Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg BusinessWeek inside from the reporters and editors
Speaker 2: who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus global business,
Speaker 2: finance and tech news as it happens. Bloomberg Business Week
Speaker 2: with Carol Messer and Tim Stenebeck on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3: It is a Bloomberg BusinessWeek, that is Carol Masser, I'm
Speaker 3: Tim Stenebeck live from the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio in
Speaker 3: New York. Let's talk tariffs, Carol, because President Elect Donald
Speaker 3: Trump's threats of tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports might
Speaker 3: be merely tough talk to the two largest US trading
Speaker 3: partners for the North American auto industry and especially American producers,
Speaker 3: though import taxes like the kindies espousing would bring quote
Speaker 3: considerable pain. That's among the conclusions in this new report
Speaker 3: from Bloomberg Economics Nicole Gordon Caratelli, who writes quote, by
Speaker 3: threatening Canada and Mexico with tariffs, Trump is threatening to
Speaker 3: significantly disrupt the US auto sector.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a big thing, Joseph Thorndike, or might be,
Speaker 4: depending on exactly what gets done. Joseph Thorndyke is director
Speaker 4: of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts, which calls
Speaker 4: itself a nonpartisan, nonprofit publisher of news and commentary about federal, state,
Speaker 4: and international tax issues, which the organization does under the
Speaker 4: brand tax Notes. Joseph joining us on this Tuesday from
Speaker 4: False Church, Virginia. Jose good to have you here with us.
Speaker 4: Walk us through what some of the implications we could
Speaker 4: see from potential tariffs in the Trump administration. How are
Speaker 4: you seeing it? What are you hearing from clients? What
Speaker 4: are their concerns?
Speaker 5: I mean, there are a lot of possibilities here, and
Speaker 5: that probably more unknowns than there are knowns, because you know,
Speaker 5: Donald Trump is notoriously a little bit loose about the
Speaker 5: specifics when he talks about things, so it's hard to
Speaker 5: know exactly what he has. In mind that the kind
Speaker 5: of tariffs that he's talking about is across the board tariffs,
Speaker 5: so say ten twenty five percent, the number of moves
Speaker 5: around these have the likelihood to be really disruptive. And those,
Speaker 5: you know, those sorts of tariffs are unusual. First of all,
Speaker 5: they have like a flat ray tarraff across all products,
Speaker 5: and it's not at all clear that he would do
Speaker 5: something like that, even as some of his advisors have
Speaker 5: suggested that, you know, he wouldn't impose a tariff on
Speaker 5: on items which don't really have a domestic manufacturing equivalent.
Speaker 5: But it seems likely that these tariffs, but they you know,
Speaker 5: they might be a negotiating ploy to extract good deals
Speaker 5: with other countries. Certainly the deal maker, Donald Trump, has
Speaker 5: said that. But they think they should be taken reasonably
Speaker 5: seriously because Trump has been talking about them forever as
Speaker 5: long as he's actually been in politics. So I think
Speaker 5: this strikes fear into the hearts of lots of people,
Speaker 5: including a lot of businesses who stand to see their
Speaker 5: supply chains disrupted by this.
Speaker 3: You would, you know, how do you look at this
Speaker 3: over at the tax history project, at tax analysts? Do
Speaker 3: you look at tariffs as a tax?
Speaker 6: Absolutely?
Speaker 5: In fact, for a long time, they were really pretty
Speaker 5: much the only tax that the United States had, so
Speaker 5: up until the Civil War, really the only thing going
Speaker 5: most of the time except during wars, and even in
Speaker 5: the after the Civil War, they're still providing sixty percent
Speaker 5: of total revenue up until you know, nineteen thirteen or so.
Speaker 5: Because this is the way that the founders of the
Speaker 5: country thought we would raise most of our revenue. The
Speaker 5: problem is that doesn't work very well at.
Speaker 6: A couple of moments.
Speaker 5: It doesn't work very well during wars, which have a
Speaker 5: tendency to disrupt trade.
Speaker 6: And it tends to not work all that.
Speaker 5: Well politically in the sense that tariffs are consumption taxes
Speaker 5: paid by the consumers of products, and that tends to
Speaker 5: be unpopular at various points. That was true during the
Speaker 5: Civil War, it was true in nineteen thirteen, and it's
Speaker 5: actually how we got the income tax.
Speaker 4: You know, I do think about this a lot, and
Speaker 4: like you say, a blanket tariff on I mean, some
Speaker 4: would argue, right that targeted tariffs makes sense, whether you're
Speaker 4: trying to protect a growing industry, whether it's national security issues, like,
Speaker 4: there's a lot of things that I guess would make sense.
Speaker 4: But you do wonder about just throwing it on everything.
Speaker 4: You know, in an environment where we just brought inflation
Speaker 4: down a lot over the last year, but there are
Speaker 4: still concerns of inflation being a little bit sticky here
Speaker 4: and maybe going up again. I mean, a blanket tariff
Speaker 4: would change a lot of.
Speaker 5: Things absolutely, And you know, tariffs used to all be targeted.
Speaker 5: So we've forgotten this because since the nineteen thirties or so,
Speaker 5: Congress has more or less abdicated responsibility over tariffs. They've
Speaker 5: passed a series of laws which would let the president
Speaker 5: make most of the granular decisions. But before that, it
Speaker 5: was Congress who was voting on really every single item
Speaker 5: that was going to be tariffed. You know, the whole
Speaker 5: tariff would go up, the steel tariff would go down.
Speaker 5: There were are over whether there should be a breakfast
Speaker 5: table tariff relief, in which, you know, items that people
Speaker 5: eat at their breakfast table, like sugar, should be reduced.
Speaker 5: Congress was really engaged in that granular work of deciding
Speaker 5: which products exactly should pay which sorts of tariffs. That
Speaker 5: was incredibly dysfunctional, I mean to be completely honest, because
Speaker 5: Congress did a lot of log rolling, right like one
Speaker 5: member would say, Okay, we'll protect your sugar industry if
Speaker 5: you'll protect our steel industry, and that's just made for
Speaker 5: really high tariffs.
Speaker 3: Do you think we're I mean, I don't want to
Speaker 3: say we're, but I think do you think do you
Speaker 3: think that given the research that you've done at the
Speaker 3: Tax History Project, and tax analysts and tax notes. Do
Speaker 3: you think Americans understand the implications of tariffs, like who
Speaker 3: pays for them?
Speaker 5: I think that that's asking a lot for voters, right,
Speaker 5: So we all want voters to be perfectly informed about
Speaker 5: the incidents of taxes. But that's just ridiculous, right, They've
Speaker 5: never been that. I think it's very easy to pitch
Speaker 5: tariffs as something that someone else is going to pay,
Speaker 5: and Donald Trump does that all the time. He says
Speaker 5: other countries are going to pay these but in reality,
Speaker 5: that's just not the way it works. Almost all the time,
Speaker 5: almost all the time that those tariffs get passed along
Speaker 5: to consumers, even for domestically produced goods. Like let's say
Speaker 5: that we're putting a tariff on imported cars. Domestic producers
Speaker 5: of cars will say, hey, well we can raise our
Speaker 5: prices to equal the tariff price or maybe just a
Speaker 5: little bit below.
Speaker 6: So that's the irony here, is that.
Speaker 5: It lowers I mean, it raises the prices not just
Speaker 5: of imported goods, but of domestic goods too.
Speaker 4: You know, when we talk about tax policy in general, right,
Speaker 4: it gets us to do things. You get a tax credit,
Speaker 4: you buy an ev you get a tax credit because
Speaker 4: of your mortgage a mortgage deduction. Well you maybe think, okay,
Speaker 4: buying a home isn't so bad, like I do, think
Speaker 4: about that, you know, So you know, is there a
Speaker 4: net net in terms of tariff policy that you think
Speaker 4: is actually good for the US economy, good for US growth,
Speaker 4: versus that which is not.
Speaker 5: It seems reasonable that a certain that certain numbers of
Speaker 5: a certain number of tariffs that are sort of targeted
Speaker 5: and specific are reasonable for certain things, for products or
Speaker 5: industries that are important to national security, for instance, And
Speaker 5: that's the way tariffs have been used in the past
Speaker 5: for the most part. Again, what we're trying to draw
Speaker 5: a distinction here is between that sort of targeted tariff,
Speaker 5: which is trying to achieve a specific goal like protecting
Speaker 5: a crucial industry or even protecting jobs in certain industries,
Speaker 5: and these sort of blanket tariffs on everything that's important.
Speaker 5: And again, policymakers have a tough job. Actually we should
Speaker 5: always remember that that they have to weigh against different
Speaker 5: goals against one another.
Speaker 6: So you can protect jobs by.
Speaker 5: Raising tariffs on industries that face foreign competition, and those
Speaker 5: industries will be protected, but consumers will then pay more
Speaker 5: what's better, what's more important. I mean, that's a political
Speaker 5: decision and has to be made, but it's at least
Speaker 5: i'd say better to make it on a sort of
Speaker 5: individual basis rather than a blanket basis saying like in
Speaker 5: all cases it's better to protect an American industry.
Speaker 6: Just not always true.
Speaker 5: I don't think certainly that's not the way voters have
Speaker 5: viewed it. And I think that's something to really come
Speaker 5: back to, is that when we had really high tariffs
Speaker 5: in like the nineteenth century, they were deeply unpopular and
Speaker 5: they actually produced the modern income tax. We would not
Speaker 5: have a modern income tax if we hadn't had high
Speaker 5: tariffs first.
Speaker 3: And that modern income tax has been has come down
Speaker 3: in many tax brackets over the years. Speaking of that,
Speaker 3: I'm wondering if you have done any analysis about at
Speaker 3: the time at the organization about how much would be
Speaker 3: raised through tariffs versus if the twenty seventeen Tax Cuts
Speaker 3: and Jobs Act were to be extended.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, lots of people have tried to estimate
Speaker 5: this how much these tariffs are going to bring in. Again,
Speaker 5: it's a little hard because the details are pretty sketchy,
Speaker 5: but there are a lot of credible estimates out there
Speaker 5: that say that these tariffs are going to bring in
Speaker 5: the Trump is talking about are going to bring in
Speaker 5: something like two point eight trillion dollars over ten years,
Speaker 5: which sounds like a lot of money.
Speaker 6: Accept that prope.
Speaker 5: Also promises to extend the twenty seventeen tax cuts, and
Speaker 5: that's going to cost about four trillion dollars, so and
Speaker 5: compared to the income tax, two point eight trillion.
Speaker 6: Dollars is not a lot.
Speaker 5: Actually, over that same ten year period, the income tax
Speaker 5: is going to raise thirty four trillion dollars. So they
Speaker 5: these high terriffs will raise a lot of money. But
Speaker 5: they're not they're not some magic They're not going to
Speaker 5: pay for all the tax cuts. They're not going to
Speaker 5: pay for new tax cuts like the tax on tips
Speaker 5: or the salt exemption, well anything like that.
Speaker 4: Like you say, you know, devil in the details and
Speaker 4: more to be known in terms of what the administration does.
Speaker 4: Joseph Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts.
Speaker 4: This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you caught this yesterday. I know
Speaker 3: Carol did because she was probably watching Bloomberg tvor listening to.
Speaker 4: Bloomberg Radio kind of always am Yeah.
Speaker 3: On Monday, President like Donald Trump threatened to fire federal
Speaker 3: employees who don't come back to the office. He said
Speaker 3: he would go to court to challenge a Biden administration
Speaker 3: labor contract that locked in remote work arrangements for thousands
Speaker 3: of federal employees.
Speaker 6: Here's what he said.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if people don't come back to work, come back
Speaker 3: into the office, they're going to be dismissed. This was
Speaker 3: at a press conference yesterday in Palm Beach.
Speaker 4: All right, we are so curious what our next guest
Speaker 4: has to say about this and more. Laura Gasner Auning.
Speaker 4: She has spent more than two decades in human resources
Speaker 4: helping create AmeriCorps, and has written two books, including Limitless,
Speaker 4: How to Ignore Everybody, Carve your own path, and Live
Speaker 4: your best life. She joins us from Boston on this Tuesday. Laura,
Speaker 4: nice to have you here on Bloomberg Business Week. We
Speaker 4: want to start with that. You know, it's so interesting
Speaker 4: coming off the pandemic. It was amazing how much work,
Speaker 4: including all of us or many of us who did
Speaker 4: broadcast from our homes TV and radio, how much we
Speaker 4: could get done in terms of work while the global
Speaker 4: pandemic was happening. There was a real rethink saying, wait
Speaker 4: a minute, we have flexibility as workers. Well, lo and behold.
Speaker 4: Here we are in twenty twenty four and everybody, including
Speaker 4: the president elect, is rethinking this. How do you see
Speaker 4: the way forward when it comes to be in the
Speaker 4: office versus working at home.
Speaker 1: So I spent twenty years in executive search, and for
Speaker 1: fifteen of those years I ran my own company, which
Speaker 1: was a remote company, like back.
Speaker 7: Before COVID was remote cool.
Speaker 1: I'm very pro remote work, and at the same time,
Speaker 1: I think being in the office is super important. Frankly,
Speaker 1: we all learned during the pandemic that we could do
Speaker 1: our work from home, but managers didn't learn how to
Speaker 1: manage us when we were at home, and so a
Speaker 1: lot of us have seen stagnation in our careers. We've
Speaker 1: seen stagnation in our growth, both personal and professional, because
Speaker 1: we haven't been in the office. The tools that we
Speaker 1: use to log in from our cubicle are the same
Speaker 1: tools that we use to log in from our living rooms,
Speaker 1: but the management tools they kind of remain the same,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of bosses they don't see you working,
Speaker 1: they don't see you working, and so I think the
Speaker 1: path forward is going to be at least in some
Speaker 1: way hybrid. There's going to be at least some return
Speaker 1: to work, and probably more and more returning to work
Speaker 1: over time.
Speaker 3: Do you think that we'll go ahead?
Speaker 1: Got?
Speaker 4: But so you're saying it's a manager's problem.
Speaker 1: Well, I think if the managers are the ones who
Speaker 1: are making a decision about your career, then it's all
Speaker 1: of our problems.
Speaker 3: Do you think the federal government employees should have a
Speaker 3: similar policy as to other employees employers? I mean, I
Speaker 3: know that it is hard. It is a challenge for
Speaker 3: the federal government to find employees when competing with the
Speaker 3: private sector. The pay is definitely not as good and
Speaker 3: you're working for the government, I mean in their stability,
Speaker 3: but there's also frustration that comes with that. Do you
Speaker 3: think it's so I what do you think I do?
Speaker 1: And it's interesting because I did actually work for the
Speaker 1: federal government, as you mentioned, having created AmeriCorps, being part
Speaker 1: of the team early in my career. So I would
Speaker 1: challenge one of the things that you said, which is
Speaker 1: that it's not as competitive because the pay isn't as good.
Speaker 1: I know from the time that I was in executive
Speaker 1: search that pay is something that attracts people to their jobs, absolutely,
Speaker 1: but they are also things like what's the mission of
Speaker 1: the organization? Am I inspired by the leader? How broad
Speaker 1: are the skills I'm going to learn, How deep is
Speaker 1: the impact I'm going to make, how prestigious will look
Speaker 1: on my resume? Where's the job located, what's the commute like?
Speaker 1: What kinds of benefits will I get? How stable is
Speaker 1: the job? So there are lots of things that excite
Speaker 1: and inspire and engage people in the work that they do,
Speaker 1: and money is one of them. But at any age
Speaker 1: and at any life stage, it's not the primary one
Speaker 1: all the time. And in fact, we did an assessment,
Speaker 1: a survey that we have ten thousand responses from seventy
Speaker 1: four different countries from before, during, and now as we've
Speaker 1: come out of the pandemic, every possible demographic, in every
Speaker 1: possible industry, and I'll tell you that thirty six point
Speaker 1: seven percent say money is the most important factor that
Speaker 1: lets them know whether or not they are happy and
Speaker 1: fulfilled in their job. But that means there's a whole
Speaker 1: lot of people for whom money is not the.
Speaker 7: Most important thing.
Speaker 1: So it may be that people who are working for
Speaker 1: the federal government have other things that are more interesting
Speaker 1: and exciting to them.
Speaker 4: All right, let's get to something that we kind of tease,
Speaker 4: and this is revenge quitting. I'm asking about you know,
Speaker 4: what's going on in the labor market. We've got a
Speaker 4: FED meeting FED decision tomorrow. The number of vacancies per
Speaker 4: unemployed worker. It's a ratio that the FED watches closely.
Speaker 4: Was little change at one point one, in line with
Speaker 4: pre pandemic levels. That it's peak in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 4: the ratio is two to one. I mean, we watch
Speaker 4: things like job openings and the quit rate to god
Speaker 4: and get an idea of where we are. Who's got
Speaker 4: the upper edge? Is it companies or is it workers?
Speaker 4: Right now? How do you see that environment.
Speaker 1: We're in a pretty low and we're in a pretty
Speaker 1: low unemployment rate right now, so it really is the
Speaker 1: employees market. I saw some studies the other day that
Speaker 1: said that half of all workers are thinking about looking
Speaker 1: for a new job in twenty twenty five, and at
Speaker 1: least a third of them are already looking. So they're
Speaker 1: using this holiday period to network and to have conversations
Speaker 1: with people their nearest and dearest to just talk about
Speaker 1: what might be next for them.
Speaker 7: So I think that we're going to see a lot
Speaker 7: of change in the new year.
Speaker 1: And the revenge quitting, I mean, you know, some of
Speaker 1: it comes down to companies saying that the people have
Speaker 1: to go back to work, and employees thinking, well, I've
Speaker 1: been just as productive, and so once they start looking around, right,
Speaker 1: should you quit the before you have the next job?
Speaker 1: I would say no, I think that's a bad idea,
Speaker 1: But there are pros and cons that.
Speaker 7: Of course.
Speaker 1: But for those people who are revenge quitting out of emotion,
Speaker 1: right out of spite, maybe they didn't get the bonus
Speaker 1: they wanted, or they didn't get enough of the bonus
Speaker 1: that they were expecting.
Speaker 7: Maybe they're being asked to go back to work.
Speaker 1: Maybe their boss didn't recognize them enough in this past year.
Speaker 1: They don't feel like they were really seen for what
Speaker 1: they for what they brought to the to the organization.
Speaker 1: Those people are revenge quitting, and as they start to
Speaker 1: look around, they may realize that the grass isn't as
Speaker 1: green on the other side, because maybe some of those
Speaker 1: companies are also asking their employees to come back or
Speaker 1: having the same issues with some of their toxic culture.
Speaker 4: So when you're ticked off and you do revenge quitting,
Speaker 4: you might want to you know, slow down and kind
Speaker 4: of think, right, Like, I mean, you're saying that somebody
Speaker 4: who does this, maybe you understand why, but nonetheless they
Speaker 4: might be doing so and finding that wait, they might
Speaker 4: not get a job so quickly.
Speaker 1: On the other side, absolutely, I mean, so I think
Speaker 1: we have to really remember that. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: going to spend an hour or two hours interviewing a candidate,
Speaker 1: you're probably going to spend five to six to seven
Speaker 1: or ten referencing them.
Speaker 7: So who are you going to reference?
Speaker 1: Who are you going to call the previous employer? And
Speaker 1: you know, if you burn that bridge, you're kind of
Speaker 1: sins yourself.
Speaker 7: Along the way.
Speaker 3: I didn't know that people spent That's how long it
Speaker 3: took to do this, like for you know, on the
Speaker 3: HR side, to actually find a candidate to check references.
Speaker 3: I mean that's pretty remarkable.
Speaker 6: Hey, what about the.
Speaker 3: Economy and to what extent people rage quitting or jumping
Speaker 3: from job to job depends on the labor market out there.
Speaker 3: What is what is your experience told you about how
Speaker 3: this might not happen if there aren't jobs available.
Speaker 1: I think it has more to do with people's optimism
Speaker 1: and the news that they're following. So, you know, it
Speaker 1: used to be that we would all get the same
Speaker 1: economic numbers, and now, depending on what news you're listening to,
Speaker 1: you're hearing different takes on the economy. So if you're
Speaker 1: hearing news that says everything's optimistic and the economy is
Speaker 1: going to grow, you may be more likely to quit
Speaker 1: because you think there's going to be a ton of
Speaker 1: opportunities out there. If you're listening to news that's saying
Speaker 1: we're all in trouble and everything is falling apart, you
Speaker 1: might want to hold on to your job because you're
Speaker 1: a little bit more worried about this. So it's really
Speaker 1: interesting to think about whether it's the economy people are
Speaker 1: listening to or which version of the economy they're listening
Speaker 1: to right now.
Speaker 4: Hey, I do wonder, Laura. We spend a lot of
Speaker 4: time every day, certainly today, talking about the new administration
Speaker 4: and the types of polies policies that might come down
Speaker 4: from Donald Trump and his team, and whether it's taxes, tariffs,
Speaker 4: whether it's electric vehicles, whether it's power. I mean, there's
Speaker 4: just so many things that could potentially be impacted. So
Speaker 4: when you think about policies that might be coming, we
Speaker 4: talk a lot about maybe less regulatory oversight, less regulations
Speaker 4: and rules for corporations. Does that mean do you anticipate
Speaker 4: that in a Trump White House that we're going to
Speaker 4: see companies and businesses more in charge with the upper
Speaker 4: hand versus labor and employees.
Speaker 7: I absolutely do.
Speaker 1: And I think we're going to see a lot of
Speaker 1: growth in certain industries. So certainly construction, I think green jobs,
Speaker 1: I think energy on either side, I think we're going
Speaker 1: to see that.
Speaker 7: Certainly in food distribution.
Speaker 1: We're going to see differences in the regulatory environment for
Speaker 1: food as well.
Speaker 7: Healthcare is going to change.
Speaker 1: So every industry that's had regulation that's been weighing down
Speaker 1: on it, that's cost that it has to deal with
Speaker 1: dealing with all the regulation, And if they don't have
Speaker 1: to deal with that, that's all going to go into
Speaker 1: building and growing and scaling, and that's going to translate
Speaker 1: to labor and more jobs.
Speaker 4: Well, are you so sure it's the net though, is
Speaker 4: more jobs. I'm just also wondering about automation, right and
Speaker 4: AI That's one of the big discussions we've been having
Speaker 4: about what kind of replacement that does of actually humans
Speaker 4: in terms of doing jobs. And I just wonder, again,
Speaker 4: if we have a pro business administration. Yes, it can
Speaker 4: be good for business, right, and that ultimately means jobs,
Speaker 4: but it can also mean that executives and management are
Speaker 4: kind of leading the way versus the actual workers. And
Speaker 4: I just wonder if you see any aspect of that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, I.
Speaker 1: Think AI machine learning engineering jobs will grow. I think
Speaker 1: cybersecurity analyst jobs will grow, cloud engineering, robotics engineering. I
Speaker 1: think that there's going to be a lot of we
Speaker 1: need to you know, automation officers.
Speaker 7: I think there are there are going.
Speaker 1: To have to be people that are going to have
Speaker 1: to put the automation into place. And I think we'll
Speaker 1: see a lot of growth obviously in in in executives
Speaker 1: and profit margins and salary payouts, but I think we're
Speaker 1: going to need to see a lot of growth in
Speaker 1: the the you know, threat detection, penetration, testing, managing cloud systems, building, programming,
Speaker 1: troubleshooting robots. So in order for us to get to
Speaker 1: this future world of automation, we need a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are going to be doing the programming and
Speaker 1: the coding in order to get us there.
Speaker 3: So where should where should we not be spending energy?
Speaker 3: Then if those are the places that are going to grow,
Speaker 3: what's what's going to What are the areas that will contract?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 7: Probably the federal government is that contraction.
Speaker 3: Is that a dose thing or is that an AI thing?
Speaker 1: It's probably more of a doge thing than an AI thing.
Speaker 1: I think that's going to be more sort of broad
Speaker 1: swath cutting of programs, and we're going to see at
Speaker 1: the federal level and then also at the state level.
Speaker 1: So I see I joked around and said federal government,
Speaker 1: but all the federal government program funding that then is
Speaker 1: funding into the state commissions that are running some of
Speaker 1: those programs. And we'll probably see a lot of help
Speaker 1: in human services areas being cut, a lot of the
Speaker 1: sort of the safety net programs that are going to
Speaker 1: be being cut.
Speaker 4: Interesting stuff. Hey, listen, thank you so much, really appreciate it.
Speaker 4: I have a great holiday and happy New year. Laura
Speaker 4: Gasner adding she's a workplace expert joining us from Boston.
Speaker 4: As we mentioned, spent more than two decades in HR,
Speaker 4: have created AmeriCorps, written a couple of books really talking
Speaker 4: about people thinking about their jobs, maybe looking for a
Speaker 4: new job, revenge, quitting done.
Speaker 3: She dropped out of law school to join an Arkansas
Speaker 3: governor's presidential campaign early in her career. She's still a
Speaker 3: lot Bill Clinton found her way to AmeriCorps.
Speaker 4: And then helps right, yeah, create that during the administration.
Speaker 6: Pretty interesting staff, very cool, yeah,