in Atlanta, not spending $800 million, because he saw the Chat GPT video service. Sora, I think he was being a little bit early to the situation, but he's not directionally correct is that he doesn't have to have as many studios. He doesn't have to do much as much stuff. And it will affect jobs, painters, all kinds of things.

And it's just happening. And I, you know, people are like, I was approaching like, Kara, that's so terrible that they're not going to be painters. I said, there's not going to be painters. I said, there's not going to be painters. I don't know what to tell you. You're going to have to accept this. You replace this technology with lots of things all the time. There used to be blockbuster videos.

There used to be a store. You go in and you pick out your video. They all worked there. They made the videos. There used to be payphone people. There used to be everything, just like so many things. There used to be butter churn like so many things that, you know, there used to be butter churns. That doesn't happen anymore. And so this is, as ugly as it may seem,

this can create lots of new opportunities, as Scott said. So that's what we think. AI, biggest impact, I think. Okay, let's move on to another big topic in the future of work, hybrid work and remote work, something we've talked about a ton on Pivot. And again, let me give you some statistics from Forbes. As of last year, nearly 13% of employees work from home, nearly 30% work in a hybrid model. About 59% of people are still heading into the office on a traditional five-day work schedule. Obviously, people that have to be there, stores, things like that, food, that's different. But again, white-collar workers, much more so at home. When I was at Microsoft this week, we did this book thing that they were there, and someone said, it's so nice for everyone to be here. People love being at work, and there's great things about

being at work. I think the hybrid model is the way things are going to go, that you are going to go intentionally to work, to do things like listening to me talk about my book or whatever, or get together with your team or have some in-person time. I know Scott is a little different about how important he thinks in homework, but I do think, especially women, really like the system where they get to manage their time better and get to decide and still be productive. So I think companies have to remain flexible and more and more companies will do this. This is a trend heading, getting just bigger and bigger. And I'm not talking about every office, but quite a few of them are going to be operating this way more and more. Office space, who knows? I don't know. Scott, your thoughts?

Well, there's a lot of nuance here. So I would argue that remote work is an enormous unlock for people in their 30s and definitely their 40s and 50s who have kids and dogs and a lot of different things pulling at their life and their time. people in their 20s. And that is, I think during your 20s, you're trying to figure out a sense of self, you're trying to establish a series of skills. And the majority of the real lasting skills in the corporate world and also in your personal life are soft skills. And it's very difficult to develop soft skills over a screen. It's difficult to figure out how to read a room. It's difficult to figure out how to establish mentors over Zoom. And also, it's really difficult to meet potential friends, business partners, and mates remotely. And people don't talk about this because the HR person's hair gets on fire here. And so, we're now sequestering or now eliminating from young people the opportunity to potentially find friends, mentors, and mates. And they need,

especially young men whose prefrontal cortex and soft skills don't develop as quickly as women's, they need the office. I learned so much having to put on a tie, take a shower, show up on time, be in a conference room, when to speak, and most importantly, when just to listen and how to get along with people and how to go into another person's office. And when I met someone at another investment bank and I was interested in them, trying to figure out a way to ask them to coffee in a safe way. I mean, these are important skills. And young people who aren't experiencing that and not developing the discipline and the ability to read a room and bumping off other humans,

I just think it's terrible. So it's an enormous unlock for some people, giving them the flexibility. And I do think that there should be a new classification for caregivers and companies should go out of their way to give them the ability to work remotely. For example, in Europe, a much greater percentage of people are coming into the office. The office lease problem isn't nearly as big in Europe because public transportation is more widely available. So, you know, someone with a family can sometimes live near the office, or they have universal childcare. So, someone can go into work and not have to be at home. So I think this is an enormous unlock. I do think it is the structural change coming out of COVID.

If you look at almost everything, mortality rates, the economy, and you didn't know COVID had happened, you wouldn't know COVID had happened except for one thing, and that is the percentage of people who are no longer going into the office. It is really a structural change. It is. Let me just ask you one question. It is young people that like remote more, I've noticed, among workers. They don't want to be at home. I know you say they should be at work, and it's good for their social life and sex life, et cetera, et cetera, and mentality. But I got to say, of all people, older people like being in the office because they're used to it and they know the benefits of it, much more so, even if it helps.

You know, it's easier for me or Amanda or anybody else to work from home because of kids. I find that young people really like their remoteness much more so. And this is anecdotal, but I think it's true. Yeah, I'm going to, I mean, I'm just going to sound like such a boomer here. I think it's, quite frankly, I think it's inversely correlated how ambitious they are. The kids I work with, and this is all anecdotal evidence, the kids I work with at Prof G, they're all these very highly credentialed, very ambitious, very economically and professionally super ambitious people. very economically and professionally super ambitious people. When I said to them,

I came to London, anyone wants to come to London can. First thing they did, they got a coworking space and they go into the office together. I find the people who are super ambitious, and I want to be clear, there are a lot of unlocks and everybody talks about productivity. I don't buy it. There's something that cannot be replaced. If you're a tech journalist, kind of working on your own, and you can talk to people and get your sources over the phone, fine. You're a sole contributor, a lone wolf. For academics, fine. They can do it remotely. Yeah, it's Kara Swisher. But for a lot of industries, the magic of being in there, I ran consulting firms. I can't imagine doing it remotely. I'm not exaggerating, Kara. Three or four times a day, I would impromptu get someone's eye contact and say, oh, I need to talk to them about the P&G account. And I would grab them,

would jump into a conference room and we'd start talking. Or I would, if I had free time, I would grab the other two partners in the firm, pull them into a conference room and go, what's going on with Colin? How's he doing? What's going on with this account? What do you guys think of this idea? The magic and mystery and entropy of in-person dialogue, it's really hard to replace. I agree. Okay. So let's make the prediction. Mine is that it's going to accelerate because people like it and it's good for people's lifestyles. Yours is, it's not going to, or it is? What is your prediction? Oh, no, it's plateaued and it'll actually check back a little bit and more people will be in the office.

Well, we're opposite of that. I mean, it's a step change. It's not going anywhere near back to where it was. I mean, it used to be, I remember Morgan Stanley, the lead secretary or whatever they call them now that's politically correct. If I wasn't in the office by 10 a.m., they would call you. And if you weren't at a client meeting and it was on your calendar, if you weren't in by 10 a.m., it was a paid day off. It counted towards your 20 paid days off a year. I mean, it was like, there was no negotiation around this

shit. No, I was in the office from 8 a.m. I was in the office to 8 a.m. till midnight. I was, I was when I was a young reporter. Anyway, so what we do have opposite opinions about that, I think it's accelerating. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, predictions around gig work at DEI and more. 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. Scott, we're back with our special series on the future of work. We're giving our predictions about the trends, and we're discussing it too, that shape employment and the workforce. Let's get on with our next topic, the gig economy, one we talk about a lot too. Some stats for you here, 64 million Americans freelanced last year. That's about 40% of the workforce. Statista predicts that'll grow to half the workforce by 2027. Gen Z and millennials make

up the biggest age group of the gig economy. The industry with the highest proportion of freelancers is arts and design, followed by marketing, according to Upwork. I'm going to go first here. This is something I've talked about for years. Everyone's going gig. I think that's the way it's going to be, partly because companies want to save and they want more work flexibility. The other partially people like it. Years ago, I said people will have a dozen jobs as opposed to four, something like that. I think people like it. They're used to it. It's another shift, just like being out of the office. And I think it's absolutely going to accelerate. And young people, again, are used to this. This is how they do not think of work as a place they're going to

be forever. The next thing and the next thing. I think it is a bit of a shame because I do think it's nice working for a company for a while as a group of people on a team. It's less teamwork when you're doing stuff like 36%. And I think it's part of a larger trend, and that is, in some ways, it's smart. I think young people have figured out that you shouldn't be loyal to an organization. If you're a young person or in a culture like Japan, you think of the company as your dad, and not going to work for a big company is deciding not to have a mom or a dad. It's just ingrained into their culture. And I think young people traditionally have been insecure thinking, oh, I don't have a parent company to kind of manage

certain aspects of my life from healthcare to certain boundaries. The American corporation is a great platform, but I think this new generation says, I am my own platform. I can go on LinkedIn. I can find jobs. I have my own skills. I don't need to be, I mean, I do respect the fact, I've always thought loyalty to organizations is basically part of a myth fomented by old people who want young people to go to war and kill themselves to protect their land. Because the organization itself is not animate. It's not sentient. It's not concerned with the condition of your soul. It's not going to take care of you when you're older.

So if you don't find a company that makes it worth it for you to not have gigs outside of that job and creates constraints on you that you don't like, young people have more confidence and more access to multiple, you know, to gig work. And I think it's great. Where I think gig work turns ugly is when regulators don't force a certain level of wage requirements or this bullshit like,

you know, fast food companies try to pull a fast one and get people to clock out. I think Uber for a long time was exploiting immigrant labor and basically turning their cars into a payday loan by not ensuring a certain level of minimum wage. So just as the economy is developing around this, I think you are going to need certain levels of protection for them. And also, we just need some level of portable, accessible health insurance. Because one of the things that ties people to regions and to companies, which is bad for the economy, because you want to take human capital and allocate it to its greatest resource, is they're worried to leave their company or leave their region because they're worried about

losing their healthcare. Yeah. So prediction, you imagine this is going to accelerate, that that's going to happen. Regulators are going to require that. Oh, gig work's going to go up. The percentage of people doing gig work, oh, it's going to go up. Young people are more confident. They have more access. The platforms that used to sequester them from a big... I mean, when you were 20, 30 years ago, where did you even advertise your services? Did you take out an ad in the classifieds in the newspaper? Now you put on your LinkedIn profile. Now you put up a website saying, I'm a visual designer, or I'm a landscape architect, or I'm a world-class accountant. And you buy some search terms,

put up a nice website, talk about it on LinkedIn, maybe write a few articles on Medium or on Substack, and boom, if you're good, people will find you. People like to live elsewhere too. You know, everyone who's worked for me at Code, they used to be in the Bay Area, like my friend Leah Lorenzano, who was an amazing, who ran a lot of our stuff, is living up, right now she's covered in snow in Tahoe, but she wanted to live up there. And that's where she lives.

She has a very thriving business from there. Like every single person who worked for me in a much more traditional way, although they were all contractors, is much different in much different situations, living elsewhere, doing other things. Again, it's a much more, it's an easier way to live and you get a lot more options.

Okay, up next, something you and I have discussed before, things. Again, it's a much more, it's an easier way to live and you get a lot more options. Okay, up next, something you and I have discussed before, bachelor's degrees versus technical and vocational training, and which will become more valuable. Just to break down the difference, technical and vocational training, also known as trade schools, tend to be shorter program, focused on specific practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge. From a four-year liberal arts curriculum, the cost of vocational training can be anywhere from a couple thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of liberal arts degrees, of course, from a private university can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. A recent New York Times guest essay argued that the rise of AI could lead to a bigger demand for soft skills because the technical stuff will be handled by AI.

I think both, but I do think we have got to lean, we will be leaning into technical and vocational training. It's where the jobs will be. It's where AI doesn't touch things really as much. And that it gives people dignity of work, especially people who cannot afford a four-year college education or don't want it in a lot of ways. And I think a lot more young people will be vying for a very different way of working. This happens in Europe all the time, okay? It's looked at as a good thing, workers like this. And I think it's a good way to stop people from becoming radicalized, especially workers who are becoming much more radicalized in a weird way of conspiracy theories and all kinds of stuff. And I think it's a great way to build a strong society. And I think we should be leaning into it. I think we will be leaning into it. And it's where the work is. Scott? I'm a big fan of vocational training. And I think that we have shamed, and because we've become so obsessed with tech and elite colleges, and we fetishize them, that we no longer have wood, metal, or auto shop in high school.

I think a lot of young people, specifically a lot of young men, quite frankly, just aren't cut out for college. And that doesn't mean they shouldn't have on-ramps into the middle class. So there's just absolutely no doubt we need more opportunities for vocational programming. And also parents need to stop shaming themselves and their kids and forgive everybody if your kid is one of the two-thirds of American kids that does not end up with a traditional four-year degree. Having said that, and I don't think this is a good thing, and it's one of the unfair things about America, but if you have the opportunity to go to a good four-year liberal arts education and you can afford it, I just don't think I would take advantage of that

experience because there is something about, I was installing shelving. I didn't get into UCLA and I was installing shelving and I was making 18 bucks an hour, which was a lot of money in the early eighties. And I would have gone on to live an okay life, but I got in on appeal to UCLA because the admissions rate was 76% then. Now it's 9%, by the way. I had no idea what I wanted to do, but that four years of marination, that four years of broken heart, that four years of meeting great friends, that four years of history of America with Robert Dalek, those biology classes, those philosophy classes, it was amazing marination and gestation for me. And if you have the opportunity to do that, and you think you would enjoy it, I just would never discourage anyone from doing it. Having

said that, not only some, but the majority of kids aren't cut out for it, and that's fine. But we absolutely need more paths. The problem with some of these technical schools is that their degree mills masquerading as technical schools. So I think the answer, and I'm involved in this and I'm voting with my wallet, is to take our great public school infrastructure and stop this snobbery held by the faculty and the administrators of UCLA and Berkeley should have two-year programs in specialty nursing. That's fine.

That's okay. Some kids can't go to Ford. They should have one-year programs in specialty construction for nuclear power plants. They should have 18-month programs in cybersecurity and also maintenance. Pickleball course. Pickleball course. Whatever it might be, maintenance for HVAC, energy-efficient HVAC. The jobs are out there. So, it's a nuanced answer. If you have the opportunity and you're inclined, you're a good, much less a great student, and you think I would just... The American College land grant four-year experience is a singular experience.

It is wonderful. It's not for everybody. And for those people, we have to provide them with more opportunities. So prediction, you think the government will put more into this

or companies will? The bloom is off the rose of these elite institutions and the self-aggrandizement and arrogance known as university leadership and the transfer-aggrandizement and arrogance known as university leadership, and the transfer of wealth that we have affected by treating our universities as luxury brands, not as public servants. The bloom is off the rose. And both our leadership, our funders,

I mean, I'm just saying a lot of people, I'm one of them. I used to give money to universities to fund scholarships for, the last one I did was scholarship, I'm just seeing a lot of people. I'm one of them. I used to give money to universities to fund, you know, scholarships for the last one I did with scholarship. I'm doing a lot of virtue signaling right now. But the last piece of money I gave was scholarship for the children of immigrants. Now I'm like, no, we need to change this model. We need to start helping young men and young women. They're just not going to get a four-year degree. That's called two-thirds of American kids.

So what, are they just fucked? Does everyone just live in shame? And we know this. You know parents who their kid goes to school for a year. They want to impress mom and dad. And guess what? They're just not cut out for it. And the immediately inclination of all your friends and neighbors and the parents is,

oh, the kid must be mentally ill. He's struggling. She's struggling. No, they're just not cut out for college. That's okay. Yep, I would agree. I think parents have to change their attitudes. I, you know, when Louis was talking about going to the military or doing something else that was I was like, I encouraged him, like if he didn't want to do college, he shouldn't. And it was not, I just, you know, I think it's actually the experience. You're absolutely right.

It's, he's getting an amazing experience and learning as himself as a man, and we'll see. But in Alice's case, he should be because he's going into the thing that he needs, these kind of advanced degrees. So it'll be interesting to see what the next set of kids, how they look at life. Anyway, we think it is going to be a bit bigger than ever and have more respect than ever, and it's already shifted. And I wish, the only thing I would wish in the future is that we respect vocational training and we don't have to necessarily constantly trash colleges. I think colleges have had a wake-up call, as Scott says. So, just a quick story. I went to go, you know, I'm at that age where I'm getting my blood looked at by AI and everything to, you know, figure out when the ass cancer is finally going to get here. And this woman, this woman who took my blood,

I started talking to her, just this lovely young woman, didn't get a college degree, got a degree in nursing specifically around IVs. And she's known as the IV whisperer. And she works for a hospital and she's on three 12-hour shifts where when they can't find the vein, you know, that's happened to all of us, right? They can't find your goddamn vein. They call her. She can find any vein on any individual. That is literally how specialized she is. And I said to her, I said, I am fascinated by this. Can I ask you some questions? She said, sir, she works three 12-hour shifts a week, right? Didn't get a college degree, likes to work, lovely EQ, and has this very minute skill. She makes $180,000 a year. And those jobs are everywhere.

Renovate a house and find the person laying down your tile and ask them how much money they make. They make really good livings. And for all the young people out there who aren't cut out for college and are worried about student debt, what I can tell you, my brothers and sisters, is the mainstream economy, especially in America, has a job for you if you're hardworking and you're a good person and you're willing to find something and put some effort toward it. And we just need to – the landing lights are on for a great student who understands technology. We need to illuminate some more landing fields or more runways for non-traditional vocational jobs. It seems this is the trend that's headed that way. Anyway, finally, the most controversial thing probably is DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion. The best time for DEI jobs was early 2023. There's been an attrition in the industry since,

about 8% so far this year. That's data from Revelio Labs, but also notes the attrition rate for DEI roles has been double that of non-DEI roles. Zoom and Snap have recently made deep cuts to their DEI departments. Everyone across the industry tells me this. This is something that's not new, especially in tech, which was very aggressive. Meanwhile, some business leaders really see the value in DEI, including Mark Cuban, who did a lot of really terrific tweeting about it a few weeks ago. So let's talk about where it's going. I can start if you'd like, Scott, or you want to go first? Yep, you go ahead.

This is no question, this is getting cut. There's just no way, and it's going to get cut even more in the future. Here's the thing. I would go the Cuban way, which is let's find the value in it. I think we probably have to change the name, although I can't understand. Think about it. Diversity, equity, inclusion. So it should be a positive, but it's been badly slapped around by the right and it's worked. So we've got to sort of relook at and incorporate it more. And I thought Mark did a great job of talking about his talent, the reason he does. And he said, DEA does not mean you don't hire on merit. Of course, you hire based on merit. Diversity means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you've

identified the candidates, you hire the person you believe is best. I think that was correct. People, of course, are talking for it. But better talent pool, better talent pool. It has to be. There's no question. You don't have to do checkboxes and quotas. That's where people get funny about it. And Mark did talk about it. And he's right.

If you understand the value of DEI, it's not checklists and quotas. It's understanding how to best compete as a company, whatever works for your company. And these efforts, you can call them anything you want. It's got to go beyond that because that does antagonize people. But it clearly is, you know, it creates a much stronger workplace. It gives you a competitive advantage. And I think smart companies are going to not listen to a lot of the noise around this. And it creates competitive advantages for companies if they do it in the right way. And I think stories like how he did it or other people, I think in the future, still younger generations

want people to prioritize DEI. And I don't care what you call it. Young people want a more diverse workplace. They just do. You can talk to anybody. So I think it's going to continue. It's just going to be called something else because it's gotten so tarnished. And I would urge you to read what Mark said about it. I think he's been at the forefront of this and is smart about how you can do it smartly. There still will always be pushback. And this is a right thing. But I think it's people are getting tired. The right has overplayed its hand here, especially someone like Bill Ackman, who knows nothing about what he's talking about. I'd rather listen to people like Mark Cuban, who have applied it in his workplace. So I think you need to bifurcate it, but the general notion that stakeholders, society, you know, the community shareholders benefit from a workforce that doesn't have to be perfectly calibrated to society, but should at least somewhat reflect it and not be obviously excluding people of certain communities. In the 1990s, I never even realized. I was raising a ton of money for

startups. Everyone else who was raising money was the same person. We were all straight white males with college degrees. We were all the straight. And we never even stopped to ask, and we should have, well, why aren't women raising money for startups? Why have I not met a black CEO at Sequoia's Investor Day? We'd never even bothered to ask the questions. So these are important questions to ask.

There are now laws where you can get severely punished if you're a company, and it's pretty clear that you're advancing certain groups and not others, and you're not hiring from certain groups. And if you have a customer base that is 60% African-American and there isn't an African-American on your board, then something's wrong. All of that makes sense. I believe DEI as a title for an executive is going away. One, because typically where you find DEI departments are in the most already diverse and inclusive places on the planet. And two, it's developed a bad brand. And I would argue it's like having a chief ethics officer. I think this is just common sense. I think this is things that the head of HR and the CEO should take on. I don't think you need a department for this.

And I think in some instances, it's gotten to the point where it is unwittingly actually become somewhat biased itself. I don't think it's working. I think it played a role, but I think this is common sense. I think this is basic decency. I think there are laws for this. I think it's good for shareholder value. My prediction, and I'm not, you know, is the DEI as a moniker for an executive is going away. Okay. It's going away. And what will replace it?

The CEO is ultimately responsible for shareholder value and is responsible for growing shareholder value. And I think a diverse workforce with different viewpoints adds to shareholder value. I think that's just common sense. And I also think the HR person and your chief legal counsel is well within their rights and smart to stand up and say, okay, you realize that of our workforce that is diverse below VP, and then once it gets to VP, becomes less diverse, we are subjecting ourselves correctly and justifiably to massive lawsuits. we are subjecting ourselves correctly and justifiably to massive lawsuits. So even if you have biases internally, guys, you got to check back on these because it's about to hurt us because there are going to be justifiable lawsuits against us because it appears that while we have a very diverse workforce for people making less than 100 grand, when we decide to give out keys to the executive washroom, it seems to be all people with outdoor plumbing and pale skin. And that was happening across

America. And then plaintiff's attorneys came in and said, this person had the same job references, the same performance, but never seemed to get above a certain level than the dude. So I think this is going to become part and should be just part of what it means to be a good manager and a good executive. Well, perfect. All right. So what's it going to be called? Being the CEO or the chief legal counsel or being the head of HR. Yeah. I think it's got to be more integrated. Again, people should have the experience, should understand that it's become one of these things like woke or virtue signaling. There's been a whole bunch of words that get abused, which are for good things in general, but have

to change the meaning of very valuable. And again, another thing, whether you think, you know, I got rid of DEI. Young people don't like this. They just don't. They most do in your workforce, and you need to inspire them in some fashion. Okay, Scott, that's it for the first episode of our three-part series on the future of work. We'll be back with some deeper dives on AI and remote work coming out soon. Read us out. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Dertot engineered this episode.

Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Mille Severio. Nishat Kerouac is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown

of all things tech and business.