Speaker 1: From Bloomberg News and iHeartRadio. It's the Big Tick. I'm
Speaker 1: west Kosova today Why some US states are loosening child
Speaker 1: labor laws. For quite some time now, owners of retail stores,
Speaker 1: fast food joints and restaurants, and other businesses have complained
Speaker 1: that the tight labor market means they can't find enough
Speaker 1: people willing to work for the low pay and often
Speaker 1: poor benefits these kinds of jobs sometimes offer. Now, several
Speaker 1: US states are responding by easing up on child labor laws.
Speaker 1: Laws intended to protect teenagers by limiting the hours employers
Speaker 1: can schedule them to work and the kinds of jobs
Speaker 1: they can hire them to do. Tuesday afternoon, Governor sanders
Speaker 1: Son House Bill fourteen ten into law.
Speaker 2: House Bill fourteen ten relates to the work permit that
Speaker 2: is required for an individual under sixteen years of age
Speaker 2: when they want to get a job.
Speaker 3: Kids under sixteen would be able to work six hours
Speaker 3: a day instead of four, and sixteen and seventeen year
Speaker 3: olds would be able to work the same hours as adults.
Speaker 3: Jessica Dunker with the Iowa Restaurants Association argues those changes
Speaker 3: will help businesses and Iowa teens.
Speaker 1: This has been controversial, to say the least, but it's
Speaker 1: not the first time we've seen political pressure to put
Speaker 1: young people back to work.
Speaker 2: The issue of child labor was way more contentious historically
Speaker 2: than most people realize.
Speaker 1: That's historian doctor Betsy Woods. She's written a book about
Speaker 1: child labor in America, and I talk with her a
Speaker 1: bit later in the show. First reporters Rebecca Rainey and
Speaker 1: Chris Marr tell us where this is happening and how
Speaker 1: it's playing out. Chris was starting to see several states
Speaker 1: passing these laws that are loosening restrictions on child labor.
Speaker 1: What exactly is happening.
Speaker 4: A lot of the bills are along the lines of
Speaker 4: letting fourteen and fifteen year olds work later hours on
Speaker 4: a school night, or eliminating a special work permit requirement
Speaker 4: for workers under sixteen. And that's the bill that we
Speaker 4: saw Arkansas actually pass and the governor sign a few
Speaker 4: weeks ago.
Speaker 1: There's at least.
Speaker 4: One bill out there in Iowa that's maybe a little
Speaker 4: broader and more concerning from the sort of child safety
Speaker 4: advocates perspective, and that bill would loosen a lot of
Speaker 4: different kinds of child labor restrictions. Do things like let
Speaker 4: teenage apprentices work certain manufacturing and warehouse jobs and lessen
Speaker 4: the potential liability for businesses if an underage worker is injured,
Speaker 4: and let sixteen and seventeen year olds serve alcohol, which
Speaker 4: is normally reserved for workers who are eighteen and up.
Speaker 4: So that's probably the one that has gotten the most
Speaker 4: attention from folks that are concerned about child safety in
Speaker 4: the workplace.
Speaker 1: And some of these bills also allow so kids to
Speaker 1: work late night shifts, is that right, and work in
Speaker 1: industries that are considered to be more dangerous than kids
Speaker 1: are usually allowed to work in.
Speaker 4: The Iowa bill is really the one that changes which
Speaker 4: industries kids are allowed to work in, and that's one
Speaker 4: that has moved through the state Senate, still waiting for
Speaker 4: a final state House vote, although that could come any day.
Speaker 4: There was another bill in Minnesota that would let I
Speaker 4: think sixteen and seventeen year olds work in construction, probably
Speaker 4: less likely to pass this year since that's a Republican
Speaker 4: sponsored bill and a Democratic majority legislature.
Speaker 1: Now, Rebecca, what does the federal law say about what
Speaker 1: kids can and can't do?
Speaker 5: That's actually something really interesting. Some of these bills will
Speaker 5: run a foul of federal labor law. And so what
Speaker 5: that means is basically, states are telling employers to follow
Speaker 5: rules that are weaker than those at the federal level,
Speaker 5: meaning that while state enforcers may not come in and police,
Speaker 5: you know, the rules, it's going to be up to
Speaker 5: the federal government itself to make sure that those employers
Speaker 5: are following the rules. And that goes into a whole
Speaker 5: other issue of where the federal government's agency that's required
Speaker 5: to police these issues is extremely underfunded and understaffed. But
Speaker 5: just to go back to some of the federal rules
Speaker 5: so that we're reminded, so the US Labor departments Wage
Speaker 5: an Hour Division is the subagency that is in charge
Speaker 5: of enforcing all sorts of laws under the Fair Labor
Speaker 5: Standards Act, which includes prohibitions on the kinds of jobs
Speaker 5: and work that kids can do. All sorts of federal
Speaker 5: limits set to protect kids, especially fourteen and fifteen year olds,
Speaker 5: from working in dangerous conditions. Child labor laws usually specifically
Speaker 5: limit where kids can work, what types of jobs they
Speaker 5: can do, and the hours that they can work. Usually
Speaker 5: fourteen and fifteen year olds have more restrictions when it
Speaker 5: comes to hours. Some things that may be surprising for
Speaker 5: folks is that it's illegal for fourteen and fifteen year
Speaker 5: olds to work more than three hours on a school
Speaker 5: day or past seven pm on a school day that
Speaker 5: includes Fridays, and during the summer they are allowed to
Speaker 5: work after nine pm. But you know, again, some of
Speaker 5: these time limits may not be very obvious. Also, when
Speaker 5: I talk about places that kids shouldn't be in, for example,
Speaker 5: there's just something that they call hazardous occupation orders that say, okay,
Speaker 5: kids can't work with certain types of dangerous machinery. For example,
Speaker 5: kids aren't supposed to be in manufacturing facilities or in
Speaker 5: meatpacking plants where there's these large pieces of equipment that
Speaker 5: could tip over that could potentially harm them, even things
Speaker 5: like meat slicers. We also recently saw a case brought
Speaker 5: by the Wage an Hour Division involving a fast food
Speaker 5: chain where a kid was working with a deep fryer
Speaker 5: and suffered from deep frier burns.
Speaker 1: Chris, how is it that state laws can violate a
Speaker 1: federal law? Why is that a lot?
Speaker 4: That's a good question. It's not really allowed, but some
Speaker 4: states will try to do it anyway. And I guess
Speaker 4: we see this on a lot of different areas of
Speaker 4: policy where states will maybe try to push the envelope.
Speaker 4: So basically what would happen there is federal law would
Speaker 4: override the state. There would be a few businesses, some
Speaker 4: very small businesses, that are not covered by the Fair
Speaker 4: Labor Standards Act, which is the federal law, and so
Speaker 4: in that case they would revert to the state law,
Speaker 4: and those businesses actually could have the fourteen and fifteen
Speaker 4: year olds working until nine. But another piece of this
Speaker 4: that we've heard in our reporting is that some of
Speaker 4: this may be strategic on the part of business and
Speaker 4: industry groups that want to be able to have more
Speaker 4: younger workers in their restaurants and retail jobs, for example,
Speaker 4: with the goal of saying, hey, if we get out
Speaker 4: there and maybe we can get five or ten states
Speaker 4: to pass these looser restrictions, then we could use that
Speaker 4: as leverage to kind of pressure Congress, maybe not this Congress,
Speaker 4: maybe a future Congress, to say, hey, why don't we
Speaker 4: do the same thing at the federal level and actually
Speaker 4: relax those federal laws.
Speaker 5: There's plenty of ways for people to get around these
Speaker 5: federal rules when states weaken these laws. While the Feds
Speaker 5: may be able to come in and target some of
Speaker 5: these larger businesses that aren't exempt.
Speaker 1: There's also a whole patchwork.
Speaker 5: Of exemptions that they have to navigate through.
Speaker 1: You mentioned, Chris that industries are pushing for this. What
Speaker 1: industries in particular want to be able to hire younger kids.
Speaker 4: With the Iowa bill in particular, there were some state
Speaker 4: retail and restaurant associations that were advocating for it. There
Speaker 4: was actually a federal bill proposed last year in the
Speaker 4: previous Congress that would do similar things along the lines
Speaker 4: of letting teenagers work later hours on school nights and
Speaker 4: work more hours during the week during the school year,
Speaker 4: and in that case it was advocated by the National
Speaker 4: Restaurant Association. I think a lot of it is pushed
Speaker 4: by restaurant in retail, but certainly not just that. The
Speaker 4: Ohio bill is advocated by the National Federation of Independent Business,
Speaker 4: which is a small business advocacy group that spans all
Speaker 4: different industries.
Speaker 1: Rebecca, I suppose it's no coincidence that some of the
Speaker 1: industry is pushing for this are the ones that are
Speaker 1: having trouble finding people willing to work these low wage
Speaker 1: jobs in a tight labor market, and are thinking that
Speaker 1: teenagers are a good way to fill in.
Speaker 5: When we read some of these stories, even the most
Speaker 5: egregious cases, a lot of these kids say they want
Speaker 5: to be working. Sometimes kids don't have any other choice
Speaker 5: but to help feed their family in addition to going
Speaker 5: to school. So there's lots of layers to why this
Speaker 5: is happening. I think when it comes to the labor
Speaker 5: market question, a lot of unions and labor advocates will
Speaker 5: say that if companies are struggling to find workers, they
Speaker 5: should raise wages. But as we all know, with inflation,
Speaker 5: it's not always easy for a company to be willing
Speaker 5: to sacrifice the bottom line in that way.
Speaker 4: You know, we've seen some pretty egregious violations reported, like
Speaker 4: this case of the Packers Sanitation company that had kids
Speaker 4: going in and cleaning meat packing plants and ended up
Speaker 4: facing a one and a half million dollar fine from
Speaker 4: the Labor Department for that. And I think it's going
Speaker 4: to be interesting to watch going forward whether we might
Speaker 4: see some response from states in the other direction, maybe
Speaker 4: not this year, maybe in future legislative sessions, but to
Speaker 4: strengthen their own enforcement efforts around child labor violations.
Speaker 1: And I should say Packers Sanitation Services says they have
Speaker 1: a zero tolerance policy against employing anyone under the age
Speaker 1: of eighteen, and they say they're fully committed to working
Speaker 1: with the Department of Labor to make additional improvements to
Speaker 1: enforce that prohibition. When we come back why it's not
Speaker 1: always easy to police child labor laws, Chris, Is this
Speaker 1: something that's happening more in red states and blue states
Speaker 1: or is this a trend that's happening around the country
Speaker 1: no matter who's running a state.
Speaker 4: I think a lot of the proposals we're seeing that
Speaker 4: would relax child labor restrictions do tend to be in
Speaker 4: red states Republican majority legislatures Iowa, Arkansas, Ohio, among others.
Speaker 1: How exactly are these laws enforced? What is the federal
Speaker 1: government supposed to do, what are the states supposed to do,
Speaker 1: and what are businesses supposed to do?
Speaker 5: When it comes to actually going and slapping someone on
Speaker 5: the wrist for a violation, people will send complaints into
Speaker 5: the agency, or they would see it during an investigation.
Speaker 5: Perhaps they were referred by another federal agency. Like in meatpacking,
Speaker 5: for example, there's a lot of food safety inspectors who
Speaker 5: will be in there more often than the Department of Labor.
Speaker 5: If someone is in the door, sometimes they can say, Hey,
Speaker 5: that person looks really young and maybe they shouldn't be
Speaker 5: working here. I'm gonna let the Wage hour Division know.
Speaker 5: But the problem is the wage in our division is
Speaker 5: extremely understaffed and underfunded. The last time I checked with
Speaker 5: the agency, they said they had seven hundred and ninety
Speaker 5: four investigators to cover more than nine point eight million
Speaker 5: workplaces in the United States. So a lot of times
Speaker 5: these investigations happen when a catastrophe happens. You know the
Speaker 5: case that we saw with packer sanitation and the children
Speaker 5: working overnight in the meatpacking plants. It was teachers who said,
Speaker 5: we have kids who are falling asleep in class, are
Speaker 5: not showing up to school. Sometimes not until the violation
Speaker 5: happens that the federal government gets itself in the door.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, states can and do sometimes do their own enforcement
Speaker 4: around child labor violations. But how robust that labor enforcement
Speaker 4: is at the state level varies pretty widely from state
Speaker 4: to state and even then across the board. As with
Speaker 4: the federal agency, the state agencies are chronically underfunded, and
Speaker 4: even the funding and positions that are available. A lot
Speaker 4: of states had trouble keeping those filled and have continued
Speaker 4: having trouble filling them since the pandemic. I would just
Speaker 4: add on the earlier question about red states and blue states.
Speaker 4: It was interesting to see that Arkansas, in addition to
Speaker 4: the bill to eliminate work permits, came back a few
Speaker 4: weeks later and enacted a separate build to increase the
Speaker 4: penalties for child labor violations. It's a case where the
Speaker 4: state sort of went both ways this year.
Speaker 1: In the case of say Arkansas, where the governors or
Speaker 1: Hockey Sanders made a big point of saying, we're no
Speaker 1: longer going to require you to provide proof of someone's age.
Speaker 1: Does that kind of send a message to employers that
Speaker 1: are not really going to be looking so closely at this.
Speaker 4: And that's the point that I think a lot of
Speaker 4: sort of child safety and labor advocates made about that bill.
Speaker 4: You know, the supporters of the bill said, well, this
Speaker 4: is just paperwork. We're just getting rid of some government
Speaker 4: or red tape. If teenagers want to work and their
Speaker 4: parents are okay with them working, why should they have
Speaker 4: to fill out more paperwork from the government. But the
Speaker 4: advocates on the other side said, well, this is a check,
Speaker 4: This is a way of having some proof that we
Speaker 4: know how old this person is, we know what they're
Speaker 4: allowed to do on the job and what they're not
Speaker 4: allowed to do, and how late they're allowed to work.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I think that's a concern for the safety
Speaker 4: advocates that yeah, maybe it does send that message that
Speaker 4: the state's not really going to be watching that closely.
Speaker 1: Rebecca. Let's say everyone's doing their job the way they're
Speaker 1: supposed to do and federal inspectors with a Wage an
Speaker 1: Hour's Division or a state investigator finds out that there's
Speaker 1: a child labor violation. What happens from there?
Speaker 5: I know on the federal level, it would start an
Speaker 5: investigation by the Wage an Hour Division. They would audit
Speaker 5: their books, request how they sought proof of age, how
Speaker 5: long this person had been working for them, also so
Speaker 5: that they can calculate potential penalties, that sort of thing.
Speaker 5: There's different levels of violations that could be found as well.
Speaker 5: If a company is found to be willfully violating the
Speaker 5: law is very aware if they've had previous violations, the
Speaker 5: penalties that they can face can be much higher.
Speaker 1: What are the penalties, like what does this.
Speaker 5: So this is an issue the Apartment of Labor and
Speaker 5: the Biden administration has said is making their enforcement abilities
Speaker 5: harder because the maximum civil monetary penalty for a child
Speaker 5: labor violation right now is a little over fifteen thousand
Speaker 5: dollars per child, which you know, officials believe is just
Speaker 5: not enough of a deterrent. And that's something that the
Speaker 5: Biden administration has requested Congress change. They want not only
Speaker 5: more funding for their enforcement, but they also want them
Speaker 5: to pass legislation to increase these monetary penalty amounts.
Speaker 1: Chris, what is the argument that people in favor of
Speaker 1: listening to these laws are making?
Speaker 4: Business groups and mostly but not entirely Republican lawmakers sort
Speaker 4: of make the argument that work experience is valuable and
Speaker 4: if a fifteen year old wants to work a few
Speaker 4: hours on a school night, you know, scooping popcorn at
Speaker 4: the movie theater or whatever it might be, that's valuable
Speaker 4: life experience. It's a way to earn a little money.
Speaker 4: Presumably they're there with their parents' permission, although not every
Speaker 4: state requires that. There's documentation of that. And some of
Speaker 4: these folks have said to me Hey, look, this is
Speaker 4: not really fair that we're sort of getting lumped in
Speaker 4: with this case of kids cleaning meat packing plants using
Speaker 4: caustic chemicals. You know, this is not the kind of
Speaker 4: thing we're advocating for. We agree that that's wrong and
Speaker 4: that's illegal, and those companies should face penalties for it.
Speaker 4: But we're talking about, you know, letting teenagers work until
Speaker 4: nine pm or sort of cutting out the permit application
Speaker 4: process for teenagers who want to work, and so parental
Speaker 4: rights is a piece of that too. In Arkansas in particular,
Speaker 4: where the legislature enacted this law to get rid of
Speaker 4: the work permit requirement, state lawmakers pointed out, look, if
Speaker 4: parents want to let their kids work, and the kids
Speaker 4: want to work, then why should the state be in
Speaker 4: the way to sort of put up this additional red
Speaker 4: tape and say, well, you have to go through this
Speaker 4: permitting process.
Speaker 1: To do it, Rebecca, so far, we're seeing this happen
Speaker 1: in really just a handful of states. When you look
Speaker 1: down the road, you cover this all the time, what
Speaker 1: do you see. Do you think that we're going to
Speaker 1: start to see this expand I.
Speaker 5: Would say no, and that is because the heightened scrutiny.
Speaker 5: We have seen of these types of cases when it
Speaker 5: comes to various child labor violations, But when it comes
Speaker 5: to Congress actually moving in this direction of loosening laws,
Speaker 5: I would predict that we would see things go actually
Speaker 5: in the opposite direction, more protective of children if there
Speaker 5: were any policy changes in DC. However, we do have
Speaker 5: an election coming up, and there's always the potential for
Speaker 5: things to change, the makeup in Congress to change, So,
Speaker 5: you know, I think Chris is right in saying that
Speaker 5: states are maybe planning the seeds for a future administration
Speaker 5: of future Congress to consider something like this, especially with
Speaker 5: the state of the economy as it is.
Speaker 1: Rebecca, Chris, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having us, Thanks for having me when we
Speaker 1: come back. The push to peel back child labor laws
Speaker 1: is history repeating itself. Of course, we have heard this
Speaker 1: story before, as doctor Betsy Wood can tell you. In fact,
Speaker 1: she's gonna tell us. She is the author of Upon
Speaker 1: the Altar of Work, Child Labor, and the Rise of
Speaker 1: American Sectionalism, Doctor Wood, I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: have been surprised by the sudden rise of these child
Speaker 1: labor laws that are going into fact in different states
Speaker 1: because for a long time the question about children working
Speaker 1: had been settled, that it was something we didn't want.
Speaker 2: I know, it seems that way, and I empathize with
Speaker 2: the perspective. From an historical standpoint, isn't as surprising, and
Speaker 2: that's simply because the issue of child labor was way
Speaker 2: more contentious historically than most people realize. I think the
Speaker 2: common assumption might be that child labor existed a long
Speaker 2: time ago. Everyone knows that it was really awful, especially
Speaker 2: in dangerous working conditions or in factories and coal mines
Speaker 2: and things like that, and that the country came together
Speaker 2: and realized that this wasn't okay and abolished it. That's
Speaker 2: not really true. You know. What really happened is more
Speaker 2: of a decades long battle that lasted for about one
Speaker 2: hundred years, and I think I should say extends into
Speaker 2: the present day. It wasn't over with the nineteen thirty
Speaker 2: eight passage of the Federal Labor Standards Act that did
Speaker 2: give us our first federal child labor law. The first
Speaker 2: attempt at a federal child labor law was back in
Speaker 2: nineteen o six and it failed, and there was another
Speaker 2: attempt in nineteen sixteen. That also, I wouldn't say they failed.
Speaker 2: It's more that the Supreme Court decided they weren't constant,
Speaker 2: and there were just contentious battles where you know, parents
Speaker 2: would take these laws to court and say this violated
Speaker 2: their rights as parents, and the Supreme Court would agree
Speaker 2: with them. I think the larger point is the issue
Speaker 2: of child labor has always tapped into bigger debates in
Speaker 2: American society, and I think that we're seeing that being
Speaker 2: revived again today in a way that I would say
Speaker 2: is kind of consistent with what has happened in the past.
Speaker 1: And what is that consistency, What is the argument now?
Speaker 2: To step back a little bit, business interests have always
Speaker 2: sort of been at the heart of public debates over
Speaker 2: child labors. So in the past, you had textile mills
Speaker 2: in the South really relying on child labor in large
Speaker 2: numbers when the South was just starting to be industrialized,
Speaker 2: and so their arguments were that this was good for
Speaker 2: the economy. Their arguments were that they were uplifting these
Speaker 2: children and their families and giving them financial opportunity unities.
Speaker 2: There were arguments about the moral value of labor, that
Speaker 2: it teaches children important moral lessons that will help them
Speaker 2: in life. And then there was a very effective argument
Speaker 2: about parental rights that if there are disagreements about this
Speaker 2: labor and how it affects children and what children need,
Speaker 2: who should be the one deciding Should it be the
Speaker 2: government that decides this or should it be parents that
Speaker 2: decide this? And so the argument over parental rights is
Speaker 2: ultimately the one that business interest, I think realized was
Speaker 2: very effective in kind of pushing this framing of the issue.
Speaker 2: That is the argument that was used back then, and
Speaker 2: very strikingly I have seen that again today. It's similar
Speaker 2: in a lot of ways. Not exactly because there's a
Speaker 2: whole different framework in the nineteenth century, of course, but
Speaker 2: I do see some resonances with the past.
Speaker 1: Well, I think a lot of people listening to this
Speaker 1: podcast had jobs when they were teenagers. I did. I
Speaker 1: had my first job at McDonald's when I was fifteen,
Speaker 1: and you know, it was a real character building exercise.
Speaker 1: I liked the Arnie the extra money.
Speaker 2: That is kind of what the Fair Labor Standards Act
Speaker 2: was trying to accomplish in a way, was is this
Speaker 2: labor appropriate? And so, for example, there's an emphasis on
Speaker 2: dangerous occupations. There's an emphasis on what is the type
Speaker 2: of labor that children are doing? You know, is it
Speaker 2: something furthering, like when you're talking about your experience and
Speaker 2: working at McDonald's. You know, this could be something that
Speaker 2: the number of hours didn't interfere with the other pursuits
Speaker 2: in your life and could have complimented what you were doing.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, I think there is nuance there,
Speaker 2: and I think what's happening now is just surprising because
Speaker 2: it's a kind of aggressive attempt at rolling back protections
Speaker 2: that haven't been touched in a long time.
Speaker 1: These laws are coming up at a time when there's
Speaker 1: a tight labor market, a lot of places are looking
Speaker 1: for people to work in There's this big debate about
Speaker 1: whether there's really a labor shortage or if there's just
Speaker 1: a shortage of people willing to work those kinds of
Speaker 1: jobs for low wages anymore when they have other opportunities.
Speaker 1: And so now there's this idea that teenagers will do
Speaker 1: those jobs and that you can pay them a lower wage.
Speaker 2: This conversation could just as well have been happening in
Speaker 2: the nineteen thirties, because during the Great Depression, you know,
Speaker 2: the idea that jobs should be going any available jobs
Speaker 2: should be going to children or to youth just started
Speaker 2: to make no sense, and people were basically more likely
Speaker 2: to say, well, in this instance, we need to make
Speaker 2: sure that all available jobs that are full time, full
Speaker 2: time employment need to be going to adult workers that
Speaker 2: need these jobs. And so that moment actually really helped
Speaker 2: the cause a lot in getting people to support federal
Speaker 2: legislation to in child labor and for the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: to finally go along with the constitutionality of this legislation.
Speaker 1: As somebody who spends a lot of time looking in
Speaker 1: the past, I'm and ask you to look into the future.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this will gain kind of acceptance
Speaker 1: and popularity.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know how good my crystal ball is,
Speaker 2: but I would say I don't think we should ever
Speaker 2: assume that we settled that and that one that's in
Speaker 2: the dustbin of history. I don't think that we can
Speaker 2: ever do that, really, even with something like this, Especially
Speaker 2: maybe with something like this, My take would be typically
Speaker 2: the side of protecting children from dangerous occupations and from
Speaker 2: harmful labor tends to win. I think that that would
Speaker 2: be the case, But I don't think that the opposition
Speaker 2: should be underestimated anyway, because they have successfully managed to
Speaker 2: defeat or weakend child labor laws in American history in
Speaker 2: ways that are surprising. They were able to prevent a
Speaker 2: child labor in the nineteen twenties that had very widespread
Speaker 2: popular support that everyone thought was going to pass, and
Speaker 2: it didn't because this opposition was very organized and very
Speaker 2: effective in being able to rally just ordinary citizens on
Speaker 2: the basis of of the government takeover of the family
Speaker 2: and that parental rights are going to be interfered with.
Speaker 2: So these kind of fear based arguments can be really,
Speaker 2: really powerful. So I don't know, I guess I'm going
Speaker 2: to say I'm fifty to fifty.
Speaker 1: On it, Doctor Betsy would thanks so much for talking
Speaker 1: with me today.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to us here at The Big Take.
Speaker 1: It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more
Speaker 1: shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen, and we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Email us questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot Net. The supervising producer of The Big Take is
Speaker 1: Vicky Virgalina. Our senior producer is Catherine Fink. Rebecca Shasson
Speaker 1: is our producer. Our associate producer is Sam Gobauer. Raphael M.
Speaker 1: Seeley is our engineer. Our original music was composed by
Speaker 1: Leo Sidrin. I'm West Kasova. We'll be back tomorrow with
Speaker 1: another big take. Pun Ban pup, punt, bun bun bokar