WEBVTT - EVs and Climate Change and the Paparazzi Economy 0:00:01.280 --> 0:00:05.280 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at 0:00:05.280 --> 0:00:08.400 one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the 0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:11.600 iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on 0:00:11.680 --> 0:00:13.760 demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:00:15.760 --> 0:00:19.040 Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion I Amy Morris. This week we 0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:23.040 look at the population exodus from New York, what's luring 0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:26.200 people away and what that means for the tax base. 0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.880 We'll also dive into the latest health warning from the 0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:34.600 Surgeon General. He says social media may be hazardous to 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:37.960 your child's health. And we'll get a behind the scenes 0:00:38.000 --> 0:00:41.800 look at how paparazzi are falling victim to modern times. 0:00:42.479 --> 0:00:45.640 But we begin with electric vehicles and the promise of 0:00:45.680 --> 0:00:50.720 a cleaner planet. President Biden's administration last fall awarded nearly 0:00:50.840 --> 0:00:55.080 three billion dollars in grants to build and expand domestic 0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:59.760 manufacturing of batteries for electric vehicles in a dozen states. 0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:02.360 The United States is making funding available on of the 0:01:02.400 --> 0:01:06.760 Events Production Act to incentivize American and Canadian companies to 0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:11.560 responsibly mine and process critical minerals needed for electric vehicles 0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:13.959 and stationary storage batteries. 0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:17.679 While EV's can play a role in reducing emissions. It 0:01:17.760 --> 0:01:21.319 is just a start and not nearly enough on its own. 0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:25.120 Joining us now is a Bloomberg Opinion editor Romish ratnas 0:01:25.160 --> 0:01:31.000 are Romish slowing or maybe pausing climate change. Likely we'll 0:01:31.040 --> 0:01:34.320 take more than just switching to electric vehicles, but it 0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:38.679 would at a minimum anyway require widespread adoption of evs, 0:01:38.720 --> 0:01:41.479 and that hasn't happened yet either. So talk us through this. 0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:43.679 What has to happen for this to get any traction? 0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:50.840 Yeah, I mean, I think the goal of electrifying transportation, 0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:56.800 that is, getting people out of gas powered cars and 0:01:56.960 --> 0:02:03.040 into electric vehicles, which are zero emission, carbon neutral vehicles, 0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:08.840 you know, is a goal that is necessary to achieve 0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:12.760 if the world is going to hit the climate targets 0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:17.680 that we've set out for ourselves to you know, mitigate 0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:20.880 the worst effects of climate change. And the question is 0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:24.480 really how to go about doing that in a way 0:02:24.560 --> 0:02:30.200 that's efficient, cost effective, and also also is actually going 0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:35.160 to achieve the goals that we have set out, and 0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:38.520 the way in which the US and and some other 0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:43.080 countries are going about it is is not likely to 0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:46.960 meet those targets if we continue on the course that 0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:50.120 we are on. And there a variety of reasons for that, 0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:55.480 But what we believe needs to be done is to 0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:58.480 take a look at how these policies are working out, 0:02:58.480 --> 0:03:01.639 how the policies aimed at promoting evs are working out, 0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:05.960 and what more has to happen in order for them 0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:08.920 to actually achieve what they are meant to achieve. 0:03:09.200 --> 0:03:11.120 I want to get into that a little bit. One 0:03:11.120 --> 0:03:14.320 of those policies. Is the government really juicing demand for 0:03:14.440 --> 0:03:18.720 EV's thanks to subsidies? You know this, But how sustainable 0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:20.840 is that? Those subsidies can't go on forever? 0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:23.880 Yeah, I mean politically they are unlikely going forever. 0:03:23.880 --> 0:03:30.960 We're already seeing, you know, significant backlash against them. If 0:03:31.560 --> 0:03:36.480 you could imagine if the Republican Party gains control of 0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:39.640 both Houses of Congress and the presidency, you know, a 0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.360 lot of the subsidies that are in place today may 0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:46.560 well be rolled back. Even if they're in place, they 0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:52.120 are enormously expensive and they are not necessarily doing anything 0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:58.640 to reduce carbon emissions. Because what we are seeing is 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:01.760 that by and large, people are buying evs, but they're 0:04:01.760 --> 0:04:06.280 not necessarily replacing their existing vehicles with evs. Evs tend 0:04:06.360 --> 0:04:09.520 to be a secondary car or a tertiarch or second 0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:12.120 or third car. So people are buying evs and they're 0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:16.120 driving them on the weekends, or they're still using their 0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:20.320 gas powered cars for long trips and EV's maybe to 0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:24.839 do short errands around town. In other words, you're not 0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:30.800 removing dirty cars from the roads. You're just adding newer 0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:34.960 evs on top of the existing fleet, and so the 0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:39.760 net effect on the climate is not nearly what a 0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:42.680 lot of advocates would hope. 0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:44.400 You touched on something right there. I want to get 0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.320 into a little bit, a bit of a curveball, if 0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:51.800 you'll indulge me, that people often use the EV's as 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:55.080 their second car to run errands around town and use 0:04:55.279 --> 0:04:59.200 the gas powered vehicle to do maybe a long trip. 0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:01.960 Self have been in the market for a new car 0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:04.920 and an EV just won't work because I do a 0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:09.040 lot of interstate travel, and they don't have the infrastructure 0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:11.160 that I'm looking for, and I don't know that they 0:05:11.160 --> 0:05:12.840 can take me as far as I need to go 0:05:13.279 --> 0:05:15.680 on a single tank or on a single charge. So 0:05:16.240 --> 0:05:19.040 tell me how you would reassure me and convince me 0:05:19.160 --> 0:05:21.919 to buy an EV as a primary vehicle if that 0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:23.200 infrastructure isn't there. 0:05:23.560 --> 0:05:25.599 Well, I think that's I think that's hard, and I 0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:30.000 think that's why we're seeing the demand for EV's, while 0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:35.600 it has certainly increased considerably over the last few years, 0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:40.200 has not reached a point a threshold where you know, 0:05:40.240 --> 0:05:43.800 you're seeing even kind of massive numbers of people in 0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:46.640 the average car buyer saying I'm going to get rid 0:05:46.680 --> 0:05:50.920 of of my fuel efficient vehicle that I'm driving now 0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:55.200 and and traded in for an EV when, as you said, 0:05:55.200 --> 0:05:57.640 the charging infrastructure hasn't been built out in a lot 0:05:57.680 --> 0:05:58.280 of places. 0:05:58.839 --> 0:06:03.160 It's hard to do long haul trips with evs, and. 0:06:03.080 --> 0:06:06.719 So, you know, I think again the subsidies and the 0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:09.120 tax credits, which are sort of the centerpiece of the 0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:16.240 EV promotion policies that the government has been pushing, are 0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:18.680 really only one piece of the puzzle. And in order 0:06:18.720 --> 0:06:21.120 to sort of reach and hit the targets and have 0:06:21.200 --> 0:06:25.800 the climate benefits that we are aiming for a lot 0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:27.240 of other things have to be put in place, and 0:06:27.520 --> 0:06:30.080 that's a big one. The charging infrastructure has to be 0:06:30.120 --> 0:06:32.159 built out at a much bigger scale than what we've 0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:34.880 seen so far. Of Course, you know, a lot of 0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:37.800 the money and the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure 0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:43.520 bill passed by Congress aim to try to expand those 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:47.680 that infrastructure, but that's going to take time, and again, 0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:52.599 all of these things have to go right for the 0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:56.839 kind of goals that people who rightly want to do 0:06:56.880 --> 0:07:00.760 something about climate change have in mind. I think the 0:07:00.800 --> 0:07:04.480 point is that EV's on their own and just getting 0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:07.320 more people to buy evs is not going to do 0:07:07.360 --> 0:07:07.720 the trick. 0:07:07.760 --> 0:07:09.600 A lot of other things have to happen as well. 0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:12.160 So what else is going to have to happen, What 0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:16.200 other X factors complicate that transition, and what else should 0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:18.120 be done. One of my questions for you is is 0:07:18.280 --> 0:07:21.600 gas just not expensive enough? Does that need to be taxed? 0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:24.480 That's what a lot of economists have said for many 0:07:24.600 --> 0:07:27.880 years that if you want to do this in an 0:07:27.880 --> 0:07:31.040 efficient way, if you want to actually make a dent 0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:34.160 and carbon emissions, you've got to put a tax on carbon. 0:07:34.360 --> 0:07:37.520 You have to make it expensive to choose a kind 0:07:37.520 --> 0:07:41.400 of gas guzzler over an EV And the only way 0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:43.960 to do that is to is to. 0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:47.240 Tax dirty fuels. 0:07:47.400 --> 0:07:50.720 And so you know, if you were to do that, 0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:53.520 then I think you would start to see people making 0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:56.480 different choices, and you would see the market reacting in 0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:00.680 a way that I think would over time create a 0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:07.400 bigger market for for evs and currently exists. And you know, 0:08:07.480 --> 0:08:12.160 this problem of people holding on to their their dirty 0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:17.560 gas guzzlers longer than the otherwise would have because they 0:08:17.600 --> 0:08:22.760 can't afford an EV and the automakers are no longer 0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:27.080 incentivized to produce, uh, you know, cheaper fuel efficient cars. 0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:30.680 I think that would go away if you had, you know, 0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:34.440 some sort of carbon pricing scheme, you know, short of 0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:37.760 that which you know, politically there are lots of obstacles 0:08:38.440 --> 0:08:41.240 in front of a carbon tax. You know, there are 0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:45.200 things that could be done, for instance, congestion pricing, which 0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:49.160 is something that a lot of European cities have introduced, 0:08:49.160 --> 0:08:52.200 but the US has been slow to adopt, in which 0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.080 you just make it more expensive for folks to drive 0:08:55.160 --> 0:09:00.680 into densely populated, dense urban areas. You know, that could 0:09:00.720 --> 0:09:04.400 be something at a local level that could make a difference. 0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:09.439 But ultimately, I think the point we're trying to drive 0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.000 at is that there should be. 0:09:11.920 --> 0:09:15.040 A mix of technologies. We shouldn't be putting all of 0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:16.000 our chips. 0:09:15.720 --> 0:09:19.400 On evs as the only solution of climate change and 0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:22.880 policymakers need to think about ways in which we are 0:09:22.920 --> 0:09:29.360 promoting low carbon options, but not necessarily a specific technology 0:09:29.720 --> 0:09:34.320 that gets you to that low carbon outcome. And this 0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:37.600 current system as it's set up, is putting all of 0:09:37.600 --> 0:09:41.640 our emphasis on evs, and we think that's a risky bet. 0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:43.840 Are they doing that because that's where the money is. 0:09:43.880 --> 0:09:46.840 I mean, there's an actual hunger and a drive, no 0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:50.920 pun intended for evs at this point. People are actually 0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:53.040 wanting to buy them, even if they are as a 0:09:53.040 --> 0:09:55.960 second car. Could that be why? Maybe it's low hanging fruit. 0:09:56.480 --> 0:09:58.520 Yeah, I think there are a number of reasons. I mean, 0:09:58.559 --> 0:10:03.800 I think the auto industry has seen it as an opportunity, 0:10:03.920 --> 0:10:05.840 especially the US auto industry has seen it as an 0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:09.280 opportunity to gain market share that they've lost to some 0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:10.360 of the foreign competitors. 0:10:11.360 --> 0:10:11.520 You know. 0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:15.440 Again, I think evs are going to be a significant 0:10:16.240 --> 0:10:18.600 part of the mix going forward. And I think the 0:10:18.679 --> 0:10:24.480 goal should be for wider adoption of electric vehicles, and 0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:26.240 I think the question is sort of, you know, how 0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:28.719 to get there, how quickly we have to move? We 0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:31.840 should be moving toward that goal, and whether they're in 0:10:31.880 --> 0:10:36.520 the In the meantime, there are ways in which policymakers 0:10:36.520 --> 0:10:41.440 and the government can continue to encourage and incentivize more 0:10:41.600 --> 0:10:47.240 climate conscious choices, but not take the risk of betting 0:10:47.280 --> 0:10:52.000 on evs which may or may not ultimately, you know, 0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:53.040 achieve the goals that. 0:10:53.000 --> 0:10:53.720 We want them to. 0:10:54.120 --> 0:10:57.240 Bloomberg Opinion editor Romesh Retinas are and coming up, We're 0:10:57.280 --> 0:11:00.120 going to take a look at the population exodus in 0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:02.640 New York and what most of them have in common. 0:11:03.080 --> 0:11:05.160 You are listening to Bloomberg Opinion. 0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:16.280 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast Contest Saturdays at 0:11:16.280 --> 0:11:19.400 one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the 0:11:19.480 --> 0:11:22.600 iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on 0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:24.760 demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:30.200 You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. New York 0:11:30.360 --> 0:11:33.079 has been losing people to other states for quite some time, 0:11:33.160 --> 0:11:36.880 but something new happened during the pandemic. Those who had 0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:40.760 left had higher incomes than those who stayed behind, a 0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:44.240 lot higher. Let's welcome in Justin Fox, a Bloomberg Opinion 0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:48.120 columnist covering business. He's going to set us straight on this. Justin. 0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:51.600 Let's talk about this exodus of the wealthy what's luring 0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:52.120 them away? 0:11:52.880 --> 0:11:55.760 I mean during the pandemic, like in twenty twenty, it 0:11:55.800 --> 0:11:58.400 wasn't so much what was luring the way is what 0:11:58.640 --> 0:12:01.000 was going on in New York. New York City was 0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:06.560 the epicenter of the pandemic, and the you know, for 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.360 good reason maybe maybe was overdone. But the sort of 0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:13.720 reaction to it as the pandemic eased was things were 0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:16.120 much stricter here in other places, and I think that 0:12:16.200 --> 0:12:19.760 was initially the main thing people driving away, But also 0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:22.280 the fact that all the big businesses in New York 0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:25.720 went remote was like, Wow, I'm sick of living in 0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:30.040 this tiny apartment with laundry in the basement. Maybe I 0:12:30.080 --> 0:12:32.640 should go try somewhere else. And so there was a 0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:34.640 lot that a lot of that going on, but a. 0:12:34.559 --> 0:12:37.559 Lot happened pretty much all at once. What's the outcome 0:12:37.559 --> 0:12:41.199 as New York continues to lose that population, Well, I. 0:12:41.160 --> 0:12:45.960 Mean what you can see so the really detailed tax 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:49.800 data that says who left and what their incomes were 0:12:49.880 --> 0:12:53.280 the most recent numbers we have for that date from 0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:56.440 twenty twenty one. So it's still you know, that was 0:12:56.480 --> 0:12:59.240 still when we were kind of in pandemic mode here 0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:04.840 and looking at the census population estimate. Since then, there's 0:13:04.880 --> 0:13:08.280 actually been this return of people to Manhattan, but continuing 0:13:08.400 --> 0:13:12.440 loss in the outer borrows and the suburbs, which is 0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:15.080 sort of an indication at least in Manhattan is the 0:13:15.080 --> 0:13:17.720 most affluent of the five boroughs of New York City, 0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:21.400 so the people coming back were probably getting some affluent 0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:24.120 people coming back. But the thing I decided to look 0:13:24.160 --> 0:13:27.400 at because I had actually written about what's happened with 0:13:27.559 --> 0:13:32.719 federal income taxes a few weeks ago, and basically over 0:13:32.760 --> 0:13:35.160 the course of the pandemic, when the stock markets were 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:38.320 going crazy and house prices were going crazy, so was 0:13:38.440 --> 0:13:41.840 income tax revenue bringing in tons of it, because that's 0:13:41.920 --> 0:13:46.160 just the way a progressive income tax system works, where 0:13:46.240 --> 0:13:49.280 if people with very high incomes are having their incomes 0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:51.800 jump up even more, which is what happens when you 0:13:51.840 --> 0:13:55.520 have an asset price boom, then that brings in more 0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:58.880 taxes than anybody really had penciled in. And so we 0:13:58.960 --> 0:14:04.160 had these huge gains in income tax revenue nationally, but 0:14:04.280 --> 0:14:07.000 even in New York, even though other statistics since then 0:14:07.040 --> 0:14:09.400 I've shown that a lot of affluent people were leaving, 0:14:09.960 --> 0:14:12.120 so many people made so much money that it didn't 0:14:12.160 --> 0:14:15.520 make any difference. What's happened over the past year is 0:14:16.120 --> 0:14:19.040 federal income tax revenue has dropped a bunch, but I 0:14:19.120 --> 0:14:21.520 was looking at the New York state income tax revenue 0:14:21.520 --> 0:14:23.960 and it has dropped a lot more. So it's sort 0:14:24.000 --> 0:14:27.040 of like the tide has gone out now and you 0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:30.120 can kind of see the real effect of who left 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:33.360 and what impact that's going to have on the state's 0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:34.920 ability to pay for things. 0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:38.040 So that then is why the loss of the affluent 0:14:38.080 --> 0:14:41.000 taxpayer didn't really create problems during the height of the 0:14:41.040 --> 0:14:44.920 pandemic per se. Correct, Are we still seeing that loss? 0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:47.880 Is there still, if not a hemorrhage, a trickle of 0:14:47.920 --> 0:14:50.280 a loss of that level of taxpayer. 0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:51.720 I don't know. 0:14:51.960 --> 0:14:54.360 I mean the one lie, I just don't know. This 0:14:54.400 --> 0:14:58.720 could because we could just be mostly seeing a reflection 0:14:58.840 --> 0:14:59.960 of what happened. 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:01.120 See but sort of lacking. 0:15:02.080 --> 0:15:05.480 Yeah, But I mean there is this long standing lots 0:15:05.520 --> 0:15:08.080 of people leave New York, and some of it is 0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:11.560 this perfectly healthy thing where, especially with the city, people 0:15:11.640 --> 0:15:14.680 come in when they're you know, either young professionals getting 0:15:14.720 --> 0:15:18.520 some ipaying job or immigrants coming from overseas off and 0:15:18.960 --> 0:15:21.760 cramming into some tiny apartment with a bunch of other people, 0:15:22.240 --> 0:15:26.040 and they succeed and do better, and some decide they 0:15:26.040 --> 0:15:28.480 want to stick around and some leave. And also you 0:15:28.600 --> 0:15:31.560 have single people moving in and then moving out when 0:15:31.600 --> 0:15:35.920 they have kids. So some level of that is not terrible, 0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:38.320 and the city can sustain it. It's just sort of 0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:42.360 this question of whether it's reached this less sustainable point. 0:15:42.360 --> 0:15:44.560 And I think that right now, I don't know, Like 0:15:44.640 --> 0:15:47.560 the New York City. I made the mistake of going 0:15:47.600 --> 0:15:50.760 shopping in Soho and it's insane. There are so many people. 0:15:51.200 --> 0:15:54.240 And the issue in New York is actually there's there's 0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:58.920 just about as much activity of every sort except people 0:15:59.000 --> 0:16:01.200 coming into the office, and there's less of that. 0:16:01.720 --> 0:16:04.680 And we are talking with Justin Fox, a Bloomberg opinion columnist, 0:16:04.800 --> 0:16:09.320 about the exodus of affluent tax payers from New York. Now, Justin, 0:16:09.480 --> 0:16:12.640 in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal, you link this 0:16:12.800 --> 0:16:16.760 exodus to the debt ceiling showdown on Capitol Hill. Help 0:16:16.840 --> 0:16:18.000 us connect the dots there. 0:16:18.160 --> 0:16:21.920 Well, just it's the fact that federal tax revenue fell 0:16:22.080 --> 0:16:25.680 so quickly that kind of sped up the reckoning and 0:16:25.720 --> 0:16:27.840 forced them to have to deal with this. Now, whereas 0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:30.400 I think last year that people were predicting and it 0:16:30.400 --> 0:16:33.120 wouldn't be till fall or so that they would run, 0:16:33.200 --> 0:16:36.480 that they would run out of money, and federal income 0:16:36.520 --> 0:16:40.120 tax revenue fell so fast that the moment where Janet 0:16:40.200 --> 0:16:43.560 Yellen said she couldn't pay the bills moved up. And 0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:47.920 I mean in New York New York State. I don't 0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:50.800 know exactly what's going to happen now, but clearly the 0:16:50.840 --> 0:16:53.440 revenue is coming in way below projected and at the 0:16:53.480 --> 0:16:57.280 state level, income taxes are sort of what pays the bills. 0:16:57.640 --> 0:17:00.640 For New York City, it's less of an issue taxes 0:17:00.680 --> 0:17:04.120 only maybe a quarter of revenue or less. It's more 0:17:04.280 --> 0:17:07.439 property taxes, which is a more slow moving thing and 0:17:07.480 --> 0:17:10.280 at least so far vary issues with commercial real estate, 0:17:10.320 --> 0:17:13.480 but residential real estate in New York City seems to 0:17:13.520 --> 0:17:14.880 be as in demand as ever. 0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:19.800 Are we seeing this on a smaller scale in different areas? 0:17:20.520 --> 0:17:23.160 Are we able to even gauge that because New York 0:17:23.280 --> 0:17:25.440 is such an enormous part of the economy. 0:17:26.000 --> 0:17:31.200 There's a professor at Stanford Business School, Joshua Row, who's 0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:34.520 been looking at what happens in California at a really 0:17:34.560 --> 0:17:37.520 detailed level when there have been various things that have 0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:40.160 happened over the past few years. There was a referendum 0:17:40.160 --> 0:17:43.200 pass that raised taxes on people with very high incomes. 0:17:43.680 --> 0:17:48.119 Then there was the twenty seventeen federal tax bill, which 0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:53.359 actually lowered almost everybody's taxes, but people in California and 0:17:53.440 --> 0:17:55.679 New York on average, who are making more than a 0:17:55.680 --> 0:18:00.199 million dollars a year, it raised their federal taxes. That 0:18:00.320 --> 0:18:03.320 created another incentive to leave, and then the pandemic created another. 0:18:03.400 --> 0:18:05.440 And what he showed is, you know, it's not very 0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:09.640 many people, but a much higher percentage of very very 0:18:09.720 --> 0:18:13.520 high income people left right at those moments. So clearly 0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:18.320 there are some issues with you know, taxes driving people 0:18:18.320 --> 0:18:21.240 out as well and anything. When something happens like the 0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:24.280 move to remote work, it just lowers one of the 0:18:24.320 --> 0:18:28.919 barriers that's there. And that's got to be an issue 0:18:28.960 --> 0:18:31.159 for New York too. I haven't seen that level of 0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:36.639 really detailed research, and New York's income tax revenue, income 0:18:36.680 --> 0:18:40.080 tax rates don't go up quite as high as California's 0:18:40.359 --> 0:18:43.480 at the highest incomes. But yeah, that's one of the 0:18:43.520 --> 0:18:44.439 things that's going on. 0:18:44.920 --> 0:18:47.040 We're not talking about people then so much as we're 0:18:47.080 --> 0:18:50.480 talking about money, number one. Yeah, and number two because 0:18:50.680 --> 0:18:55.720 of the sort of residual hangover side effects of the pandemic, 0:18:56.000 --> 0:18:58.640 like remote work. It sounds like this is not something 0:18:58.680 --> 0:19:01.360 that's just going to resolve itself magically like getting over 0:19:01.400 --> 0:19:04.639 the flu. This is maybe a different way of looking 0:19:04.640 --> 0:19:07.760 at things, a different way of being able to manage 0:19:07.920 --> 0:19:11.760 or check the tax revenue based on what census says 0:19:11.840 --> 0:19:15.639 is happening. As far as the the exodus and and 0:19:15.680 --> 0:19:16.800 people coming into the city. 0:19:17.720 --> 0:19:20.199 Yeah, I mean, I think in New York is going 0:19:20.280 --> 0:19:23.520 to have to be creative and at some level actually 0:19:23.560 --> 0:19:28.480 recognized that having the highest taxes in the country. I mean, 0:19:28.480 --> 0:19:30.439 maybe New York City can manage it because New York 0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:33.160 City is unique and social, but for elsewhere in the state, 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:37.280 it's not maybe the best policy. I mean, New York 0:19:37.280 --> 0:19:39.560 State has high level of services and that's good, but 0:19:39.600 --> 0:19:43.760 they're not always delivered super efficiently. And yeah, I mean, 0:19:43.760 --> 0:19:46.199 and it's not just New York. I think DC is 0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:50.280 having some of these issues as well. And it's hard 0:19:50.320 --> 0:19:52.400 to say because I think early in the pandemic there 0:19:52.480 --> 0:19:55.359 was this, oh, the cities are over, everyone's going to leave, 0:19:55.960 --> 0:19:59.000 and that's clearly not what's happening. But it's not like 0:19:59.040 --> 0:20:01.800 they're roaring not like every bit of them is roaring back. 0:20:01.840 --> 0:20:05.560 What seems to be happening is residential neighborhoods in most 0:20:05.600 --> 0:20:09.959 big cities are doing pretty well, but commercial districts are 0:20:10.000 --> 0:20:10.720 still struggling. 0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:14.840 Justin Fox is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and 0:20:14.880 --> 0:20:18.440 coming up on Bloomberg Opinion. The Surgeon General says social 0:20:18.520 --> 0:20:22.000 media could be bad for your kid's health. Much more 0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:24.879 on that, just ahead, and don't forget. We're available as 0:20:24.920 --> 0:20:29.199 a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. 0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:30.960 This is Bloomberg Opinion. 0:20:40.280 --> 0:20:44.280 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast Countess Saturdays at 0:20:44.280 --> 0:20:47.399 one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the 0:20:47.480 --> 0:20:50.600 iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on 0:20:50.680 --> 0:20:52.760 demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:20:55.280 --> 0:20:59.040 This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, the US Surgeon 0:20:59.160 --> 0:21:02.920 General of the ve Murthy has issued a warning social 0:21:02.960 --> 0:21:05.040 media could be bad for your kids. 0:21:05.280 --> 0:21:08.040 My worry is that for many kids, not for all kids, 0:21:08.280 --> 0:21:12.199 but for many kids, social media is chipping away at 0:21:12.200 --> 0:21:16.000 their self esteem. It's taking time away from activities. That 0:21:16.040 --> 0:21:18.960 are critical for help and development, like sleep, but also 0:21:19.040 --> 0:21:22.600 in person interaction and physical activity. But it's also exposing 0:21:22.640 --> 0:21:24.080 them to harmful content. 0:21:24.200 --> 0:21:28.520 Surch in general Vivek Murphy social media advisory serving as 0:21:28.560 --> 0:21:31.800 a roadmap for how to better understand the impact of 0:21:31.880 --> 0:21:37.560 platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat on developing brains of adolescents. 0:21:38.040 --> 0:21:41.320 For more, let's talk with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis, 0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:45.600 who covers healthcare, biotech, and the pharmaceutical industry. I'm a 0:21:45.680 --> 0:21:49.280 bit surprised this warning hasn't been issued before, if not 0:21:49.320 --> 0:21:52.520 from the Surgeon General, from some healthcare professionals. 0:21:53.680 --> 0:21:56.320 Well, you know, Amy, it actually was. I did a 0:21:56.320 --> 0:21:59.840 column a few weeks ago in the American Psychological Association 0:22:00.040 --> 0:22:03.440 put out their own social media advisory, and of course 0:22:03.480 --> 0:22:06.760 Surgeon General Levec Murphy has said that he feels that 0:22:06.880 --> 0:22:09.760 kids under the age of thirteen shouldn't be using social 0:22:09.800 --> 0:22:12.679 media at all. But yeah, I think all of us 0:22:12.720 --> 0:22:16.200 are like, duh, this was needed, and it were surprised 0:22:16.240 --> 0:22:19.800 it didn't happen earlier. I think what they have done 0:22:19.800 --> 0:22:23.879 here is really compile a list of recommendations and in 0:22:23.920 --> 0:22:27.040 a way open questions that we want answered about social media, 0:22:27.119 --> 0:22:29.639 and maybe that's what the hold up was, was just 0:22:29.680 --> 0:22:32.520 defining what we do and don't know and need to know. 0:22:33.520 --> 0:22:35.879 That's vast though what we don't know, is it not? 0:22:36.960 --> 0:22:39.840 It's so vast, and I think that's really the concern, right, 0:22:40.000 --> 0:22:44.120 is that there is a lot of conflicting information Where 0:22:44.160 --> 0:22:46.640 we talk about social media in our harms for kids, 0:22:46.680 --> 0:22:49.520 a lot of it we're talking about correlation. 0:22:49.160 --> 0:22:49.880 Not causation. 0:22:50.160 --> 0:22:53.120 There's I mean, in a way because it's so new, 0:22:53.200 --> 0:22:55.879 we don't have enough out there and we don't have 0:22:56.000 --> 0:23:00.119 enough data, and so I think a lot of what 0:23:00.200 --> 0:23:03.080 this report is asking for is to set out a 0:23:03.119 --> 0:23:06.120 research agenda to make sure that we understand how this 0:23:06.160 --> 0:23:09.639 is affecting kids' brains, and to really ask companies to 0:23:09.680 --> 0:23:11.960 participate in that in a way that they haven't been. 0:23:12.320 --> 0:23:15.760 Now when the Surgeon General makes these sorts of suggestions 0:23:15.960 --> 0:23:20.480 issues these warnings like part of this, he wants companies 0:23:20.520 --> 0:23:24.040 to add some scientific advisory boards to learn more about 0:23:24.040 --> 0:23:27.800