Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast. I'm Paul swing you.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Brahmas. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for you
Speaker 1: and your money, whether at the grocery store or the
Speaker 1: trading floor. Find a Bloomberg penl podcast on Apple podcast
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com. There is a question, a burning question
Speaker 1: of why there is such a lack of women at
Speaker 1: tech companies and at finance companies. And joining us now
Speaker 1: at the Bloomberg Business of Equality Summit is Sharon Bowen.
Speaker 1: She has a partner at Seneca Women, which is an
Speaker 1: app designed to promote women in technology. She also happens
Speaker 1: to be the former commissioner of the u s c FTC,
Speaker 1: the Commodity Features Trading Commission. We are so happy to
Speaker 1: have you, Sharon, Thank you for being with us. I
Speaker 1: want to start with where are we How much progress
Speaker 1: have we actually made when it comes to these male
Speaker 1: dominated fields like technology and banking. We're making progress, but
Speaker 1: frankly a little bit too slowly in my opinion. UM.
Speaker 1: One of the stats that went a highlight is when
Speaker 1: we look at global bank CEOs only two percent of women.
Speaker 1: When we look at global bank boards, less than twenty
Speaker 1: percent of women. And so I think in finance we
Speaker 1: definitely have a leadership gap that we need to fail. So, Sharon, I,
Speaker 1: I've spent uh, you know, over twenty five years on
Speaker 1: Wall Street, and what I noticed over the years and
Speaker 1: doing a lot of recruiting is, you know, incoming recruiting
Speaker 1: class of young folks out of business school or something
Speaker 1: that looks really representative of the overall population in terms
Speaker 1: of gender and and and and ethnicity, but as you
Speaker 1: go through the ranks, it really just becomes more male,
Speaker 1: more white. And what do you think corporate America generally
Speaker 1: can do to kind of support women's support minorities throughout
Speaker 1: their career paths? Um, And you're right. We I think
Speaker 1: we've solved the pipeline problem that used to be the
Speaker 1: paradigm where are they we can't find them? Um? I
Speaker 1: think we solved that problem. UM. But I think companies
Speaker 1: have to look at um themselves holistically, what barriers that
Speaker 1: they are that may be preventing people to success. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, whether or not UM, we consider not just
Speaker 1: things like you know, flex time, but frankly, equal pay. Um,
Speaker 1: that's one way we can change the dynamic. And I
Speaker 1: think more importantly, you know, I think one of the
Speaker 1: messes out there is that, you know, we don't need
Speaker 1: to fix the women, We need to fix the system.
Speaker 1: And so I think companies need to be a lot
Speaker 1: more intentional and approaching these issues and finding ways to
Speaker 1: engage their employees UM in a better way. So what
Speaker 1: are some reasons why? I mean, just to give a
Speaker 1: sense of what you have done, because your career has
Speaker 1: been storied, It's been tremendous, including UH being a corporate
Speaker 1: transactional lawyer, Davis Polk, Latham and Watkins of the most
Speaker 1: premier law firms. Why aren't there more women atop these
Speaker 1: high paying fields that typically are among the most respected
Speaker 1: in society. Well, you know, if I had to start
Speaker 1: with the wise, why women aren't at the table, why
Speaker 1: women aren't getting equal pay, why women aren't dancing? Frankly,
Speaker 1: we could be here for a while. Um, so just
Speaker 1: three minutes, um. But you know what I'd like to
Speaker 1: focus much more on is is sort of the future.
Speaker 1: And I quoted earlier May Jamison, who was the first
Speaker 1: African American UH woman astronaut to travel in space, and
Speaker 1: she said, the future never just happened, it was created.
Speaker 1: And so I think it's our job to, you know,
Speaker 1: harness our collective power, our knowledge to create a different future,
Speaker 1: and the future that we really want to see. So
Speaker 1: it's at at Seneca Women. I know you've created new
Speaker 1: technology product to address some of these issues. So Seneca Connect,
Speaker 1: can you tell us a little bit about that? Yes, So,
Speaker 1: Seneca Connect is the first app design to advance women
Speaker 1: at work and in the economy. We work with Apple
Speaker 1: to create it. We were one of eleven women own
Speaker 1: business entrepreneurs selected for the first Apple Entrepreneurship Camp and
Speaker 1: I'm really excited about that and the fact that our
Speaker 1: Apple is really trending wealth in the app store. You
Speaker 1: can download it for free. We also have an enterprise
Speaker 1: versions for corporations to help them create a much more
Speaker 1: diverse and inclusive culture. How does it do that? What
Speaker 1: does it actually do? So we give daily content tips
Speaker 1: and tactics lessons from um more leaders. We give you
Speaker 1: tools and resources that you can use to to move
Speaker 1: to move the needle, if you will, and we use
Speaker 1: it as a way for companies to engage their employees
Speaker 1: with feedback, because we know with greater employee engagement, you
Speaker 1: get better productivity, you get better profitability, and people feel
Speaker 1: better about coming to work every day. Yeah. It's really
Speaker 1: interesting and definitely something that we've seen again and again
Speaker 1: showing that the broader the viewpoints, the broader, uh, the
Speaker 1: diversity of people's backgrounds and experiences, the better the business case.
Speaker 1: Have you found that most companies are receptive to that story. Well,
Speaker 1: not only their receptive, but I think that the data
Speaker 1: bear set out I think pretty much through all me tricks, um,
Speaker 1: I think we're now sort of pass that that proof
Speaker 1: if you will. It's just not doing it, yeah, which
Speaker 1: is which is good. It's about doing it um. And
Speaker 1: it's also about being you know, much more intentional in
Speaker 1: terms of where we invest our money and UH and
Speaker 1: making sure that we support women owned businesses. And I
Speaker 1: think earlier I mentioned that only you know, two percent
Speaker 1: of VC funds and four percent of bank loans go
Speaker 1: to women owned businesses, which I find that troubling, particularly
Speaker 1: given them out of wealth that women control, I think
Speaker 1: we will be controlling something like seventy two twillion dollars
Speaker 1: of global wealth by so we need to use that
Speaker 1: money that we have in our big accounts and private
Speaker 1: equity funds to make sure we can lend to women,
Speaker 1: because it's puzzling to me why we can't use our
Speaker 1: own money to lend to women. So yeah, the seventy
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars in my bank account, Polly, I'll be
Speaker 1: right there for Sharon Brown, Thank you so much. Sharon
Speaker 1: is a partner at Seneca Women, also a former commissioner
Speaker 1: of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commison. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Joining us here a Bloomberg at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business of Equality Summit. Here at the Bloomberg HQ
Speaker 1: in New York, we are broadcasting live from the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business of Equality Summit at Bloomberg Headquarters in New York.
Speaker 1: We are so excited to bring in our next guest,
Speaker 1: Caroline Tasted, Group of President for North America for Procter
Speaker 1: and Gamble, joining us after her panel on gender equality.
Speaker 1: And I've got to say, when you talk about equality,
Speaker 1: what is the ultimate goal? I mean, what is sort of, uh,
Speaker 1: the best case scenario of a fully equal boardroom or
Speaker 1: a fully equal company look like to you. Thanks Lasa.
Speaker 1: It's a pleasure to be here. Uh. And what it
Speaker 1: means to us from an overall standpoint for PNG is uh,
Speaker 1: frankly winning. Uh. You know. So we know that when
Speaker 1: we have any good, when we have an equal world,
Speaker 1: when we create a world where we have equal voice
Speaker 1: for women and men and for all individuals, that communities
Speaker 1: are healthier, businesses thrived, the world's a better place for
Speaker 1: all of us. And so from a business perspective, we
Speaker 1: know it's a key contributor to growth. And so for me,
Speaker 1: equality equals winning and a great place to work. So
Speaker 1: within PNG, a global organization, a huge organization, what are
Speaker 1: some success stories that have pushed equality and diversity through
Speaker 1: in your organization? And then commercially, what are some of
Speaker 1: the stumbling blocks you guys will come up against? Great question? Uh,
Speaker 1: From a from an overall standpoint, we at P ANDNG
Speaker 1: have what we call our principles, are values, our purpose
Speaker 1: as a company, and so our value is very deeply
Speaker 1: tied to a world where everybody gets to bring their
Speaker 1: full self to work. So equality very broadly um identified
Speaker 1: and we think about that from all types of intersectionality,
Speaker 1: both visible and invisible. As you think about that, so
Speaker 1: that's a core part of who we are as a company.
Speaker 1: It's a really big part of why I'm still with
Speaker 1: this company more than thirty years later. It's just a
Speaker 1: great company to work for, and it's a company that
Speaker 1: values individuals, and so that's certainly a starting point as
Speaker 1: we think about equality. We also know that it's really
Speaker 1: important what a company stands for. What a company works
Speaker 1: on is important to the stakeholders around it, whether those
Speaker 1: are investors, whether those are partners, consumers, customers, are employees.
Speaker 1: It's really important today for companies to speak up on
Speaker 1: issues that are important to all of those stakeholders, and
Speaker 1: that's what we do with our citizenship voice. And one
Speaker 1: of those part one of part of that voice is
Speaker 1: really equality, whether it be gender equality, whether it be
Speaker 1: diversity inclusion in a very broad in a very broad perspective.
Speaker 1: So they're growing number of socially responsible funds and people
Speaker 1: who are looking to investing companies that do focus more
Speaker 1: on equality. How does one measure it? I mean, from
Speaker 1: your perspective, how should people look at a more equal company?
Speaker 1: What should that look like? It's a great We think
Speaker 1: about it as equal representation, but we also think about
Speaker 1: it as equal voice. And those might be different things.
Speaker 1: It's hard to measure. It is hard to measure. Representations
Speaker 1: not hard to measure. Representation is not hard to measure,
Speaker 1: but you can also we all do company engagement surveys.
Speaker 1: We all get feedback from our employees. We work very
Speaker 1: hard to have dialogue so that we can get employees
Speaker 1: feedback on what's working or not working. And so that's
Speaker 1: where the engagement comes in. And you think about we
Speaker 1: know that engagement drivers are for our employees are really
Speaker 1: making sure that they have a company they can be
Speaker 1: proud of, They have a they feel like they can
Speaker 1: make a difference in the work that they do every day. Uh,
Speaker 1: they have a place to really learn, to grow, to
Speaker 1: advance their career. All of those are engagement drivers. And
Speaker 1: a part of what delivers that for people is a
Speaker 1: company that stands for things that are good. We want
Speaker 1: to be a force for good within the world that
Speaker 1: we live in today, with in the communities that are
Speaker 1: people live, in the communities we serve, and we also
Speaker 1: believe that when we integrate that, when we get that
Speaker 1: right and it's fully integrated to the business, which is
Speaker 1: always our intention, it always it also becomes a force
Speaker 1: for good for growth. Rather, we're speaking with Carol and
Speaker 1: Tested P and G North American Group President on diversity equality.
Speaker 1: One of the ways I think we can measure it
Speaker 1: is in the paycheck. And I know there's a US
Speaker 1: government issue about paycheck transparency where you know, I guess
Speaker 1: you have to report dated about you know, pay on
Speaker 1: gender and race and so on and so forth. Does
Speaker 1: that's the P AND embraces we look very carefully pay equality.
Speaker 1: That we are very committed to pay equality and making
Speaker 1: sure that we pay equally for equal work, equal pay
Speaker 1: across any any aspect. And so we audit that externally,
Speaker 1: we work on that internally, we measure it to make
Speaker 1: sure we deliver pay equality, and we feel very good
Speaker 1: about our work in that place. We have a very
Speaker 1: very high correlation to equal pay, will work for women,
Speaker 1: for men, for people of color. That said, the other
Speaker 1: thing we said is a very high standard for ourselves.
Speaker 1: We are not fifty fifty yet at the very top
Speaker 1: of our company. We are committed to get there, but
Speaker 1: we're not there yet. And if you think about all
Speaker 1: of the studies from a pay equality and a pay transparency,
Speaker 1: the biggest contributor to pay inequality is lack of women's
Speaker 1: representation and people of color representation at the very top
Speaker 1: of organizations. And so while we feel great about the
Speaker 1: work that we do and our and our intentionality of
Speaker 1: equal pay, equal work, we also know that we contribute
Speaker 1: to the wealth gap by virtue of not having equal representation,
Speaker 1: and we're very committed to closing that. Where are we
Speaker 1: in terms of making progress in this front? Remember last
Speaker 1: year we talked about some of the brands that Procter
Speaker 1: and Gamble has, whether it's Bounty or charmin or Crest
Speaker 1: and Dawn, and I'm thinking of the advertisements they'll see
Speaker 1: on television, and they do represent you know, more diverse
Speaker 1: families and different living situations. And we talked about how
Speaker 1: that's conscious, it's it's it's very intentional thing. I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: is there ever pushback from consumers, are from you know,
Speaker 1: groups of people that perhaps aren't aren't necessarily you know,
Speaker 1: loving that there can be. There certainly can be for
Speaker 1: when we get it right for our consumers, for the
Speaker 1: people were targeting. We we tend to do well, but
Speaker 1: certainly there are situations where we take a stand on
Speaker 1: things and it's uh and we get different reactions. So
Speaker 1: you may have seen our Gillette campaign that we launched
Speaker 1: in January, which is really all about believing in the
Speaker 1: very best of men, believing in men, setting a great
Speaker 1: role model for the next generation. But when we launched
Speaker 1: that campaign, we had different reactions. Did you know that
Speaker 1: it was going to be as controversially expected that it
Speaker 1: would We expected that it would be and some of
Speaker 1: the reaction, UM was a very orchestrated campaign in that
Speaker 1: from that regard, but we really felt very committed to
Speaker 1: the message. We feel very committed to be leaving in
Speaker 1: the best of men. We feel very committed to what
Speaker 1: men can do to take a stand and and role
Speaker 1: model what we need in the next generation. And uh,
Speaker 1: and we believe in the best of men. Do you
Speaker 1: think that it ended up being a positive for the
Speaker 1: business as well? I think it's I think it can
Speaker 1: be a positive for the business. One of the things
Speaker 1: that was really um noticeable, and you know, we measure
Speaker 1: everything and we we failure. We worked to be very
Speaker 1: authentic in our voice, because if you're not authentic, it
Speaker 1: comes across as that. But certainly, if you think about
Speaker 1: Generation Z or millennials under thirty, we had a very
Speaker 1: positive reaction. They had a very positive reaction to that
Speaker 1: entire campaign. UM. And frankly, our intention with that was
Speaker 1: to spark a conversation, to spark a dialogue, to have
Speaker 1: people talk about it and and learn and and create discussion.
Speaker 1: And we certainly did that, and that was the intention. Carol. Then, Tasta,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Carol is a
Speaker 1: group president for North America for Proctor and Gamble baseds Cincinnati,
Speaker 1: of course, but joining us here at the Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: of Equality Summit at Bloomberg Headquarters in New York City.
Speaker 1: We can we can all attest. It's very sunny out
Speaker 1: to what I'm saying, we have said in our eyes
Speaker 1: and everything. Carol, thank you so much. Clearly, Lisa, you
Speaker 1: know a compelling issue for corporate America. You know, it's
Speaker 1: I think that the data has been clear for years
Speaker 1: that equality, diversity within the companies, within the board rooms,
Speaker 1: it's good business. You see it in superior performance, So
Speaker 1: that data is pretty clear. Well, Immigration and the accompanying
Speaker 1: nationalism was certainly a central theme to the presidential election,
Speaker 1: and it has become even more prominent under the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: UM to see how business and political leaders are navigating
Speaker 1: this complex issue. We welcome Ali Irani. Ali is the
Speaker 1: executive director of the National Immigration Form based in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. But he joins us here today at the
Speaker 1: bloom Burg Business of Equality Summit here at the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: headquarters in New York. Ali, welcome to Bloomberg. You know,
Speaker 1: how does immigration reform and the rise of nationalism impact
Speaker 1: corporate America? How how's corporate America dealing with this? We
Speaker 1: we know it's a political issue, but how is it
Speaker 1: from the business perspective? Well, our senses that corporate America
Speaker 1: is really trying to parse out the politics from the policy. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, clearly this is a really intense political debate
Speaker 1: at the national level, but corporate leadership across the country
Speaker 1: is really trying to understand how do they serve their
Speaker 1: immigrant consumers, but also how do they integrate and support
Speaker 1: their foreign board workforce and really kind of create a
Speaker 1: corporate family culture. Um. We've been actually working closely with
Speaker 1: corporations from Walmart to Chobani, to Commons and and many
Speaker 1: others to really help them, uh, develop the strategies to
Speaker 1: better integrate their foreign board workforce and provide the skills
Speaker 1: and opportunities so that all of us can thrive. So
Speaker 1: you've been doing this a long time, right, how much
Speaker 1: is what we're seeing now in terms of the wave
Speaker 1: of now tionalism different from periods of time in the past,
Speaker 1: both that you've seen as well as just in the
Speaker 1: history books in the United States, if you look at
Speaker 1: the history books. Uh, I mean, the sad part of
Speaker 1: our nation, Sistor, is that we have a long track
Speaker 1: record of not being very nice to the people who
Speaker 1: come after us. Um, you know, the turn of the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century. Uh, you know, there have been peaks and
Speaker 1: valids of this debate. What's different now is that we
Speaker 1: have a media environment that is very quick, is very partisan,
Speaker 1: and brings that picture, that sound of the family fleeing
Speaker 1: violence or corruption or poverty to your living room. So
Speaker 1: there's a perception or feeling that, you know, the refugee
Speaker 1: fleeing Syria, the migrant fleeing Honduras is going to be
Speaker 1: your next door neighbor tomorrow. So what can leaders do
Speaker 1: in the corporate sector, in the public sector due to
Speaker 1: help the American public understand global migration? I mean, look,
Speaker 1: this is going to be one of the top issues
Speaker 1: for generations to come. Sixty million people are forcibly displaced. Today,
Speaker 1: over two fifty million people live in another outside of
Speaker 1: their home country. This issue isn't going away. We need
Speaker 1: leadership from the corporate sector, which is emerging UM, as
Speaker 1: well as from the elected officials. So you've traveled to
Speaker 1: Honduras to Mexico. You've seen what the US southern border
Speaker 1: issue is on the other side. What what are some
Speaker 1: of your experiences there. So a few weeks ago as
Speaker 1: part of a delegation that went from San Pedro Sula
Speaker 1: in Honduras to El Paso and into Juarez. And what's
Speaker 1: really clear is that in a country like Honduras it's
Speaker 1: just eight million people, not a very large country population wise, UM,
Speaker 1: it is a very it's undergoing a very very toxic
Speaker 1: mix of corruption, violence and poverty. So people are now
Speaker 1: at this point they're saying, you know what, as a group,
Speaker 1: we can be safe by walking to the US to
Speaker 1: seek asylum and safety. This administration, unfortunately, has done everything
Speaker 1: in their power to stop people from being able to
Speaker 1: seek asylum. The amazing part is that when we were
Speaker 1: in Ola Passo, you have the faith community, the business community,
Speaker 1: law enforcement who want to make sure that people can
Speaker 1: apply for asylum in a safe and fair way. If
Speaker 1: people don't apply or don't are not eligible, they should
Speaker 1: they shouldn't be out to remain. So we're not saying
Speaker 1: everybody should be able to come. We should be able
Speaker 1: to say if people are seeking asylum, they should be
Speaker 1: able to apply for asylum. So one of the big
Speaker 1: arguments against allowing having an easier policy of bringing in
Speaker 1: immigrants is that they will take jobs and they will
Speaker 1: accept lower wages than people who are already in the
Speaker 1: United States will accept, and that will drive down how
Speaker 1: much people get paid. What have you seen with respect
Speaker 1: to that? And uh, you know, is that is anything
Speaker 1: changing on that front? Yeah, So a few years ago
Speaker 1: there's a national Caddegis of Science panel that get the
Speaker 1: leading academics in the country looking at precisely this question. Um,
Speaker 1: and we have to be honest about it. Um. At
Speaker 1: the high skill or even the middle skill level, there
Speaker 1: is no impact and it grows quickly. At the positive
Speaker 1: impact grows quickly over time. That's the h one B
Speaker 1: issue probably probably right at the lower skill is level
Speaker 1: of their economy, there is a small impact on wages.
Speaker 1: We're talking you know, one percent impact more or less
Speaker 1: that impact. Negative impact dissipates quite quickly as you move
Speaker 1: through time, so net benefit to the economy at large
Speaker 1: is positive. The questions that American workers have and their
Speaker 1: families have, because ultimately we all want the same thing.
Speaker 1: We want our children to do better than us, is real.
Speaker 1: So I think as advocates, as corporate leaders, we have
Speaker 1: to be honest about that conversation and help people understand
Speaker 1: that immigrants are creating jobs, they're protecting American values, and
Speaker 1: ultimately they are like the rest of us. They want
Speaker 1: to make sure their children gonna do better than them. So,
Speaker 1: in this very politicized environment as it relates to immigration,
Speaker 1: what are you seeing from corporate America from the boardrooms?
Speaker 1: How aggressive can they be in this environment? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: um Lift is an amazing example. Right. So they're in
Speaker 1: the news right now because of the their pending I
Speaker 1: p O they released yesterday and news that they are
Speaker 1: working with US the National Immigration Forum to help their
Speaker 1: drivers improve their English language skills. This is a program
Speaker 1: that was initially funded by the Walmart Foundation. We're also
Speaker 1: working with Whole Foods and Kroger's and a number of others,
Speaker 1: but for a lift to say we are a socially
Speaker 1: responsible company. We're gonna do good by our drivers because
Speaker 1: that makes us more responsible American citizen. UM. I think
Speaker 1: is is not just reassuring, but it's inspiring to hopefully
Speaker 1: the rest of the corporate community. Are there any industries
Speaker 1: just quickly here that are suffering right now as a
Speaker 1: result of reduced immigration to the United States. Oh, the
Speaker 1: list can go on and on. Um uh. You know,
Speaker 1: so if we want to maintain three percent GDP as
Speaker 1: a nation, we've got to figure out our immigration system.
Speaker 1: We need a functioning legal immigration system that provides adequate
Speaker 1: labor for the agricultural sector, not just seasonal but year
Speaker 1: round labor like the dairy industry, UM, the service sector, hotels, um. Processing,
Speaker 1: but interestingly, even the manufacturing sector in the middle of America,
Speaker 1: they are you know, really scrambling for not just labor
Speaker 1: at large, but you know, the folks that can do
Speaker 1: the advanced manufacturing. UM. So it's us very easy for
Speaker 1: this conversation becomes political and a kind of a war
Speaker 1: of talking points. But when you look at the data,
Speaker 1: when you talk to families and business leaders at the
Speaker 1: local level, they're saying, you know, what we need a
Speaker 1: functioning immigration system their folks. Ali Rani, executive director of
Speaker 1: the National Immigration Forum in Washington, d C. Joining us
Speaker 1: here in New York for the Bloomberg Business of Equality
Speaker 1: Summit held it the headquarters here. Really interesting to hear
Speaker 1: about immigration when whenever we talk to corporate leaders, they
Speaker 1: all talk about how they do kind of rely frankly
Speaker 1: on people coming in in order to fill their ranks.
Speaker 1: As automation in high tech continues to rise across the economy,
Speaker 1: workers must continuously retrain to remain competitive. To help us
Speaker 1: dig into this growing issue, we welcome Jake Schwartz Jacobs,
Speaker 1: co founder, chief executive officer of General Assembly. He joins
Speaker 1: us here in New York at our headquarters. Jake, thanks
Speaker 1: very much for joining us. I wonder if you could
Speaker 1: give us a sense of kind of the skills gap
Speaker 1: that we hear about a lot. As technology continues to
Speaker 1: permeate throughout the economy, a lot of workers feel displaced
Speaker 1: in The technological gap is often cited. What what is
Speaker 1: going on out there in the economy and in our business.
Speaker 1: Is doing the right thing to retrain? Yeah? Well, um,
Speaker 1: I mean that's a big set of questions really, because
Speaker 1: we're talking about essentially the entire economy UM. I think
Speaker 1: I think we can sort of divide it up into
Speaker 1: a couple of core issues. I would say probably the
Speaker 1: biggest is that almost every company, regardless of industry, regardless
Speaker 1: of location or size, UM, regardless of how previously sort
Speaker 1: of dominant and competitively advantaged it was UM, is now
Speaker 1: sort of faced with a serious UM mandate to transform
Speaker 1: themselves into a software company, a data com company, a
Speaker 1: cloud company, UM. Mostly because the threat and opportunity that
Speaker 1: those technologies UM offer right now are so fundamentally large
Speaker 1: that it is if they don't take it, there's an
Speaker 1: opportunity for new entrance to come in and eat their lunch.
Speaker 1: So if you look across consumer, industrial, financial services, mining,
Speaker 1: I mean, you name it, there is some sort of
Speaker 1: digital transformation at a foot that is become sort of
Speaker 1: a fundamental existential question for that company, and they need
Speaker 1: people to do that. Now. What's funny about this is
Speaker 1: that UM, because you know, while these changes have always
Speaker 1: happened in the past, and there's been upheavals, creative destruction,
Speaker 1: all that stuff in capitalism, it's all great, UM. The
Speaker 1: reality is, I'm not sure if ever, before every industry
Speaker 1: and every company of those industries have been searching for
Speaker 1: the exact same types of talent at the exact same times,
Speaker 1: and so you can almost think of a it's like
Speaker 1: a run on the banks, right, but it's the run
Speaker 1: on the data scientists. Yeah, I mean, And that's basically
Speaker 1: what General Assembly does, right, is that you retrain We
Speaker 1: do people in data science, right, data science, software engineering,
Speaker 1: product management, ux design, all of these skills that are
Speaker 1: sort of so new, um, but so important to be
Speaker 1: able to actually make the stuff that allows you to
Speaker 1: be a digital company or a software company or a
Speaker 1: data driven decision making company. And we certainly hear CEO
Speaker 1: say all the time that they struggle to find the
Speaker 1: workers that have the skills that they need to fill
Speaker 1: the jobs that they have. My question is is it
Speaker 1: enough to simply teach data science to somebody or to
Speaker 1: give them specific wrote skills, or is there something fundamentally
Speaker 1: amiss in sort of the whole education system that leaves
Speaker 1: people unable to do certain things, that leaves a limited
Speaker 1: pool of people who are able to complete the tasks. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: I tend to opt for the viewpoint that most humans
Speaker 1: have pretty elastic brains and can learn different things. Now,
Speaker 1: perhaps that's a different levels and there's different levels of
Speaker 1: interest and engagement for different individuals around different subject matter
Speaker 1: and that's fine. But um, at the same time, yes,
Speaker 1: there is something fundamentally wrong with our educational system. And
Speaker 1: I mean, when we're talking about skills gap, I mean
Speaker 1: I just have to worry how much is just sort
Speaker 1: of like this there is. But we have lived in
Speaker 1: a century where UM education was not particularly that the
Speaker 1: infrastructure of education. The institutions were not really held accountable
Speaker 1: to UH, Corporate America or the labor markets to say,
Speaker 1: are you giving us what we need? Are you being
Speaker 1: And they weren't being held accountable by the students themselves either.
Speaker 1: They weren't being held accountable really by their main customer,
Speaker 1: which for the most of the time was the government,
Speaker 1: right who was the payer for for all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: So there was a huge accountability gap. Now that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that all that education is fully wasted. It's just
Speaker 1: dramatically inefficient. And I think you see that all the time. Um,
Speaker 1: when I went to liberal arts called I went to
Speaker 1: a fancy liberal arts college, thought I was learning all
Speaker 1: this great stuff, But I remember, whenever I get really
Speaker 1: interested in learning a skill because like a you know,
Speaker 1: a job I wanted outside would would have it. I
Speaker 1: would ask, like a professor, hey, where can I go
Speaker 1: learn that here? And and it would always be, oh,
Speaker 1: we don't do practical skills. It's this like taboo thing. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: we're not here to do practical stuff. And it was
Speaker 1: almost like this sign of of being down in the
Speaker 1: gutter with the people if you were if you were
Speaker 1: teaching practical things right, vocational schools for people who couldn't
Speaker 1: hack it in algebra class, right. And And I think
Speaker 1: that mentality was what when we started General Assembly back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and ten, what was what we were
Speaker 1: trying to sort of attack head on. And we were
Speaker 1: trying to build the something that was sort of a
Speaker 1: mix of vocational training from a para paradigm perspective, but
Speaker 1: with the sort of branding and social cachet of graduate
Speaker 1: school so that bowl wouldn't be afraid to sort of
Speaker 1: come to do it. And we were, you know, surprisingly
Speaker 1: successful at it. Well, so, Jake, it didn't it didn't
Speaker 1: serve you too badly to go to the fancy liberal
Speaker 1: arts college. After probably will say J. Schwartz, co founder
Speaker 1: and chief executive officer of General Assembly. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: P and L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm
Speaker 1: Lisa Abram Woyds. I'm on Twitter at Lisa abramwo wits one.
Speaker 1: Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio