WEBVTT - The Latest Vaccine Rollout and Science Celebrities 0:00:01.280 --> 0:00:05.119 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays 0:00:05.120 --> 0:00:08.280 at one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, 0:00:08.320 --> 0:00:11.479 the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen 0:00:11.520 --> 0:00:13.800 on demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:00:15.880 --> 0:00:19.720 Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we 0:00:19.960 --> 0:00:23.680 bust a myth about working from home, that your employee 0:00:23.720 --> 0:00:27.480 may actually be working a second full time job. And 0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:30.280 we'll look at the vaccine rollout for the fall and 0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:34.640 how the US deserves better, plus how becoming a celebrity 0:00:34.720 --> 0:00:38.480 scientist can backfire on you. But let's begin with how 0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:41.840 women can be an asset in the fight against inflation. 0:00:42.560 --> 0:00:45.440 About seventy five percent of women in their prime working 0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:49.400 years are employed, and that is a record high. Women 0:00:49.440 --> 0:00:53.200 are playing a crucial role in helping ease labor shortages 0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:58.920 and alleviating upward pressure on inflation, especially mothers of young children. 0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:01.560 Now you might recall a couple of years ago when 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:05.040 the White House announced thirty nine billion dollars in funds 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:09.160 to help childcare efforts and keep childcare centers open during 0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:13.960 the pandemic. Then Press Secretary Jansaki pointed to the millions 0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:17.479 of women who left the workforce at the time because 0:01:17.520 --> 0:01:18.399 of the pandemic. 0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:22.360 These funds will help early childhood educators and family childcare 0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:25.880 providers keep their doors open and make sure every state 0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:29.080 has a strong child's care system that provides families with 0:01:29.240 --> 0:01:31.760 what they need. Since the start of the pandemic, as 0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:34.319 we've talked about a bit in here, roughly two million 0:01:34.319 --> 0:01:38.160 women have left the workforce. That is disproportionately due to 0:01:38.200 --> 0:01:41.399 caregiving needs. And we're hopeful that this will help. 0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:44.600 And while women have made a comeback in the workforce, 0:01:44.680 --> 0:01:48.280 those childcare funds are ending. Let's learn more about this. 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:52.320 Bloomberg Opinion columnist Claudia sam is founder of Some Consulting 0:01:52.600 --> 0:01:56.960 and a former Federal Reserve economist. She joins me now, Claudia, 0:01:57.440 --> 0:01:59.640 it's worth noting that at the start of the pandemic 0:01:59.640 --> 0:02:02.240 it was women mostly who stayed home to take care 0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:05.400 of the family. So this record employment rate that you 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:07.560 cite in your column is impressive. 0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:12.560 Rights it is impressive. Women really came from behind in 0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:16.519 the pandemic, both because they lost jobs at a much 0:02:16.560 --> 0:02:20.600 higher pace than men because primarily women are more represented 0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:22.800 in the service sector, and that's what got shut down 0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:26.240 and then also millions of women left the labor market, 0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:29.880 and a large portion of that was for caregiving responsibilities 0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:33.080 that became didn't have the childcare that was reliable, the 0:02:33.080 --> 0:02:36.440 schools were closed, and we are at a point now 0:02:36.560 --> 0:02:40.239 where the employment rate of prime age women, so aged 0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:43.560 twenty five to fifty four, is at the highest it 0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:46.960 has ever been, so seventy percent of women in that 0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.960 group are working now. That has been a huge help 0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:54.519 to reducing the labor shortages that we've seen because again 0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:57.800 they're coming back in the service sector work and some 0:02:57.960 --> 0:03:00.040 of the supports that have been put in place to 0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:02.359 help women get back on their feet and have their 0:03:02.400 --> 0:03:06.840 family caregiving taken care of, like these childcare subsidies, they're 0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:10.720 over and that there's a real question as to whether 0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:14.480 the advances that they've made with jobs and with other 0:03:15.040 --> 0:03:17.360 being part of the labor market, if that's going to 0:03:17.520 --> 0:03:19.399 slip away or if we're going to just slide back 0:03:19.440 --> 0:03:22.640 to some extent. Another important piece, and we've seen this 0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:25.800 across a number of groups that have historically had some 0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:29.560 difficulties getting jobs, is that we have had a great 0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:33.760 labor market, so employers part of getting women back with 0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:38.760 employers being more open minded about how flexible they could 0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:42.040 make the jobs, how good the pay could be. I mean, 0:03:42.040 --> 0:03:44.960 there are childcare options out there, but you've got to 0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:47.960 be able to afford them. So there are some aspects 0:03:47.960 --> 0:03:52.640 of how women got ahead that didn't slip away last 0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:55.680 month entirely with the childcare now these subsidies, and I 0:03:55.680 --> 0:03:58.040 think people might remember that there was a talk of 0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:02.320 big childcare programs getting money to families with the build 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:04.000 back better and that didn't happen. 0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:04.600 And so this. 0:04:04.600 --> 0:04:08.520 Program is its aim was to keep the childcare centers 0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:10.120 that we had open. 0:04:10.760 --> 0:04:13.280 Now the point of your column, the meat of it 0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:16.840 is about how women are a neglected asset in the 0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:20.919 fight against inflation. What is it that women bring to 0:04:20.960 --> 0:04:23.600 the table that helps in that fight? 0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:28.520 Right as you said, the piece is really taking the 0:04:28.560 --> 0:04:31.360 twenty thousand foot view of what are we missing, not 0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:34.320 so much the struggle of the families, which are real 0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:38.640 in terms of the caregiving. What's the benefit to the 0:04:38.880 --> 0:04:43.320 entire country if we get more women involved, given in 0:04:43.360 --> 0:04:47.240 the example a very topical one of the labor shortages 0:04:47.279 --> 0:04:50.640 and dealing with the inflation, that's just scratching the surface. 0:04:50.720 --> 0:04:53.200 I mean, that's the one inflation. Inflation is everything we're 0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:57.719 thinking about now, and yet we there's long term growth 0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:00.920 and productivity. These are the these are the big ones 0:05:01.040 --> 0:05:03.120 right in terms of where where we're going to be 0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:09.520 ten years, twenty years from now. One aspect of this 0:05:09.839 --> 0:05:13.160 cost equation of not bringing women in is the fact 0:05:13.240 --> 0:05:15.920 that over time we're at a place where women are 0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:21.040 more likely than men to be receiving higher and higher education. 0:05:22.080 --> 0:05:26.640 And so these women have invested Our schools and universities 0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:28.880 have invested a lot in them in terms of getting 0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:33.920 what you know, quote unquote marketable skills, like certain things 0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:36.240 that they could apply at work, and then we're not 0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:39.880 helping them get work to a place where they can 0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:42.600 be a part of it. So you've left this kind 0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.400 of money on the table in terms of people that 0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:48.560 really have something to add in the workforce. We're not 0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:52.600 allowing many women and to make a choice not to 0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:54.600 Like I don't you know, we shouldn't be forcing everyone 0:05:54.640 --> 0:05:56.560 to work, but there are many women who were not 0:05:57.000 --> 0:06:00.039 giving them a chance to realize their full potential. That 0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:03.960 costs them in terms of career opportunities and wages, and 0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:07.200 it costs all of us in terms of not having 0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:09.400 being as productive as we could be. 0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:12.080 So let's flip it on its head. Then what is 0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:15.760 the risk as women are removed from that equation. 0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:21.360 Again, and it's this loss of potential and we know 0:06:21.680 --> 0:06:25.360 what we can do better. We can compare ourselves to 0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:28.800 other countries that have made a concerted effort, like they 0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:33.240 understand getting women into the workforce benefits everyone in the 0:06:33.360 --> 0:06:36.919 United States, whereas we were on the leaderboard a couple 0:06:36.960 --> 0:06:39.920 decades ago, that is no longer the case. And there 0:06:39.920 --> 0:06:43.000 were very different kinds of social programs, very different kinds 0:06:43.040 --> 0:06:45.279 of goals set for bringing women in. So we can't 0:06:45.279 --> 0:06:47.400 make the excuse that it's just like, oh, women don't 0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:50.000 want to work, Oh this is the best we can do. 0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:55.640 That's absolutely not the case. The policies, it's tricky, right, 0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:58.679 and some of these very much sit with the private 0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:03.360 sector in terms of and businesses are losing out right. 0:07:03.400 --> 0:07:07.560 They're not bringing in the workers, they're not allowing again, 0:07:07.560 --> 0:07:09.960 they're not allowing the workers to reach their full potential. 0:07:10.480 --> 0:07:13.360 This I think it was very timely. I didn't foresee 0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:17.560 this that Professor Claudia Golden Yesay received the Nobel Prize 0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:22.960 and Economics. Claudia's lifetime career has been focused on women 0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:27.600 and work and among other areas that she studied. And 0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:30.000 one thing, and there's a piece of the column that 0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:34.720 is very much inspired by knowing her research, is that 0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:38.960 it's not just that women can't get the child care. 0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:43.120 It's often the jobs are set up the women just 0:07:43.160 --> 0:07:47.920 can't do them right. They have inflexible hours, and you 0:07:47.920 --> 0:07:49.880 think of a lot of professional degrees where you need 0:07:49.920 --> 0:07:51.720 to be able to drop everything when the phone rings 0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:53.480 and the client needs something, and you have to stay 0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:55.800 late for the dinners and do things that are just 0:07:55.920 --> 0:08:01.320 not conducive to someone who has caregiving responsibilities or woman right. 0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:05.120 And so she talked about just we have these barriers, 0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:08.400 sometimes ones we don't even think about that keep women 0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:10.160 from being there. And then they are also ones that 0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:13.240 it's like do you really need that or your operation, 0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:17.120 your business to be productive. And so this is on 0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:20.480 you know, there are a lot of social programs that 0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:24.000 could help, not holding my breath when a lot of 0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:27.640 those happening. There are a lot of private sector solutions. 0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:32.080 Part of the column is to try and emphasize why 0:08:32.679 --> 0:08:36.520 we all benefit, why employers would benefit from making accommodations 0:08:37.240 --> 0:08:41.400 so that people with childcare responsibilities or other limitations kind 0:08:41.400 --> 0:08:44.720 of with a standard day to day of work schedule. 0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:47.240 In some of these jobs, employers have a lot of 0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:51.959 control over how they set up their work. And we 0:08:52.080 --> 0:08:53.960 know with things like the work from home, which have 0:08:54.080 --> 0:08:59.360 benefited women among other groups, like these accommodations can work. 0:09:00.200 --> 0:09:02.440 This was proof of concept here, So then there are 0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:03.319 others out there. 0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:06.640 The numbers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 0:09:06.720 --> 0:09:09.920 found during its assessment. Let's just go over those numbers 0:09:10.040 --> 0:09:12.840 very briefly, if we could, and kind of hammer that 0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:15.200 point home that you're trying to make in your column 0:09:15.240 --> 0:09:16.319 about what this could mean. 0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:20.320 That's an excellent piece that came out of San Francisco. 0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:24.480 They looked at women, they also looked at racial minorities 0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:27.120 and thinking about this integration, and they did it on 0:09:27.240 --> 0:09:31.120 lots of dimensions. Essentially, it was if we could get 0:09:31.120 --> 0:09:34.800 women working on a lot of different dimensions, you know, 0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:38.720 their wages, their participation, their hours, if we could have 0:09:38.880 --> 0:09:42.120 them engaged in the labor market in the same way 0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:46.600 that men are, what would that look like. And again, 0:09:46.640 --> 0:09:49.200 this wasn't about the individuals and how would that affect 0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:51.240 their day to day life. And their careers. It was 0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:54.040 about how would it affect the economy, how would it 0:09:54.080 --> 0:10:00.800 affect GDP for women alone. They estimated that closing all 0:10:00.800 --> 0:10:04.560 of these gaps would have increased GDP in twenty nineteen 0:10:04.600 --> 0:10:07.960 by about eight percent one point seven trillion dollars. And 0:10:08.000 --> 0:10:10.719 this is something that would grow over time, so it's 0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:12.199 not just to pay off at one point in time. 0:10:12.240 --> 0:10:15.160 It would push up GDP. It's over time. And what 0:10:15.559 --> 0:10:21.680 is GDP It is our ability to produce goods or services. 0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:24.679 So it goes back to this idea that we as 0:10:24.720 --> 0:10:27.719 a country are not fulfilling our potential or full potential 0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:33.080 if we don't integrate women into the workforce. 0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:36.120 Claudia, thank you so much for taking the time with 0:10:36.200 --> 0:10:39.960 us today. We appreciate it. Thank you, Bloomberg Opinion columnists. 0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:43.200 Claudia sam is founder of Some Consulting, a former Federal 0:10:43.240 --> 0:10:46.440 Reserve economist, and the creator of the sm rule that's 0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:49.160 a recession indicator. Now coming up, we're going to take 0:10:49.160 --> 0:10:51.920 a look at work from home and one big myth, 0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:56.360 how many of your employees are actually moonlighting when they 0:10:56.400 --> 0:10:59.199 work from home. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:14.160 You're listening to The Bloomberg Opinion podcast Contest Saturdays at 0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:17.280 one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the 0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:20.480 iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on 0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:22.640 demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:11:24.920 --> 0:11:28.800 You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Working from 0:11:28.880 --> 0:11:32.960 home is likely here to stay. University of Texas Management 0:11:33.040 --> 0:11:34.679 Professor Andrew Brodsky. 0:11:34.880 --> 0:11:37.839 You're the one company that's not offering remote work. You're 0:11:37.880 --> 0:11:38.800 going to be losing talent. 0:11:39.000 --> 0:11:43.120 Professor Brodsky says bigger employers are offering work from home 0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:43.800 as a perk. 0:11:44.120 --> 0:11:46.600 One of the things that I've been seeing in job listing. 0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:48.960 You can work from anywhere you want. You don't have 0:11:49.040 --> 0:11:50.680 to live in, you know, one of the five most 0:11:50.679 --> 0:11:52.400 expensive cities in the United States. 0:11:52.440 --> 0:11:55.640 But there is a myth that speaks to employers' fears 0:11:55.679 --> 0:11:59.760 about out of sight workers. They might be moonlighting, secretly 0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:03.200 work working a second job, but not working eighty hour weeks, 0:12:03.240 --> 0:12:06.720 instead toggling between job one and job two. They're called 0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:10.160 the over employed. But is this just an urban legend? 0:12:10.200 --> 0:12:13.960 Bloomberg Opingion columnist Sarah Green Carmichael joins us now. Sarah 0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:17.040 always a pleasure. Just set us straight. Do these people 0:12:17.200 --> 0:12:20.679 exist or are there really people who are over employed 0:12:21.080 --> 0:12:24.320 and using work from home to hide that second job. 0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:25.959 At least a few of. 0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:29.320 These people exists because people, you know, reporters at the 0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:31.720 Wall Street Journal have talked to some of them, Bloomberg 0:12:31.760 --> 0:12:33.959 reporters have talked to some of them. There have been 0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.680 stories about this in the BBC, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair. 0:12:37.800 --> 0:12:41.520 I believe these reporters actually did talk to some people 0:12:41.520 --> 0:12:44.880 doing this, but these seem to be more anecdotes of 0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:49.280 people in extraordinary situations rather than the widespread trend it's 0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:53.120 reported to be. There have been several surveys suggestiness as 0:12:53.120 --> 0:12:55.920 a widespread phenomenon, but when you look at like Feerau 0:12:55.920 --> 0:12:59.559 of labor statistics data, it really doesn't show up at all. 0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:03.920 This is something that employers are watching engaging, because that 0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:08.040 kind of gives them more impetus to remove those work 0:13:08.080 --> 0:13:09.480 from home flexibilities. 0:13:10.559 --> 0:13:10.839 Yes. 0:13:10.960 --> 0:13:14.440 In fact, you know, over the last few months, as 0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:17.600 you have heard more CEOs trying to push people back 0:13:17.600 --> 0:13:21.000 to the office more often, some of those all hands 0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:25.400 zooms that have gone viral have included CEOs saying things like, look, 0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:27.640 we don't know what people are doing at home, they 0:13:27.640 --> 0:13:30.240 could be working for a competitor. So I do think 0:13:30.280 --> 0:13:34.640 it's something where the plethora of stories on this topic 0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:37.920 has triggered a really real anxiety in the minds of 0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:43.120 senior leaders. Even if these anecdotes are really just anecdotes. 0:13:42.640 --> 0:13:46.480 And what is another indication that they're just anecdotes. You 0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:52.439 mentioned if somebody's slacking off or otherwise not contributing, chances 0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:54.040 are the boss is going to notice. 0:13:54.920 --> 0:13:57.840 Chances are the boss is going to notice. And there 0:13:57.880 --> 0:14:00.560 have been some people who have been fired after their 0:14:00.600 --> 0:14:03.440 companies found out that they were double dipping. It is 0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:05.880 pretty easy to tell people think they're being sneaky. But 0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:08.199 you can tell if someone's on two zooms at once 0:14:09.040 --> 0:14:11.199 and they unmute themselves at the wrong time if you 0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:15.320 can hear another zoom happening in the background. These kinds 0:14:15.360 --> 0:14:20.200 of snawfoos are very very difficult. Moreover, you know, most jobs, 0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:22.560 I think do require people to actually turn in work 0:14:22.800 --> 0:14:25.600 every now and then. And if someone's work is constantly 0:14:25.760 --> 0:14:28.520 late or they're constantly canceling meetings, you know you're got it. 0:14:28.560 --> 0:14:32.200 You really are going to notice. I also have to say, 0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:35.400 you know, there were a couple of non academic studies 0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:38.040 that came out that at surveys based on you know, 0:14:38.080 --> 0:14:41.480 a thousand people that seem to show really high rates 0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:44.240 of remote workers doing multiple jobs. 0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:45.880 But a couple of things. 0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:48.880 One, these are just surveys put out by organizations like 0:14:48.960 --> 0:14:52.520 resume builder, Monster dot com. They're not, you know, sort 0:14:52.520 --> 0:14:56.520 of peer reviewed like big studies. And second, you know, 0:14:56.560 --> 0:14:58.880 when you look closer at some of the details, some 0:14:58.920 --> 0:15:00.760 of it turns out some of those side hustles are 0:15:00.800 --> 0:15:04.000 things like driving for Uber, selling jewelry on Etsy. 0:15:05.640 --> 0:15:07.160 Some people even listed. 0:15:06.880 --> 0:15:10.760 Sex work as their second job, a surprisingly high number 0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:13.880 of people. So data points like that made me wonder, really, 0:15:14.200 --> 0:15:17.800 you know, how how reliable is this survey our remote 0:15:17.840 --> 0:15:21.080 workers really sitting at home with a full time side job, 0:15:21.240 --> 0:15:23.680 you know, doing all these sorts of things. I don't 0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:25.200 find that particularly credible. 0:15:25.320 --> 0:15:27.280 And we talked about it a bit, But how much 0:15:27.280 --> 0:15:29.600 of an over employed worker is a factor when a 0:15:29.640 --> 0:15:32.800 company is deciding whether to scale back or eliminate work 0:15:32.840 --> 0:15:34.960 from home options or is it just sort of buried 0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:35.600 in there. 0:15:36.560 --> 0:15:38.200 It's more of a corporate bogey man. 0:15:38.600 --> 0:15:41.560 These stories have you gotten a ton of attention when 0:15:41.560 --> 0:15:44.360 they've been you know, published, and it's easy to see why. 0:15:44.440 --> 0:15:47.600 You know, the details are irresistible. People pulling down six 0:15:47.680 --> 0:15:50.280 hundred thousand dollars a year by working two or three, 0:15:50.640 --> 0:15:55.520 you know, coding jobs all simultaneously. So I think there's 0:15:55.560 --> 0:15:59.360 this this idea that this figure sort of lurks in 0:15:59.760 --> 0:16:03.840 c's minds as a kind of bogeyman, but there's really 0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:07.040 no sense of a widespread trend. In fact, you know, 0:16:07.520 --> 0:16:10.360 less than a percent of the US workforce works to 0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:11.280 full time jobs. 0:16:11.840 --> 0:16:14.640 And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Sarah Green 0:16:14.720 --> 0:16:18.920 Carmichael here to bust some myths about working from home. 0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:22.800 How much do side hustles factor into this? You mentioned 0:16:22.800 --> 0:16:25.840 selling stuff on Etsy or maybe driving an uber. Is 0:16:25.880 --> 0:16:28.560 that really the predominance or is there more to it? 0:16:30.520 --> 0:16:32.880 I do think that, you know, there is solid data 0:16:33.520 --> 0:16:36.680 from the Bureau Labertatistics that show that more Americans now 0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:41.360 do have some kind of secondary job. But it's clearly 0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:43.960 a primary job that's their full time job, and then 0:16:44.000 --> 0:16:46.720 a secondary job where they're picking up part time shifts 0:16:47.240 --> 0:16:50.360 or doing that kind of side hustling. And actually, I 0:16:50.400 --> 0:16:52.320 think if you asked a lot of CEOs, you know, 0:16:52.520 --> 0:16:55.400 do you mind if your entry level worker picks up 0:16:55.400 --> 0:16:56.880 a few weekend shifts at Starbucks? 0:16:56.880 --> 0:17:00.080 They would probably say no. Depending on the circumstance. It 0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:02.080 is like they probably wouldn't mind at all. 0:17:02.600 --> 0:17:04.960 But I think it's really this idea that somehow people 0:17:04.960 --> 0:17:08.040 are simultaneously working two full time jobs, like one for 0:17:08.160 --> 0:17:11.160 Google and one for Meta that keeps people awake at night. 0:17:11.640 --> 0:17:15.280 So what is the reason behind this attention on the 0:17:15.400 --> 0:17:20.040 mythical highly paid two timing remote workers. Where is all 0:17:20.080 --> 0:17:20.960 of this coming from. 0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.919 There's a few different reasons that it so has captured 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:29.680 the imagination. One is, I think a real managerial fear 0:17:29.840 --> 0:17:31.760 that they don't know what people are doing at home. 0:17:32.280 --> 0:17:35.479 The other is I think an anxiety among workers that 0:17:35.520 --> 0:17:39.360 we're somehow missing out on easy money, that really there's 0:17:39.480 --> 0:17:41.600 enough slack time in your day that maybe you could 0:17:41.640 --> 0:17:44.560 take two full time jobs and double your salary. And 0:17:44.640 --> 0:17:46.800 I think it speaks to a lot of people who 0:17:46.800 --> 0:17:50.360 are frustrated and feel like they haven't gotten a raise 0:17:50.400 --> 0:17:52.720 that they deserve. The cost of living has gone up, 0:17:52.760 --> 0:17:55.800 and there must be some easy way to kind of 0:17:55.840 --> 0:17:58.720 significantly really increase their earnings. 0:17:58.800 --> 0:18:01.160 And then there's that sense that like gosh, is everyone 0:18:01.200 --> 0:18:04.160 doing this? Am I falling behind? That's a very powerful 0:18:04.200 --> 0:18:07.240 motivator for journalists to do more of these stories. 0:18:07.640 --> 0:18:07.840 You know. 0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:11.200 That also speaks to, like you said, hourly wages not 0:18:11.359 --> 0:18:14.919 going up as much as people might want or need, inflation, 0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:19.800 and then the continuing fallout from the pandemic and the shutdown. 0:18:19.840 --> 0:18:23.320 I mean that still is resonating because that's where work 0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:25.760 from home really got some traction. 0:18:27.280 --> 0:18:30.119 And I think that there is also in some jobs 0:18:30.119 --> 0:18:32.880 there are quiet times, and there are dead times, and 0:18:33.119 --> 0:18:37.200 I think that there are some very smart, skilled people 0:18:37.440 --> 0:18:40.440 who actually could leverage that dead time in their main 0:18:40.520 --> 0:18:42.880 job to possibly work a second job. I don't want 0:18:42.920 --> 0:18:46.720 to say it's not possible, it's just not very widespread. 0:18:47.560 --> 0:18:49.439 And one of the numbers that you quote in your 0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:53.680 column this really tickled me, is it indicated that about 0:18:53.680 --> 0:18:57.159 a third of all full time workers have a second 0:18:57.280 --> 0:18:59.840 full time gig, not just a side gig, but a 0:19:00.119 --> 0:19:04.480 second full time job. And I look around my newsroom 0:19:04.520 --> 0:19:06.640 and with my colleagues, and I think, there's no way 0:19:07.040 --> 0:19:09.400 any of these people have a second full time job. 0:19:09.680 --> 0:19:12.440 You'd be exhausted. It just doesn't seem feasible. 0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:15.280 Yeah, And That's one of the things that I think 0:19:15.440 --> 0:19:18.320 was challenging when I started really looking at the data, 0:19:18.520 --> 0:19:22.800 was this disappointment that these sort of surveys, they really 0:19:22.920 --> 0:19:26.600 commandeer the headline figure, And I thought, who stopped and 0:19:26.640 --> 0:19:28.920 thought about does this make any sense? Do a third 0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:31.880 of full time workers, all workers, not just remote workers, 0:19:32.000 --> 0:19:35.199 really have a second forty hour week job, Like I 0:19:35.280 --> 0:19:36.040 really don't think so. 0:19:36.640 --> 0:19:39.000 And that's why I had to go back and check sort. 0:19:38.880 --> 0:19:42.760 Of the Saint Louis FED and the Bureau Labor Statist 0:19:42.760 --> 0:19:47.000 six and some of these really more sort of reliable 0:19:47.040 --> 0:19:49.880 sources to see are we even close to those numbers? 0:19:50.119 --> 0:19:52.320 And we're not, and we're not, and we're not. 0:19:52.560 --> 0:19:52.800 Okay. 0:19:52.880 --> 0:19:57.040 Bloomberg opinion columnist Sarah Green Carmichael busting the myths when 0:19:57.040 --> 0:19:59.000 it comes to working from home and how many of 0:19:59.080 --> 0:20:02.000 us are actually get in a second job. Not as 0:20:02.040 --> 0:20:05.399 many as we think. Thank you Sarah for talking to us. 0:20:05.960 --> 0:20:09.080 Thank you Amy, and don't forget we are available as 0:20:09.080 --> 0:20:13.600 a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. 0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:17.520 Now coming up. Getting your vaccines and your shots, getting 0:20:17.560 --> 0:20:21.800 them up to date maybe even more challenging, especially when 0:20:21.800 --> 0:20:25.560 those shots aren't available. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. 0:20:33.280 --> 0:20:37.080 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays 0:20:37.119 --> 0:20:40.240 at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, 0:20:40.320 --> 0:20:43.440 the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen 0:20:43.520 --> 0:20:45.760 on demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:20:47.720 --> 0:20:51.240 This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Are you up 0:20:51.240 --> 0:20:54.720 to date on your annual flu shots and vaccines? Maybe 0:20:54.720 --> 0:20:57.359 you're not, and you might be just as frustrated as 0:20:57.400 --> 0:21:00.000 some people who have found that the shots simply aren't 0:21:00.080 --> 0:21:04.240 always available. The CDC authorized the COVID shots for everyone 0:21:04.359 --> 0:21:07.240 six months and older back in mid September, so you'd 0:21:07.359 --> 0:21:10.200 think they'd be available within days, but that hasn't been 0:21:10.200 --> 0:21:13.800 the case. Let's talk about this. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa 0:21:13.880 --> 0:21:17.800 Jarvis covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry, and she 0:21:17.960 --> 0:21:21.080 joins me. Now, Lisa, thank you for taking the time 0:21:21.160 --> 0:21:23.960 with us. Let's talk about this. We've been told over 0:21:24.000 --> 0:21:27.760 and over we should avoid a triple demic this fall. 0:21:27.880 --> 0:21:31.600 We've heard all about the triple demic and it's likely 0:21:31.640 --> 0:21:33.520 to hit this fall in this winter. But as long 0:21:33.560 --> 0:21:37.119 as we're vaccinated week and help stave it off. But 0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:40.920 if the shots aren't there, is that a mixed message? 0:21:40.960 --> 0:21:43.040 What are we hearing? What kind of message is that sending. 0:21:44.400 --> 0:21:45.280 It's frustrating. 0:21:45.480 --> 0:21:49.000 You know, we know that last year very few people, 0:21:49.160 --> 0:21:52.280 Only seventeen percent of adults rolled up their sleeves to 0:21:52.320 --> 0:21:55.119 get their COVID shot, and with the flu it was better, 0:21:55.160 --> 0:21:57.760 but not ideal. We were at less than half. I 0:21:57.760 --> 0:22:00.320 think forty seven percent of adults got their flu shot 0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:04.560 last year. And so the idea is get vaccinated, help, 0:22:04.960 --> 0:22:08.119 you know, rein in the potential for a triple demic. 0:22:08.520 --> 0:22:11.680 But it's the first season that we have a commercial 0:22:11.680 --> 0:22:15.479 market for the COVID vaccines, and so that rollout I 0:22:15.480 --> 0:22:20.160 think everyone expected to be rocky, but maybe not as 0:22:20.160 --> 0:22:23.800 frustrating as it's been. I think it's a combination of 0:22:23.840 --> 0:22:28.520