The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - The Fed's Next Move, and How Couples Should Actually Handle Money

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

Scott Galloway breaks down why the Fed may raise rates instead of cutting them, unpacks the shifting dynamics of money and separate accounts in modern relationships, and explains how to protect your work when your success starts attracting competition. Want to be featured in a future episode? Send a voice recording to [e-mail], or drop your question in the r/ScottGalloway subreddit. Plus, you can now call or text Scott a question at our new Office Hours hotline: ‪[phone]‬. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Engine. Running a small business means every dollar has to work hard, but if your team is still booking travel the old way, it's costing you more than you think. Engine is the fastest growing travel and spend platform in the country, built specifically for businesses like yours. Book a trip in as little as two and a half minutes. Earn up to 10% back on hotels,

and in 2025, engine customers saved more than $300 million on travel, with zero booking fees, no contract, and no BS. More than 1,000 businesses join Engine every month. Join them and get $500 when you sign up and start traveling at engine.com slash prof G. One day, with the help of science, you might be able to live forever. Forever. Your body will just need a couple tune-ups.

Injecting bone marrow in your 40s, your kidney in your 50s, your heart in your 60s, and so on, and then potentially a whole body transplant by the time that you were 90. This week on Explain It to Me, The Quest for Longevity. Find new episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Office Hours of Prop G. This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship, and whatever else is on your mind. Anyway, if you'd like to submit a question for next time, you can send a voice recording to Office Hours of Proptchimedia.com. Again, that's Office Hours at Proptiontumedia.com. Or post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit.

We just might feature it in our next episode. Plus, you can now call or text a question at 201-472-3656. 201-472-3656. Let's bust right into it. Question number one. Our first question comes from bargers on Reddit. Hi, Scott, with Warsh coming on next week having his first press conference on Wednesday, he's been quoted saying he's not a fan of the longer-term projections coming from the Fed.

Do you think markets will become more volatile if he announced some major changes? Hmm. So in his first few weeks, Warsh has declined to submit a dot-plot projection and announced a broad review of Fed communications. He did not lower interest rates, despite that being the suspected reason Trump nominated him. I don't see how he could have. If he'd lowered interest rates, I think markets would have crashed. They would have said, oh, fuck, here we are.

We're Hungary or Argentina. The job apocalypse that was supposed to happen has not, in fact, manifested. Job growth is actually strong, but inflation numbers are even worse than the job. market is strong coming in, I think, 4.2%. So there's no fucking way this guy could reasonably cut interest rates. There's even now, I think, a greater than 50% likelihood he raises rates by the end of the year. His also, in terms of low lights from Chairman Warsh, during his confirmation, he refused to acknowledge that Biden had won the election in 2020. So, I mean, you know, I understand. I think he's qualified. I also think he's a little bitch and afraid to actually

speak truth to power, which is what you want in a Fed chairman. But having said that, it is, it's a group of, I think, 12 governors. So we overestimate the power that the chair has. But yeah, there was no way he was going to lower interest rates. The core issue with the dot plot and forward guidance, investors tend to misinterpret these as promises rather than projections. And they can make the Fed slow to respond to market changes because they feel compelled to follow through on their projections. You know, the debate around forward guidance is, really a debate around anchors. In an interview with Bloomberg, Torsten Slocke, friend of the pod, and chief economist Apollo global management described the central bank tradeoff as forward

guidance being that while it helps understand where markets are headed, it can be counterproductive when conditions change unexpectedly. And concerns about, everyone is always worried about communications coming out of the Fed because the media and the markets parse over every word. Jerome Powell or Chairman Powell publicly expressed reservations about the dot plot, and it's tendency to be misunderstood by investors, but noted the reform efforts stalled because the committee struggled to identify a better alternative. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari has highlighted that the dot plot forces policymakers to provide precise forecasts without being able to convey their level of uncertainty.

The question moving forward is how does he plan to reform, if at all, the current framework and what replaces it? I find generally speaking, once a metric becomes universally accepted, it's no longer no longer valid or no longer doing his job. But so far, okay, he's batting a thousand. If he'd lowered interest rates, I think the markets would be in a state of panic. And I think once anyone gets a job, whether it's someone elected mayor, you rally around them and hope for the best. He is qualified. He worked to Morgan Stanley. Smart guy. This is a very important position. I think it's a 12-year appointment, so we're going to get some time or we're going to have some time to get to know,

Chairman Warsh, thanks for the question. Question number two comes from Reddit. Ill category 2486 says, hi, Scott, what do you think of saying his money is our money, my money is my money? I think that's a little bit sexist. So what you're saying is, I think what you're referring to is that sometimes in a relationship a wife will say, his money is our money and my money is shit, I don't know. like attitudes around share finances are changing

more slowly than behavior. There's some cognitive dissonance. In 45% of heterosexual marriages in the U.S., wives bring in the same amount or more than their husbands, that's three times the share 50 years ago. That's a celebrate. That's a success.

If women hadn't entered the workforce and we didn't provide certain legal protections for them in the workforce, we'd be a second-rate power to China or second rate economic power to China. 23% of married couples don't have a joint bank account, one in four. Two-thirds of couples in committed relationships keep some money separate from their partner. And younger couples are leading this trend.

Gen Z, about 88%, keep separate accounts. Millennials 70% Gen X-59. So basically, younger people, the trend is younger people are having more separate accounts. So the data would show that when men were making more separate accounts. all the money, it was our money. That's interesting. And now that women are making as much money are more than men, then there's a separation, which I find, look, I think there's a difference, generally speaking, in the behaviors and approaches to a lot of things between people born as men and women. Does that mean that men can't exhibit very feminine behavior and men and women can't

exhibit masculine behavior? No. But in an effort not to piss off the woke middle or act as if non-binary community isn't entitled to the same rights, which they are, we never want to talk about the 90% that identify as male or female. And also, we don't want to have a productive conversation around the fact that are very real differences that are rooted in biology, just get, just invite 10, 8-year-olds over five girls, five boys, put cars and dolls in a room and see what happened. I find that women, in general, are more conservative with money because for a long time, women have been economically disadvantaged and, quite frankly, more vulnerable than men. Women have kids. Women are more likely to feel fidelity and loyalty to that child, even when

dad takes off, and as a result, are more vulnerable. The most vulnerable point of my life, the most anxiety-riddled part of my life was when my dad pieced out to Ohio with his new wife and continued his ascent up the ladder to upper middle class. And me and my mom immediately dove to the kind of what I call the upper lower middle class. And my mom felt very vulnerable. And the job opportunities available to my dad who left school of the eighth grade were a universe different than the job. The jobs available to my mother who also dropped out of school in the eighth grade. She could either be a secretary or a travel agent.

That was pretty much it. She couldn't even be a teacher because she didn't have the credentialing. Whereas my dad, who was handsome and Scottish, could be a salesperson and make a very good living. By the way, I think things have changed for the better, quite frankly. So I understand that a lot of women feel more economically vulnerable and are more prone. Is it true, are women better savers? I don't know. There's probably some good research on this. A little over 70 percent of adults say it's very important for men to be able to support a family financially to be a good husband and partner. So the conversation between man,

and wife. Back to the question around money. So it was a delicate one. I think it's a conversation people should have before they get married. The number one source of marital strain is not infidelity, lack of shared values, it's money. And I think it's important to have an honest conversation around, one, what kind of lifestyle are we expecting? Who is responsible for the economic part of that lifestyle? What is each of our approach to spending? I know guys that control their wives with money. They get an alert every time they spend money on a credit card. And it's a constant negotiation involving money. And I think that's a really unhelp.

At the same time, just to be an equal opportunity sexes here, I know some relationships where, quite frankly, the woman sees it as it a game to see how much money she can spend or get away with. So the healthiest relationships I find are when men and women have alignment around their approach to money, who is responsible for bringing in in, what is their approach to spending, I believe in co-mingling money. I think if you're going to be married and you're going to share a life together

and share kids, then it's kind of one account. I've never had separate accounts. I just think that's, I personally think that's strange. Having said that, it probably works for some people. I think this is a very, you know, individual thing.

I don't think there's a right way. There's just your way. But one of the keys, I think, to a successful long-term relationship is alignment around money, alignment. How much do you expect to make? What are the tradeoffs? I need you to be home more. Your wife's working. I need you to be home more and help out with my kids. Maybe your husband stays in home. Well, okay, we can't afford this house in Connecticut then. We can, I can't imagine what it would be like

to have one person at home and living in any of these blue cities that are crazy expensive unless you're smart enough to have rich parents. So what's a conversation? Where are we going to live? What are our expenses? What are the tradeoffs? What are the commitments? And do we both have alignment around that? I think it's also what I do. I sit down with my partner and I go through our finances on a regular basis. I want her to know what I'm investing in. Where we're making money. How much money do we have? Did we lose money last month in the market? I don't think, I think the worst thing you can have in a relationship is not difficult conversations. It's surprises, right? It's, oh, we can't afford to take a vacation because I lost money trading options or our stocks are way down or, you know,

whatever it might be. Or we got a huge tax bill. Maybe it's not your fault or you haven't done anything wrong. But I think a certain level of transparency and regular conversations around this taboo, this taboo topic called money. I think it's really important early on. I was getting very serious with a woman, actually a woman who was in residency to be a surgeon, and she was talking about her student debt.

And I thought this was a woman that I would eventually have a long-term relationship with. And I said to her, I said, this is how much money I have. These are my stocks. This is what I'm trying to do with my business. This is how much I'm worth. This is how much money I spend.

Because I wanted her to know everything about me. And as we started thinking about a long-term relationship, I wanted to be totally transparent, and she was transparent with me. She was like, I want to be a surgeon, this is how much money I'm going to spend, this is my student debt. So we could get something resembling alignment

around our economic future together. Young people are really good at figuring out romantic energy. What they're not good at figuring out is how, if they have a shared vision around what the next 7,000 Tuesdays feel like, and part of that is the bills and the expenditures on that Tuesday and the other six days a week. So in sum, I do think that women feel more economically vulnerable for good reason based on history.

I do think that it's up to you. it's clear young people want to have separate accounts. I think quite frankly, you could argue that now that women are making more money, they've decided they want separate accounts. Okay. That's up to the individual couple. But the key is this term alignment. Have open, honest, uncomfortable conversations. It's like raising kids. Have the uncomfortable conversations now. You're being an asshole. You need, no, you have to go to school. No, you can't speak to your mother that way. No, you can't behave like this. No, if it's 11 p.m., you've got to a call and tell us where you are. Have those uncomfortable conversations now such that they're not

assholes later in life or less of an asshole. I think it's worthwhile to have those uncomfortable conversations when you start to get serious with someone about money and try and be as transparent as possible around what you're and their expectations are. Again, the key word is alignment. Thanks for the question. We'll be right back after a quick break. Support for the show comes from Engine. The company's winning right now aren't cutting travel. They're booking smarter. Here's the reality. The average business traveler spends 45 minutes booking a single trip on a legacy platform. With Engine, that booking time drops to as little as two and a half minutes. And its AI-powered personalization gets faster the more you use it. Multiply that across your

team, every trip every year. That's not a perk. That's a competitive advantage. Last year, Engine customers saved more than $300 million on travel because the platform negotiates rates no one else can get. Exclusive deals you won't find anywhere else. And with the Engine Xx, card, get up to 10% back on any hotel booking. 33,000 businesses have joined. Now it's your turn. Get $500 when your business signs up and starts traveling at engine.com slash prop G. EngineX visa commercial cards are issued by Fifth Third Bank, N-A member FDIC.

Earn up to 10% back in points on eligible engine travel purchases. Actual reward rates vary by purchase category and may change. Points have no cash value in or redeemable rewards through our program. See full reward terms for details and go to engine.com slash ad. slash rewards dash terms. Welcome back. Question number three comes from a listener who texted us. Scott, my question is, in a large organization, how do you handle situations where you take the risk early, but once that risk pays off, everyone wants a piece of it. Should you fight to protect your territory, share the credit, and trust it will come back to you, or focus on the next opportunity instead?

Yeah, welcome to the work world. Failure as an orphan and success has many fathers. So I would just, and as elegant but, you know, least obnoxious way as possible, whether it's providing updates on what's going on with the division or what have you. I would even say to your boss, this occasionally in a review say, it kind of pisses me off that everyone else is getting credit for this or it's disappointing. Some of that also might be paranoia that you don't think you're getting the credit you deserve. but there was a line in law and order SVU saying it's not enough to do well in politics. You have to be seen doing well. If you're talking about credit in terms of praise of who did a good job or who gets credit for something,

I find that good leaders share a disproportionate amount of the credit. One of the things I always really respected about Mayor Bloomberg was whenever there was an announcement or a ribbon cutting, And he was there, but he would immediately say a few words and then step back and highlight the good work of other people. It's one of the things I find most off-putting about Elon Musk. Do you know anyone else at Elon Musk coming? No one is allowed to get near a mic unless it's Elon. It's all about Elon all the time. So I find sharing credit is actually a key component of a good leader. Now, in terms of if you're talking about economics, there's agreements in place. If you're looking for justice, you're not going to find it in a cap table.

Whenever I sold one of my companies and I go down and see who is getting what, there's an equity everywhere. It's like, oh, so-and-so. I remember one person who worked part-time for us who lived in Chicago, ended up getting, I think, half a million or a million bucks in the buyout of L2. And quite frankly, she just didn't add a lot of value. And I remember thinking, well, that's unfair. Okay, yeah, it's unfair.

Good for her. And then there were other people who had been around for years and low-level jobs, and they, for whatever reason, didn't have a lot of equity. And quite frankly, they just didn't make that much money. Now, what you can do if you're senior in a company that happens is you can try and top them up such that they get a bigger hit. And I actually, when I sold L2, there were three or six instances where I felt people needed greater participation. And I went back to my VCs, General Catalyst, and said, can we top these people up? And it's not free money. It means that everybody else, including general catalyst, gets less money.

And they did something I've never observed a venture capitalists do. They said yes. And they took the dilution to top up people they had never met before. So if it's sharing credit, I think the sign of a good leader is to overshare credit, if and where possible. I'm constantly trying to highlight the good work of the team because I get so much disproportionate credit for what we do here just naturally. people don't want to take selfies with the producer of this podcast because they don't know who she is, despite the fact that she is largely responsible for the success of this program. But if it's money, there's legal agreements in place. And maybe you have a chance to adjust up or down,

but it kind of is what it is. And it shouldn't be really much of a discussion. It's okay, according to the agreement you signed and I signed, this is how much you're getting in this situation. So this is on you to figure out an elegant way to people, to make sure that people, understand that you're sort of the owner or the father or the mother of this project, but I can't give you specific, you know, specific tactics here. I would raise the issue in trying to discern your own ego from the reality of the situation, but also if you aren't recognized in terms of compensation or opportunities, you might want to think about looking for another job because that means the culture is not

a fit for you or just not a great culture. Thanks for the question. That's all for this episode. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to office hours ofproctummedia.com. That's office hours of proptuemedia.com. Or if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit. And we might feature it in an upcoming episode. This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Jenaer.

Cameric is our social producer. Brad Williams is our editor. And Drew Burroughs is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Propgey Pop from Provegy Media. Hey, y'all. It's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? What if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old.

You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home.