WEBVTT - Surveillance: Stephen Stanley on the Part Time-ization of US 0:00:00.320 --> 0:00:04.160 Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put 0:00:04.200 --> 0:00:07.640 their trust in independent registered investment advisors to the tune 0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:12.240 of four trillion dollars. Why learn more and find your 0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:27.960 independent advisor dot com. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. 0:00:28.360 --> 0:00:32.040 I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you 0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:37.120 insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. 0:00:37.560 --> 0:00:42.120 Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and 0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:48.400 of course, on the Bloomberg. It says Bloomberg Surveillance on 0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:50.600 a Wednesday morning, the twelfth of October. Good morning to 0:00:50.640 --> 0:00:53.120 everyone around the world listening on Bloomberg Radio. I'm David 0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:56.040 Gurrow with Tom Keene in New York. Today the Federalserve 0:00:56.080 --> 0:00:58.279 releases minutes from its September meeting. We'll look for more 0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:01.560 detail on that seven to three decision not to raise 0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:03.840 rights and will continue to keep close eye on currencies. 0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:06.600 This morning, the pound strengthening from what was close to 0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:09.680 a three decade low. UK Prime Minister Theresa May, signaling 0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:11.520 more of a willingness to work with Parliament on a 0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:14.560 plan for Brexit. As I mentioned, FED minutes out today 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.120 at two pm in Washington, and Steven Stanley is going 0:01:17.160 --> 0:01:18.800 to be paying attention to that. He is AMers Pierrepont's 0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:21.039 chief Economy is kind enough to join us now in 0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:23.520 the studio in New York. And Stephen, let me just 0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:25.080 start by asking what you're gonna be looking for when 0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:27.279 those notes come out from the Ecoles building this afternoon. 0:01:27.280 --> 0:01:29.880 What's the first thing you're gonna be looking for? Good morning? Well, 0:01:29.920 --> 0:01:31.880 I think the first thing I'm gonna be looking for 0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:34.959 is just how wide was the sentiment for a move? 0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:37.200 I mean, we know that three voters chose to dissent, 0:01:38.040 --> 0:01:39.840 but I think we also have a sense that there 0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:43.200 were others who wanted to move as well. So, um, 0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:45.560 just how close were they? You know? Vice Chair Fisher 0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:48.000 said it was a pretty close call, So I think 0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:49.960 how close was it? And how does that set up 0:01:49.960 --> 0:01:51.880 for for a move in December. I'm sure you've been 0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:54.040 paying attention to what Eric Rosen, going to the Boston Fed, 0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:57.880 has been saying. Talk about the prominent role he's playing. 0:01:57.920 --> 0:02:00.240 Now is someone here advocating for a rate rye sooner 0:02:00.320 --> 0:02:03.160 rather than later? Sure? Well, I think the main significance 0:02:03.200 --> 0:02:06.560 of that is see someone that's traditionally been very dubbish um. 0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:09.720 And the reasoning that he's using is one that I 0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:12.280 think resonates with more than a few of the people 0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:14.720 in the FED, which is that he's concerned that a 0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:17.760 long stretch of very easy monetary policy is leading to 0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:21.280 excessive asset prices, and in particular he's looking at commercial 0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:23.320 real estate and the effect that could have on the 0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:26.280 banking sector if in fact prices get a little too 0:02:26.320 --> 0:02:28.799 inflated and then start to head the other way. Sure, 0:02:28.880 --> 0:02:32.600 Yellen has had a great record of fostering and having 0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:35.400 unanimity among the ranks at the f o MC. We're 0:02:35.400 --> 0:02:37.520 seeing that start to erode a little bit. How much 0:02:37.520 --> 0:02:39.480 of it concern do you think that is to her 0:02:39.760 --> 0:02:42.399 in terms of just management of that committee. Well, I mean, 0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:45.440 you know, she is more devilish, I think than the 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:47.960 consensus of the committee. So there's a tension there where 0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:51.520 she certainly wants to represent the committee and and to 0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:53.760 bring the committee along, but at the same time I 0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:58.639 think she feels very strongly in pursuing an easier monetary policy. 0:02:58.840 --> 0:03:02.720 This just came across the screen David Gura, n Nate Lanson, 0:03:03.840 --> 0:03:09.440 the Royal Mail of the United Kingdom will not allow 0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:15.920 Samsung's Galaxy Notes seven smartphones to be returned to Samsung 0:03:16.639 --> 0:03:20.799 through its postal network. That is remarkable. Yeah, I read 0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:22.560 that Korean Air was not allowing them to be on 0:03:22.600 --> 0:03:25.480 their planes turned on. But I guess you put it 0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:28.000 on a ship, right. I don't mean to interrupt Steve 0:03:28.040 --> 0:03:31.320 Stanley from uh, did you just Steve Stanley help us here? 0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:34.520 Do you have a sallexy a Galaxy seven? Don't? And 0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:36.880 if I did, I think you'd have to evacuate me. Right, 0:03:37.000 --> 0:03:40.760 ken fellow, do you have a Galaxy seven? We're open 0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:44.680 column of the twins? He has a Galaxy seven. If 0:03:45.160 --> 0:03:47.400 you had a Galaxy seven column, we're gonna let you 0:03:47.440 --> 0:03:50.920 go home. So there it is. Seriously, folks, that's an 0:03:51.000 --> 0:03:54.840 important note on the challenges. It's Samson. Has Steve Stanley 0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:57.000 helped me with the minutes? How do you read the minutes? 0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:01.240 I mean I've seen them several, some many a few. 0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:05.560 How does a pro like you read Janet Yellin's minutes? Well, 0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:07.920 I think that those words that you mentioned are the 0:04:08.000 --> 0:04:10.160 ones that you do have to pay attention to because 0:04:10.520 --> 0:04:14.360 they are often um dueling perspectives. So you'll have a 0:04:14.360 --> 0:04:16.400 hawkish view and a dovish view, and you have to 0:04:16.440 --> 0:04:18.839 pay attention to how many you know, what those words 0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:20.880 suggest about how many are in each camp. And I 0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:23.800 think what we've seen over most of this year is 0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:27.120 that the Hawks have been, um, you know, pushing for 0:04:27.200 --> 0:04:29.760 a move and but they've always been in the minority. 0:04:29.960 --> 0:04:33.080 And it feels to me like the balance of power 0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:35.559 on the committee, at least for the moment, has changed 0:04:35.560 --> 0:04:37.800 a little bit. And it's it's a it's a somewhat 0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:42.400 more um open to a hike. U. Certainly before the 0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:44.400 end of the year, you always learned something new. I 0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:46.599 mean I I look at them, look at how people 0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:49.600 process them. It's looking at word count, it's looking for instance, 0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:52.640 of certain words. How much new or novel do you 0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:55.040 get in the minutes each time? Well, I think it's 0:04:55.040 --> 0:04:57.799 it's not the same every time. Sometimes the minutes aren't 0:04:57.839 --> 0:04:59.960 really all that helpful. Um. And then there are other 0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:03.240 times where there's a there's a paragraph about a conversation 0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:06.719 that you know, a topic was discussed extensively that you 0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:10.000 may not have expected. UM. So I think there's the 0:05:10.000 --> 0:05:13.120 there's the little breadcrumbs that are dropped, you know, the 0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:15.880 explicit policy signals that are sent in the minutes. But 0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:19.560 I think there's also sometimes uh I as an economist, 0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:22.520 I get an insight into things that they're looking at 0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:24.520 on a broader scale rather than just what's going to 0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:26.479 happen at the next meeting. And how about what the 0:05:26.520 --> 0:05:29.479 non voting members say? How much credence do you give 0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:31.640 what they're saying at the meeting with what's recorded from 0:05:31.640 --> 0:05:33.800 them in the minutes. Well, you know, you look at 0:05:33.839 --> 0:05:36.839 this committee as it's currently constituted, and the board is 0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:40.919 is very debbish in general. And also over the years 0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:44.000 we've gotten to a point where the board basically governors 0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:47.680 just aren't going to dissent, right, So the chair basically 0:05:47.720 --> 0:05:50.400 has the votes to get whatever she wants done. There 0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:52.520 is this inner orbit in the outer order, the order 0:05:52.560 --> 0:05:55.480 the banks, right. So then the non voters, I think 0:05:56.040 --> 0:05:58.599 as a rule, are typically more hawkish than the norm 0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:01.080 or the or the enter of the committee because the 0:06:01.120 --> 0:06:04.719 center is so dubbish. Um. So again it's a question 0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:07.919 of are they frustrated because they know they're not going 0:06:07.960 --> 0:06:11.400 to get what they want? Are they eager to move 0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:13.919 and and and feel like we're moving in the right direction, 0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:15.800 and they just like like to go a little more, 0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:18.240 or they just feel like they're just totally butting their 0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:20.000 heads up against the wall. And you do get a 0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:22.000 little bit of a sense of that sometimes In a minute. 0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:25.280 I just did on the dots chart, folks, I may 0:06:25.360 --> 0:06:27.200 do this on television tomorrow and I'll send it out 0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:31.120 on Bloomberg Radio. Plus a linear regression of a dots 0:06:31.279 --> 0:06:37.800 chart translated, we get to two percent FED funds target 0:06:38.680 --> 0:06:44.120 in about February of two thousand eighteen. That seems almost preposterous. 0:06:45.000 --> 0:06:48.680 Where do those dots migrate too? Well, I think the 0:06:48.760 --> 0:06:52.320 question really is about inflation going forward. We've had a 0:06:52.400 --> 0:06:54.799 we've had an economy where the labor market has improved 0:06:54.800 --> 0:06:58.040 a lot, but inflation is kind of stubbornly held below 0:06:58.040 --> 0:07:01.600 two percent. So uh, I think things change a little 0:07:01.600 --> 0:07:03.640 bit as we move into two thousand and seventeen, because 0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:05.400 I think we're going to start to see those inflation 0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:07.920 numbers get very close to two percent and by the 0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:10.520 end of this year, and probably move above it next year. 0:07:10.600 --> 0:07:13.880 So that would be the case for something like the dots. 0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:16.760 And as you say, the market doesn't expect that at all, 0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:20.480 but do the market doesn't expect it even though there 0:07:20.600 --> 0:07:25.120 is language from adults like Stan Fisher of an overshoot. 0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:28.080 So we get near two percent, that's a big So 0:07:28.280 --> 0:07:30.640 what the chair yell and, isn't it? I think so. 0:07:30.720 --> 0:07:33.520 I think they'd be very happy to see inflation a 0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:37.000 few ticks above two percent. The question is, really, um, 0:07:37.520 --> 0:07:40.200 that's not a problem if you're fairly close to a 0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:43.440 neutral policy. But if you're very far away from that, 0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:49.760 um and, and you're and you're not moving closer at 0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:53.600 a at a decent pace, when inflation is already above 0:07:53.680 --> 0:07:56.360 your target, then I think I think it becomes a problem. 0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:58.400 There is a quote from torstens Lock in a Bloomberg 0:07:58.400 --> 0:08:01.000 News piece this morning, talking about the whites of their 0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:03.000 eyes when it comes to inflation. He begs the question, 0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:05.200 what what does that mean in this day and age? 0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:07.280 Is at one point seven? Is it too? How do 0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:08.800 you define the term what's their eyes when it comes 0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:11.200 to to inflation? Well? I think it's it's got to 0:08:11.240 --> 0:08:14.720 be two percent. I mean, the Fed is is even 0:08:14.760 --> 0:08:17.160 now we've on the core pc deflator, which is their 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:19.840 preferred measure. Of course, that we've moved on a year 0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:22.760 over your basis from one three to one seven, and 0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:25.800 the year to date pace is very close to two percent. 0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:28.560 And yet you know, you've got prominent people in the 0:08:28.560 --> 0:08:31.160 committee who are still talking about that it's a problem 0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:34.080 that inflation is too low. Why are they saying that 0:08:34.120 --> 0:08:37.640 if you and I see the same vectors, higher vectors 0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:40.559 don't matter anymore. Well, it's interesting. You know. Charlie Evans 0:08:40.640 --> 0:08:43.640 was out over the over the long weekend, and his 0:08:43.720 --> 0:08:46.400 view is simply, he's just skeptical. You know, we've spent 0:08:46.480 --> 0:08:50.240 so long below two percent. He's concerned about inflation expectations 0:08:50.240 --> 0:08:53.280 having moved down. I don't necessarily agree with him about that, 0:08:53.600 --> 0:08:55.720 but I think he's just skeptical that we're gonna make 0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:58.080 it to two percent. So there's just disagreement about where 0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:01.280 we're headed very quickly. Here, one of the things I've noticed, David, 0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:03.560 I don't know if you've noticed this in Brooklyn, but 0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:06.640 the basic idea is, all of a sudden, businesses are 0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:11.880 having trouble keeping people and retaining people. Are I looked 0:09:11.880 --> 0:09:15.880 at the Jolts Survey, Michael McKee's favorite series. I'm sorry 0:09:15.920 --> 0:09:18.480 I got a jolt out of it. It's it's above 0:09:19.120 --> 0:09:22.640 the last peak of like seven years ago, isn't it absolutely, 0:09:22.640 --> 0:09:26.319 the labor markets getting tight, and there's Mr the brilliant 0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:29.559 Mr Evans of Carnegie Mellon in Chicago, the land of 0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:32.480 the Chicago Cubs. Does he know that? Well? I think 0:09:32.520 --> 0:09:35.160 again that's where the kind of the hawk ish and 0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:38.040 the dovish predilections come in. I'm I tend to be 0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:40.880 more of a hawk. He's certainly very dubbish. And I 0:09:40.920 --> 0:09:43.280 think where I see the glass half full, he sometimes 0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:45.720 sees the glass half empty. So he's looking at things 0:09:45.760 --> 0:09:50.040 like low labor force participation and elevated you six, and 0:09:50.080 --> 0:09:52.680 he's saying, hey, there's still some slash here, Michael Barr. 0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:54.800 Should we have a drinking game that whenever a guest 0:09:54.840 --> 0:09:58.120 comes in and says glass half full, glass empty, we 0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:03.000 take a shot half empty. We can just have the drinking. 0:10:03.080 --> 0:10:05.720 It's just amazing. Glass half That was Steve. That was 0:10:05.800 --> 0:10:08.800 just outstanding. Next, we're gonna do the Truman one hand 0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:11.760 in this pocket, one hand in that pocket. A lot, 0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:14.000 it's more said to the great song of that David 0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:17.240 gurn Tom King. We're here with Stephen Stanley of Amir's 0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:20.640 pier Pond to remind you he was brilliant on a 0:10:20.720 --> 0:10:24.000 more subdued g DP call than consensus a year at 0:10:24.000 --> 0:10:29.240 a half or so uh ago, let's expand. I love 0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:34.400 the phrase proxy productivity. It's something you and Bob since 0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:37.800 you talk about it, the Amir's pierpont help us with productivity. 0:10:38.080 --> 0:10:40.640 And I love this idea of the demographic dynamics and 0:10:40.760 --> 0:10:45.520 proxy productivity. What is that? Well, you know, I think 0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:48.600 what we're saying is obviously and this is not just 0:10:48.679 --> 0:10:50.920 in the US, but all around the world, we're saying low, 0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:55.480 very low productivity in this cycle, and so um if 0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:57.520 you look at the implications of that, as it has 0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:01.600 really important implications for GDP uh potential GDP growth, as 0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:03.880 the San Francisco FED put out a piece yesterday saying 0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:06.079 that potential GDP growth maybe one and a half to 0:11:06.200 --> 0:11:08.360 one and three quarters. I think that's really important. Is 0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:09.960 something that I've been talking about for a long time. 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:12.600 I think the other piece of that that that maybe 0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:16.800 people haven't caught onto quite yet, is the implications of 0:11:16.880 --> 0:11:20.560 productivity for wage growth, because people are still even at 0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:22.240 the FED, are still saying, well, we got to get 0:11:22.280 --> 0:11:24.280 back to three percent wage growth because that's what we 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:27.680 had in the last cycle. Well, if productivity slower businesses 0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:30.520 are not going to pay workers for productivity that doesn't 0:11:30.559 --> 0:11:34.280 exist and beautifully framed. And the idea here, and this 0:11:34.360 --> 0:11:38.600 is so important, folks, is how things mesh in. If 0:11:38.640 --> 0:11:41.080 I get a stronger dollar, if we go to the 0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:44.120 top of the recent range, or if I even breaks 0:11:44.120 --> 0:11:49.040 through that, is that an implied austerity for Janet yelling? 0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:52.360 And is that is something that diminishes growth and diminishes 0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:56.080 our ability to get productivity up. Does a dollar play 0:11:56.120 --> 0:11:58.559 into it even if it's a little bit right? Well, 0:11:58.600 --> 0:12:02.520 I think where yes, it definitely is a dragged growth 0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:07.000 and it's also a a negative factor for inflation. And 0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:09.600 I think that was the bigger issue for the Fed 0:12:09.640 --> 0:12:12.920 in that fourteen fifteen period when the dollar strengthened so much, 0:12:13.040 --> 0:12:15.880 is that it helped to hold down inflation at a 0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:17.839 time when they were hoping to get it up. I'm 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:20.160 gonna try to get you to be prescriptive here, So 0:12:20.720 --> 0:12:22.480 you know, with this, with this negative time, with the 0:12:22.600 --> 0:12:26.600 US UH wage growth, real wage growth slowing UH and 0:12:26.800 --> 0:12:29.360 your forecast continuing to slow, what's gonna kickstart that? What's 0:12:29.360 --> 0:12:31.960 going to change things? Do you think? Well? I think 0:12:32.160 --> 0:12:34.920 on the wage side will probably be okay, because the 0:12:35.000 --> 0:12:37.439 labor market is tight, right, so if firms want to 0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:39.600 hire workers, they're gonna have to pay more. And we're 0:12:39.600 --> 0:12:43.240 seeing more and more anecdotal evidence of that, and we've 0:12:43.240 --> 0:12:45.960 started to see some movement on the on the wage 0:12:45.960 --> 0:12:49.679 statistics average generally earning z C I whatnot. So I 0:12:49.760 --> 0:12:52.319 think that that real wage growth will be okay as 0:12:52.320 --> 0:12:55.839 long as inflation is only gradually moving higher um. And 0:12:56.240 --> 0:12:58.680 as a result, I think the consumers should be in 0:12:58.840 --> 0:13:01.199 pretty good shape here for the foreseeable future as well. 0:13:01.200 --> 0:13:04.240 Why are demographics something more people aren't talking about. We 0:13:04.280 --> 0:13:06.200 talked about in the context of Japan, we talked about 0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:08.200 in the context of many other economies, but it isn't 0:13:08.240 --> 0:13:10.439 something that we talked about that much here in the US, 0:13:10.800 --> 0:13:15.720 probably because it moves very slow, um, which is actually 0:13:15.760 --> 0:13:18.160 good for someone like myself who's trying to forecast things, 0:13:18.200 --> 0:13:24.160 because demographics is one thing I can forecast pretty well. Um. 0:13:24.200 --> 0:13:27.480 It's good for me because I'm never going to return. Um. 0:13:28.400 --> 0:13:31.760 Steve Stanley, how do you respond to very good charts 0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:34.400 and evidence? And I think of the Zero Edge team 0:13:34.400 --> 0:13:37.360 that have been great on this of part time full 0:13:37.400 --> 0:13:41.560 time America, and I get it. In some job categories, 0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:44.000 there is wage growth and there's a tightness of the 0:13:44.080 --> 0:13:48.640 labor market, but that doesn't speak to the part timization 0:13:49.640 --> 0:13:52.560 of the United States of America. Do you think that's 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:55.880 just wrong analysis or can you say there's two Americas 0:13:56.200 --> 0:13:58.680 and one of them is a part time America. Well, 0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.800 I think there's no question and that um that we're 0:14:01.800 --> 0:14:05.400 gonna see more part time jobs. Uh. And this is 0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:07.880 not a cyclical issue. This is a structural issue. And 0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:10.520 and I've kind of argued against the view coming out 0:14:10.559 --> 0:14:13.240 of chair Yelling and others at the FED that a 0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:15.320 lot of the you know that there's a lot of 0:14:15.360 --> 0:14:20.120 slack in the labor market, as demonstrated by higher part 0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:23.880 time involuntary part timers, or by the U six unemployment rate. UM. 0:14:23.920 --> 0:14:25.680 I think a lot of that is structural, and I 0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:28.200 think it reflects a couple of things. One is that 0:14:28.280 --> 0:14:30.960 the economy itself, the structure the economy has changed. If 0:14:31.000 --> 0:14:33.280 you look at the sectors of the economy where we've 0:14:33.280 --> 0:14:37.760 seen job growth in this cycle, retail, restaurants, temp workers, 0:14:37.800 --> 0:14:40.840 a lot of places where zero hudges just kills us 0:14:40.880 --> 0:14:43.600 after the job's day. Zero hudge does like four or 0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:46.440 five charts on this. I mean, come on, they're not 0:14:46.520 --> 0:14:50.440 hamburger flippers, but they're not the jobs that give us 0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:53.440 an aspiration do that. Yeah? Well, I will say I 0:14:53.440 --> 0:14:55.600 think over the last year or two we have seen 0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:58.760 a little more broad based UM job growth. Certainly early 0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:01.160 in the expansion, I think that was the case. Um. 0:15:01.280 --> 0:15:03.720 But but the point, my point would be that you 0:15:03.760 --> 0:15:05.960 can't look at the U six rate and say, oh, well, 0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:08.440 this is higher than it was in the in the 0:15:08.560 --> 0:15:11.680 you know, ten years ago, and conclude from that that 0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:14.640 there's more cyclical slack. I think that's a structural change 0:15:14.680 --> 0:15:17.080 in our economy. What about this new group of workers 0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:20.560 that Alan Kruegery Princeton talks about, those who elect to 0:15:20.640 --> 0:15:23.160 do contract work or part time work through Uber, through 0:15:23.200 --> 0:15:27.360 other on demand services like that, Yeah, the gig it. Yeah, well, 0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:29.440 I think it's it's great for folks who are looking 0:15:29.440 --> 0:15:32.800 for more flexibility. Um. You know, if it's the only 0:15:32.880 --> 0:15:35.040 thing you can find and you'd like to have a 0:15:35.080 --> 0:15:38.360 forty hour week, full time job, then obviously that's that's 0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:40.720 an issue. UM. But I think for a lot of folks, 0:15:40.960 --> 0:15:42.640 they would like to be able to move in and 0:15:42.680 --> 0:15:45.760 out of of of employment at their leisure to work 0:15:45.800 --> 0:15:48.840 whatever hours they'd like to work. And so for folks 0:15:48.840 --> 0:15:52.600 like that, it's a it's a great opportunity. I'm skeptical. 0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:54.920 To me, it's a lot of people forced into the gig. 0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:59.040 I hate the phrase the gig economy, John Tucker, is 0:15:59.040 --> 0:16:01.120 that what we're doing? Are we part of the gig economy? 0:16:01.760 --> 0:16:04.160 You've always been part of the gig. It's just a 0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:09.920 great gig. Steven Sally, brilliant. Thank you so much for Amerson. 0:16:10.040 --> 0:16:12.960 Go out there with Bob. Send your gig through the 0:16:13.000 --> 0:16:16.840 gig economy, the gig job economy of Amberson. This has 0:16:16.880 --> 0:16:36.920 been fabulous, without any uh delay. Craig Moffatt joins us 0:16:36.920 --> 0:16:41.120 from moffat day. Craig, I'm watching Bob Costas kill it 0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:45.720 on MLB on cable, and one day they had Spanish 0:16:46.160 --> 0:16:50.720 Baseball on MLB channel. I couldn't find where the other 0:16:50.800 --> 0:16:54.240 games are because they're spread out all over. It just 0:16:54.280 --> 0:16:59.160 seems almost like sports chaos in your cable world. Where 0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:01.720 are we going to be in five years if I 0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:06.360 want to watch Red Sox Cubs World Series? Well, hey, 0:17:06.400 --> 0:17:08.200 good morning time you know that. Look, there's a lot 0:17:08.280 --> 0:17:15.720 of talk about uh exclusivity for sports and things like that. UM. 0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:18.040 And and obviously there's been a lot of talk about 0:17:18.400 --> 0:17:24.400 key sports leagues and games moving to online media. My 0:17:24.520 --> 0:17:27.960 best guests and um, and this is really more my 0:17:28.080 --> 0:17:32.400 partner Michael's Baileywick than mine. But our best guess is that, um, 0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:36.199 you're gonna see things stay the same more than they change. 0:17:36.600 --> 0:17:40.560 That sports are so central to the value proposition of 0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:44.160 live television and the cable package. They represent only about 0:17:45.040 --> 0:17:49.200 of viewers I say only, um is an enormous number 0:17:49.200 --> 0:17:54.200 about of viewing points. Um. But in key demos, Fox 0:17:54.280 --> 0:17:57.920 just said last week what was it of their viewership 0:17:58.040 --> 0:18:00.960 or something was? Live sports and live sports are so 0:18:01.040 --> 0:18:05.840 central to the value proposition that uh, that the traditional 0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:07.680 media companies are going to continue to pay up and 0:18:07.760 --> 0:18:11.120 keep them in the traditional venues for a while longer. Well, 0:18:11.119 --> 0:18:12.920 the number one question I get cred I want David 0:18:12.920 --> 0:18:16.320 Gore to jump in here, is Apple TVs trying so 0:18:16.440 --> 0:18:20.080 hard it ain't working. Mr Moffatt, I can tell you 0:18:20.119 --> 0:18:24.320 that from actual use, does Apple TV have any chance 0:18:24.400 --> 0:18:28.040 to be part of live sports? Well, I guess the 0:18:28.040 --> 0:18:30.439 the The obvious retort would be, are they really trying 0:18:30.440 --> 0:18:32.879 that hard? Um? I mean they're certainly trying hard to 0:18:33.000 --> 0:18:37.240 make Apple TV compelling device, but they haven't really tried 0:18:37.280 --> 0:18:40.080 all that hard to make it a compelling service. For 0:18:40.160 --> 0:18:44.520 all the talk of of Steve jobs Um having this 0:18:44.680 --> 0:18:49.160 deathbed revelation about how to crack the code for television, Um, 0:18:49.200 --> 0:18:52.000 not much has happened on the Apple front um. They 0:18:52.119 --> 0:18:56.679 spent a lot of time trying to create a video 0:18:56.720 --> 0:19:00.800 bundle that they thought would be compelling and for intensive purposes. 0:19:00.840 --> 0:19:03.680 They dropped the exercise, whether it was over the lack 0:19:03.720 --> 0:19:07.200 of broadcast television or whatever it was. They don't seem 0:19:07.240 --> 0:19:10.560 to be presuing it anymore, David, So you understand, Craig 0:19:10.600 --> 0:19:13.520 Moffat is single handedly been trying to fix a lousy 0:19:13.600 --> 0:19:18.359 Apple remote control of Apple TV has failed. So forth, 0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:21.640 Mr Gura jumping yeah, Craig. You talk about the importance 0:19:21.680 --> 0:19:25.000 of live sports right now to these broadcasters, and I 0:19:25.080 --> 0:19:27.159 wonder how you react to what we've seen when it 0:19:27.200 --> 0:19:30.920 comes to professional football in particular, over these last few weeks, 0:19:31.240 --> 0:19:35.080 viewership has been diminished, advertisers not getting the bang for 0:19:35.119 --> 0:19:38.240 their buck that they wanted. How much of a warning 0:19:38.280 --> 0:19:41.960 sign is that about the importance of live sports? You know, 0:19:42.040 --> 0:19:45.560 it's a great question, David and and um my partner 0:19:45.600 --> 0:19:49.720 Michael just yesterday published a report, the conclusion of which 0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:53.679 was the jury still out that it's been a funny 0:19:53.840 --> 0:19:57.119 start to the season for the NFL in in that 0:19:57.160 --> 0:20:01.040 you've had a combination of very high profile injury UM 0:20:01.359 --> 0:20:05.240 those injuries in turn and suspensions obviously with Tom Brady, 0:20:05.359 --> 0:20:10.360 the loss of to retirement of Peyton Manning, and that 0:20:10.440 --> 0:20:13.880 combination of things made it difficult for schedulers to put 0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:16.879 the best games on television because they didn't know which 0:20:16.880 --> 0:20:19.320 teams were actually going to be interesting. You know, it 0:20:19.359 --> 0:20:22.520 turned out that injuries really changed which teams were going 0:20:22.560 --> 0:20:25.800 to capture the imagination. And then add to that the 0:20:26.960 --> 0:20:30.080 presidential debates that have come on one Sunday night and 0:20:30.119 --> 0:20:33.240 one Monday night, UM that have taken huge ratings, and 0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:37.320 it's hard to say whether there's something really endemic going 0:20:37.359 --> 0:20:41.639 on here. If this continues and we see for the 0:20:41.680 --> 0:20:44.199 balance of this season or certainly in the beginning of 0:20:44.280 --> 0:20:47.960 next season, UM that ratings aren't coming back, then there 0:20:48.000 --> 0:20:51.639 really is a reason to panic because football is the 0:20:51.800 --> 0:20:54.000 lynch pin. It's not just sports in general. It is 0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:57.240 football and one league against the NFL and if the 0:20:57.320 --> 0:20:59.600 NFL does crack, it's a huge problem. But I think 0:20:59.600 --> 0:21:01.600 it's two early to say that it really is. Let 0:21:01.600 --> 0:21:03.679 me ask you about Twitter's ten million dollar bed. I 0:21:03.680 --> 0:21:05.760 put down my moff at Nathan's notes the other night, 0:21:05.800 --> 0:21:09.920 pick up the phone. They're on Twitter is an NFL game. 0:21:10.600 --> 0:21:12.880 This was characterized as an experiment, but I must say 0:21:13.400 --> 0:21:16.240 clarity of the game easy to watch. There is the 0:21:16.240 --> 0:21:18.080 conversation going on beneath to take it or leave it? 0:21:18.119 --> 0:21:21.119 But how successful has this been for Twitter? And is 0:21:21.119 --> 0:21:22.960 it more than experiment? Is the experiment paying off? Is 0:21:22.960 --> 0:21:24.919 that's something we're going to see more of? Well, it 0:21:24.920 --> 0:21:29.119 certainly isn't paying off financially, although you can't really judge 0:21:29.119 --> 0:21:31.560 it based on a single game. But it was a 0:21:31.640 --> 0:21:38.720 Jets Bills game. The viewership was middling at best, I suppose, 0:21:38.920 --> 0:21:42.760 and you're right. While technologically it worked reasonably well, and 0:21:42.800 --> 0:21:44.480