Speaker 1: Up to now, we focused on the origins of the
Speaker 1: racial wealth gap, how Black people have been consistently excluded
Speaker 1: from building wealth and ensuring their own financial stability since
Speaker 1: the end of slavery. Today, we're going to look at
Speaker 1: one of the first attempts to address the disparities to
Speaker 1: make America a more equal society, to level the playing field.
Speaker 1: We're talking about affirmative action and education. This starts more
Speaker 1: or less in September with an executive order that makes
Speaker 1: new rules for federal contractors. It's not enough to not
Speaker 1: discriminate that's already illegal. The order says it's time to
Speaker 1: ensure no one's being left out. President Lyndon Johnson was
Speaker 1: clear about his rationale here. He is speaking at graduation
Speaker 1: at Howard University, the historically black college in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: You do not take a person who for a year
Speaker 1: has been hobbled by change and liberating bringing up to
Speaker 1: the starting line of a race, and then say you
Speaker 1: are free to compete with all the others and still
Speaker 1: justly believe that you have been completely fair. That's the
Speaker 1: theory behind affirmative action. It was the idea that it
Speaker 1: took work to unlock opportunity in a more equitable way.
Speaker 1: Black people in particular were entitled to additional consideration. This
Speaker 1: did two big things. One, it set aside government contracts
Speaker 1: to minority owned businesses. It also radically changed college admissions.
Speaker 1: Colleges and universities tweaked their admissions policies to enroll more
Speaker 1: African Americans and other minorities. Five years after Johnson signs
Speaker 1: that executive order, roughly of colleges and universities have some
Speaker 1: kind of affirmative action in place, and black student enrollment
Speaker 1: was going up. So in that regard, it's working, but
Speaker 1: it's not universally popular. Far too many affirmative action programs
Speaker 1: divide rather than unite. Our children and grandchildren feel no
Speaker 1: responsibility for the conduct of their ancestors and the mistakes
Speaker 1: of America's past, and that is as it should be.
Speaker 1: A black California businessman named Ward Connorly waged war on
Speaker 1: affirmative action in his state. Connorley was also a regent
Speaker 1: in the University of California system, and he was the
Speaker 1: driving force behind Proposition too oh nine, California ballot initiative
Speaker 1: to end affirmative action in the state. That's not what
Speaker 1: the text of the ballot initiatives said, though in fact
Speaker 1: it didn't even mention affirmative action by name. It instead
Speaker 1: framed it as anti discrimination section the state shall not
Speaker 1: discriminate against or grant refferential treatment to any individual or
Speaker 1: group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
Speaker 1: national origin in the operation of public employment, public education,
Speaker 1: or public contracting the preferential treatment it refers to. That's
Speaker 1: what would be the death knell for affirmative action. Connorly
Speaker 1: acknowledged that those kinds of measures had been necessary, but
Speaker 1: he argued it wasn't anymore. It had gone from being
Speaker 1: a transitional remedy to an entitlement, a crutch that had
Speaker 1: outlived its usefulness for black people in our reliance on
Speaker 1: affirmative action. The time has indeed come to let go.
Speaker 1: We cannot forever look through the rear view mirror at
Speaker 1: America's mistakes. We must look through the windshield at its opportunities.
Speaker 1: It was a radical position for a black man to take.
Speaker 1: Civil rights groups roundly opposed the measure. Connor Ley said
Speaker 1: he was called an uncle Tom, a lackey, and a sellout,
Speaker 1: but he won. Prop To nine passed with of the vote,
Speaker 1: including Connorley with later brag of the black vote. By
Speaker 1: the late nineties, affirmative action in California public universities was dead.
Speaker 1: California's is the premier laboratory for testing this experiment. If
Speaker 1: this experiment works in California, my friends, it works anywhere.
Speaker 1: It fails in California, its failure can be predicted throughout
Speaker 1: the land. The United States was about to find out whether,
Speaker 1: as Connorley said, the experiment worked. The data shows that
Speaker 1: the median white family has ten times more wealth than
Speaker 1: the average black family. One of the drivers of that
Speaker 1: wealth gap is redlining. When it comes to understanding financial
Speaker 1: inequality in this country, economists often point to the absence
Speaker 1: of African American generational wealth. See the pleasant a plant
Speaker 1: walk from California to Night a picture of how the
Speaker 1: nation's largest university system may be transformed. Now that it's
Speaker 1: a pervative action program is going to be ended. It's
Speaker 1: a trend propelled not just by economic forces, but by
Speaker 1: white racism and local white political and economic power. It's
Speaker 1: much easier to integrate a lunch counter than it is
Speaker 1: to guarantee an annual income, for instance, to get rid
Speaker 1: of poverty. Welcome back to the paycheck. I'm Jackie Simmons
Speaker 1: and I am Rebecca Greenfield. The difference economically between having
Speaker 1: a college degree and not having one is huge. For
Speaker 1: full time, year round workers in their mid twenties and thirties,
Speaker 1: having at least a bachelor's degree is worth an extra
Speaker 1: twenty three thousand dollars a year in income, even taking
Speaker 1: student debt into account. More education predicts higher incomes and
Speaker 1: more wealth at every level. For one, it opens up
Speaker 1: more better paying job opportunities. College graduates make more money
Speaker 1: than people with a high school degree or even just
Speaker 1: some college. People with a graduate degree make more money
Speaker 1: than college grads. It's not just jobs. People with a
Speaker 1: college or advanced degree are more likely to get benefits
Speaker 1: like health insurance through their work, which adds an extra
Speaker 1: layer of financial security. Experts also believe more education leads
Speaker 1: to better financial decision making, so people are making more
Speaker 1: money and they're making better choices with it. There's another
Speaker 1: reason black families seek out a college education. My father
Speaker 1: is very keenly aware of the difficulty of just simply
Speaker 1: being black. You know, had an opportunity to to learn
Speaker 1: to read, write, to do those things that will make
Speaker 1: them competitive at least to fight back. He would fight back,
Speaker 1: but you know, you could always be dismissed because you
Speaker 1: couldn't do something or whatever it was. So he always
Speaker 1: taught us it was important to get an education. That's
Speaker 1: Shirley Webber. She's had a long career in California higher
Speaker 1: education and politics. In January, she was sworn in as
Speaker 1: a Secretary of State. She's a huge defender of affirmative
Speaker 1: action and says it was critical to her success at
Speaker 1: every point in her academic career. Without that extra step,
Speaker 1: you know, I may would have done okay in life,
Speaker 1: but I doubt if I would have if I would
Speaker 1: have gotten a PhD by the time I was twenty six,
Speaker 1: and I doubt if I would have been a professor
Speaker 1: at the age I would have been struggling trying to
Speaker 1: figure out what I was gonna do and how I
Speaker 1: was going to do it. That extra opportunity helped to
Speaker 1: get me to a level that I could actually excel,
Speaker 1: you know, demonstrate that I could do those things despite
Speaker 1: the fact coming from a very poor background. So my
Speaker 1: first contact with affirmative action was really myself. Many black
Speaker 1: professionals probably benefited from some kind of affirmative action. I
Speaker 1: might have two. I graduated in the late eighties and
Speaker 1: applied to a million schools, including some in California, and
Speaker 1: was told race might be one factor that could help
Speaker 1: me get a second look. I can't definitively say it
Speaker 1: worked or not, but fast forward thirty years, I've definitely
Speaker 1: had my share of professional success. Kelsey Butler is a
Speaker 1: reporter at Bloomberg. She applied to college about fifteen years
Speaker 1: after I did. Hey, Kelsey, Hi Jackie. So if I
Speaker 1: understand you weren't very comfortable thinking of yourself as having
Speaker 1: benefited from affirmative action, is that right? Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: I mean it's complicated because you know, when I applied
Speaker 1: to college in two thousand five, being black and Latina,
Speaker 1: it might have been something that got me a second
Speaker 1: look or even got me in the door with admissions officers.
Speaker 1: I honestly have no idea, but I feel like since then,
Speaker 1: in a lot of majority white spaces, you know, the
Speaker 1: term affirmative action higher or you're here because of affirmative
Speaker 1: action has been almost used as like a jab against me,
Speaker 1: and it kind of sours you almost on the concept
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of time while reporting this listening
Speaker 1: to all the arguments against affirmative action, lots of tape,
Speaker 1: lots of recordings. I thought a lot about the racist
Speaker 1: roots of a lot of the arguments against affirmative action,
Speaker 1: and also kind of made me think about, well, if
Speaker 1: it didn't exist, then what really is there? You know,
Speaker 1: the doors to a lot of institutions would be closed
Speaker 1: to a lot of people. And is my discomfort you know,
Speaker 1: someone saying something ignorant? It seems really small when you
Speaker 1: think about it that way. One of the problems with
Speaker 1: affirmative action does it gives certain people a leg up,
Speaker 1: maybe without them even knowing. And some people think that's unfair,
Speaker 1: even if it is creating a more level playing field.
Speaker 1: But what happens when that leg up goes away? Does
Speaker 1: that make things more fair? When California put a hard
Speaker 1: stop to affirmative action with Prop two and nine, it
Speaker 1: did do what connor Ley said, It's set up a
Speaker 1: huge experiment. The state had three decades of strong affirmative
Speaker 1: action measures and then all of a sudden it didn't.
Speaker 1: We asked Kelsey to find some answers about what that
Speaker 1: meant for black wealth. So Kelsey, Where do we start
Speaker 1: well in terms of getting black students to college, Affirmative
Speaker 1: action definitely worked. In five only four point seven percent
Speaker 1: of African American adults had four more years of college
Speaker 1: education according to the U S Census. It starts to
Speaker 1: go up pretty quickly after that, especially when you consider
Speaker 1: it typically takes at least four years to earn a
Speaker 1: bachelor's By nineteen eighty, eight point four percent of Black
Speaker 1: adults have a degree, almost double within fifteen years and
Speaker 1: another fifteen years, so by a little more than thirteen
Speaker 1: percent of Black adults have a four year degree or higher.
Speaker 1: And that's before Prop. Two oh nine, Right, yeah, And
Speaker 1: actually in California the numbers are slightly higher. By seventeen
Speaker 1: point five percent of African Americans have a college degree
Speaker 1: or higher. Another way to put it is, in about
Speaker 1: thirty years, the number of Black adult in California with
Speaker 1: a four year degree has gone from about one in
Speaker 1: seventeen to better than one in six And this was
Speaker 1: after some of the earliest affirmative action measures had been
Speaker 1: watered down. What do you mean by water down? Well,
Speaker 1: Originally some institutions used a straight quota system, setting aside
Speaker 1: a certain number of seats for black and Hispanic students
Speaker 1: until nineteen seventy seven and the U. S. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: case known as the Baki case. Baki was Alan Baki,
Speaker 1: a white man and an aspiring doctor. He wanted to
Speaker 1: go to medical school at U C. Davis in VY three.
Speaker 1: The school was new and the student body was overwhelmingly white,
Speaker 1: so they decided to set aside seats for applicants they
Speaker 1: called disadvantage, basically a euphemism for minorities. Baki had good
Speaker 1: MCAT scores and his interviewer described him as a well
Speaker 1: qualified candidate, but he didn't get in. He complained about
Speaker 1: what he thought was a reverse discrimination and was encouraged
Speaker 1: to apply again, and he was rejected a second time,
Speaker 1: so he sued and his case made its way to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Six of the nine justices wrote opinions
Speaker 1: in the case, and when you look at them, it's
Speaker 1: really clear how divided they are. Some of um said
Speaker 1: race based quotas were clearly unconstitutional. Others said it was
Speaker 1: ridiculous to require schools to ignore racing admissions because of
Speaker 1: how black people had been held back throughout US history,
Speaker 1: and what was the controlling opinion Justice Lewis Powell tried
Speaker 1: to bridge the divide. He said, if there's a quote
Speaker 1: compelling state interests, race can be considered. In my view,
Speaker 1: the only state interests that fairly may be viewed as
Speaker 1: compelling on this record is the interest of a university
Speaker 1: in a diverse student body. The court didn't strike down
Speaker 1: all affirmative action. In fact, Powell quotes the admissions policy
Speaker 1: at Harvard as an example of university that's doing it right.
Speaker 1: He even attached a copy of the policy to his opinion.
Speaker 1: But you see Davis was doing it wrong. Yeah, basically
Speaker 1: because they'd set aside these rigid quotas. There were sixteen
Speaker 1: seats out of a hundred that were essentially off limits
Speaker 1: to white people. But you c Davis can rethink its policy,
Speaker 1: which Powell practically exem to do. Yet the way is
Speaker 1: open Todavis to adapt. The type of admissions program proved
Speaker 1: to be successful in so many of the universities and
Speaker 1: colleges of our country. So within ten years, basically quotas
Speaker 1: are out. That's interesting because it seems like that's what
Speaker 1: most people think of when they think of affirmative action. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a popular misconception for most of its history. It's
Speaker 1: not that at all, At least in college admissions. It's
Speaker 1: much more flexible. Powell's decision does something else that's really important.
Speaker 1: He basically wipes out Lyndon Johnson's rationale for affirmative action
Speaker 1: undoing general racial discrimination or imbalance. That's not a compelling interest.
Speaker 1: The only justification he allows is the diversity argument. So
Speaker 1: colleges are allowed to consider race. Yes, but here's the difference.
Speaker 1: Where before colleges were allowed to have quotas, now they're
Speaker 1: allowed to consider race as one factor in pursuit of
Speaker 1: diverse city and the student body. Most colleges worked within
Speaker 1: these new parameters, adding race onto a bunch of other
Speaker 1: admissions criteria. It was no longer the only factor, or
Speaker 1: even the predominant one, but it was still very explicitly considered.
Speaker 1: At California public schools, for example, black and Hispanic students
Speaker 1: had lower s A T score and g p A
Speaker 1: cutoffs for admissions. At places like Harvard, race is one
Speaker 1: factor of many that the school considers when letting students in.
Speaker 1: Black student enrollment drops for a bit, but then it
Speaker 1: continues to pick up. Even at U C. Davis Medical School,
Speaker 1: the overall minority student admit rate is higher five years
Speaker 1: after BAKY than it was in the five years before.
Speaker 1: By the case against affirmative action has a new twist.
Speaker 1: There was the controversial idea of protecting white people from
Speaker 1: the threat of reverse discrimination, but now it's also about
Speaker 1: asserting that black people no longer need a leg up
Speaker 1: or extra consideration of any kind. We've made it. That's
Speaker 1: the argument connorally makes the support Prop to OH nine.
Speaker 1: It's passage created an opportunity to find out whether he
Speaker 1: was right. Maybe we black people didn't need affirmative action
Speaker 1: after all. Since Prop TU and I took effect in
Speaker 1: the nineties, researchers have been looking at these questions, and
Speaker 1: enough time has passed if they think they have some answers.
Speaker 1: Zachary Bloomer is a PhD candidate and economics at the
Speaker 1: University of California, Berkeley. He looked at the impact of
Speaker 1: the law on black and brown students. We can compare
Speaker 1: the longer run outcomes of black and Latino university applicants
Speaker 1: in the years just before when affirmative action was still
Speaker 1: in place to the years just after when affirmative action
Speaker 1: had ended. We're just gonna follow those cohorts of students
Speaker 1: along over the next ten, fifteen, or even twenty years
Speaker 1: and ask what happened to them as a result of
Speaker 1: their more selective university enrollment under affirmative action. So that's
Speaker 1: what Bloomer did. He looked at where ten thousand college
Speaker 1: Albicans in California ended up without prop to OH nine,
Speaker 1: both in college and in their careers. What he found
Speaker 1: was pretty clear. Absent affirmative action, Black and Latino students
Speaker 1: are less likely to earn college degrees. They're less likely
Speaker 1: to earn graduate degrees, you know, following them another five
Speaker 1: years into the future. They're less likely to earn degrees
Speaker 1: in lucrative stem fields. This is science, technology, engineering, and
Speaker 1: mathematics majors that are seen to provide long run wealth
Speaker 1: returns to students without those degrees. African Americans and Latino
Speaker 1: has made less money after affirmative action ends. The average
Speaker 1: Black and Latino university applicant loses about five percent of
Speaker 1: their wages. Bliemer looked at higher earners, people making about
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand dollars in California by their mid thirties.
Speaker 1: So let's put that into context. California in twenty four
Speaker 1: team had about twenty thousand high earning Black and Latino
Speaker 1: workers in the state around the ages of like thirty
Speaker 1: to thirty four. How would that number of workers change
Speaker 1: if affirmative action had stayed in place and so those
Speaker 1: thirty to thirty four year olds had access to more
Speaker 1: selective universities fifteen years ago when they went to college.
Speaker 1: The answer is roughly three or four percent. So about
Speaker 1: seven hundred or a thousand people working in California would
Speaker 1: have been high earning if they had access to these
Speaker 1: selective universities through affirmative action. So for African Americans and Latinos,
Speaker 1: affirmative action had worked, they got more better academic credentials
Speaker 1: and that translated into higher salaries. But what about other students.
Speaker 1: One of the common arguments against affirmative action is that
Speaker 1: it takes one of those slots away from someone quote
Speaker 1: more deserving. Bloomers looked at that too. If that argument
Speaker 1: was right, key theorized, then getting rid of affirmative action
Speaker 1: would make their outcomes better. It didn't. Where did the
Speaker 1: white and Asian students who would have gone to Berkeley?
Speaker 1: Where did they go? Instead? Most of them go to
Speaker 1: highly selective private universities of similar quality to UC Berkeley,
Speaker 1: and so as a result, when you follow those students along,
Speaker 1: providing them access to UC Berkeley actually gives them surprisingly
Speaker 1: little in terms of longer run wage outcomes. That brings
Speaker 1: us back to the wealth gap. What Bloomer's research suggests
Speaker 1: is that part of the reason that affirmative action measures
Speaker 1: don't harm white and Asian students is because they tend
Speaker 1: to have other options. The reason they have those other
Speaker 1: options is because they are, on average, coming from families
Speaker 1: with greater wealth to begin with. Black and Hispanic students,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, don't have as many of those
Speaker 1: resources that limits their options college wise. They don't again,
Speaker 1: on average, ridge have equal opportunities elsewhere. Right after Prop
Speaker 1: two O nine, past college enrollment for black students in
Speaker 1: California state schools dropped by about fifteen percent. Ever since,
Speaker 1: California legislators and advocates have been trying to overturn it
Speaker 1: or to find another way to strengthen affirmative action measures
Speaker 1: in the state. Colleges have continued to prioritize diversity, so overall,
Speaker 1: the number of black people getting four year degrees is
Speaker 1: still rising. But not as fast as it was, and
Speaker 1: it's never caught up to white people. Last year, as
Speaker 1: the pandemic swept across the US and the Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter movement put civil rights front and center, California lawmakers
Speaker 1: tried again. Shirley Webber led that fight. The ballot initiative
Speaker 1: this time was called Prop sixteen. Okay, it's supposed been
Speaker 1: cheered by somebody else's voice. That usual false to me,
Speaker 1: and I just said, let's do it. You know, if
Speaker 1: we're gonna do it, let's do it. The language was clunky.
Speaker 1: It asked voters to repeal the amendment to the state
Speaker 1: constitution that prohibited discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis
Speaker 1: of race, but it had lots of support from across
Speaker 1: the left. The founders of b LM, the a c
Speaker 1: l U, and the California Teachers Union all lined up
Speaker 1: behind it, and lots of celebrities too. Here's Eva DuVernay,
Speaker 1: Tracy Ellis, Ross and Ray encouraging people to vote for
Speaker 1: a Prop six team and the fight to dismantle systemic
Speaker 1: racism is on the ballot in California. Voting yes on
Speaker 1: Prop sixteen is our chance to right the wrongs of
Speaker 1: the past. Voting yes on Prop sixteen is one way
Speaker 1: to prove that black lives matter. I'm voting yes on Prop.
Speaker 1: Sixteen because I wouldn't have gotten into college had it
Speaker 1: not been for affirmative action, which means I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: had the same access to opportunities and resources as my
Speaker 1: wife peers. Voters in California, one of the most liberal
Speaker 1: states in the US, went to the polls again on
Speaker 1: affirmative action. It was a really big election, and the
Speaker 1: state's progressive voters were excited either to boot out to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump or to cast a vote for the first
Speaker 1: woman of color as vice president following a summer of
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter protests. If there were ever a time
Speaker 1: for affirmative action to come back, this would be it,
Speaker 1: and Prop sixteen lost of people voted against it. In
Speaker 1: nearly twenty five years since California ended affirmative action, the
Speaker 1: policies had gotten even less popular. Surely, Weber thinks that
Speaker 1: Prop sixteen made some people once again feel like they
Speaker 1: might be on the losing end of a deal. If
Speaker 1: I tell you that, you know we're looking at the universities,
Speaker 1: then you know there's only so many seats in the university,
Speaker 1: and will your kid get a seat? That's always a question.
Speaker 1: And so those who thought they had a certain advantage
Speaker 1: decided that it was too much to get, which is
Speaker 1: not uncommon too much to get, So, you know, it's
Speaker 1: one of the sad stories of the progressive California voting
Speaker 1: for affirmative actually equal opportunity and access was a little
Speaker 1: bit more people wanted to do, you know, a little
Speaker 1: bit more. It may have cost them something. So even
Speaker 1: if the advantage that white people might have overall is
Speaker 1: unfair to begin with or evolved out of centuries of unfairness,
Speaker 1: individuals don't see how that applies to them. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that perception of unfairness might be really hard to overcome.
Speaker 1: The thing is, focusing on education might be the wrong
Speaker 1: way to think about closing the racial wealth gap. For
Speaker 1: a long time, economists and policymakers thought that closing the
Speaker 1: education gap would eventually close the wealth gap. Better education,
Speaker 1: better jobs, more money, and walla equality. But recently a
Speaker 1: pair of e anymous at the St. Louis Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: suggested closing the education gap wouldn't even be enough when
Speaker 1: you look at wealth across racial groups. So For example,
Speaker 1: just among people with college degrees or advanced degrees, there
Speaker 1: are still huge gaps. The FED research shows that white
Speaker 1: and Asian people on average basically benefit more from education
Speaker 1: than Black and Latino people do at every level of education.
Speaker 1: The wealth gap and the income gap persists. What's that work?
Speaker 1: They say, are factors that you can't really see, discrimination
Speaker 1: or other long term structural disadvantages. They might account for
Speaker 1: as much as seventy of the wealth gap for black families.
Speaker 1: What do they recommend instead, They don't really make recommendations,
Speaker 1: not in that paper. What they do say is that
Speaker 1: individual initiative or marginal policy changes might only chip away
Speaker 1: at the gap. To really make significant progress, we need
Speaker 1: quote more fundamental change general society. Maybe we should stop
Speaker 1: fighting or small policy changes and push for bigger, more
Speaker 1: radical things. Shirley Weber is doing just that. In October,
Speaker 1: California passed into law another piece of legislation she wrote,
Speaker 1: We'll just start here by signing this. With this signature,
Speaker 1: Governor Newsome made history, making California the first state in
Speaker 1: the country studying and developing proposals for potential reparations for
Speaker 1: African Americans. That bill is focused on on African Americans,
Speaker 1: not on equity and everybody else. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: there's an awful lot old to group of people who've
Speaker 1: been here four hundred years, came here before the Mayflower,
Speaker 1: and still are at the very bottom of opportunity. Um. So,
Speaker 1: whether it's manifests itself in reparations, whether it manifests itself
Speaker 1: an affirmative action, remains to be seen. So what does
Speaker 1: the bill say, They're going to study reparations. It's a
Speaker 1: first step, and for people really interested in leveling the
Speaker 1: playing field, so to speak, it's an important one. For
Speaker 1: much of the past fifty years, no one took the
Speaker 1: movement for reparations all that seriously, it's different now. There
Speaker 1: are tons of questions about what real reparations would look
Speaker 1: like in the US. Next week on the Paycheck, we
Speaker 1: find out what happened when one affluenced Chicago suburb when
Speaker 1: looking for answers, it is a way to repair egregious
Speaker 1: injury and crimes against humanity against the black community, and
Speaker 1: we need to acknowledge that. And so yes, it is reparations.
Speaker 1: Let's not call it anything else. To make you feel
Speaker 1: better about it, your role in it, or our inability
Speaker 1: to address it before. Now let's call it what it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to the Paycheck. If you like the show,
Speaker 1: please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: This episode was hosted by Me, Rebecca Greenfield and Me
Speaker 1: Jackie Simmons. Today's episode was edited by Janet Paskin and
Speaker 1: reported by Kelsey Butler. This episode was produced by Lindsay Cradowell.
Speaker 1: We also had production help from Magnus Hendrickson and editing
Speaker 1: help from Francesca Levi, Rackheeta Saluja, Jackie Simmons, and Me.
Speaker 1: Our original music is by Leo Sigen. Francesca Levi is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's head of Podcasts. We'll see you next time.