Speaker 1: M Carrie Gracie was a top editor at the BBC.
Speaker 1: She worked there for thirty years, and about five years
Speaker 1: ago she moved to China for a prestigious job as
Speaker 1: one of four international editors. Then last summer she found
Speaker 1: out she made fifty percent less than the men doing
Speaker 1: the same job. She resigned. I was for four years
Speaker 1: leading our China coverage. That's carry testifying in front of
Speaker 1: British Parliament a few months ago. There are significant risks
Speaker 1: in our China coverage. I dealt with them. I did
Speaker 1: a good job. Twice. I've been a World Television Society
Speaker 1: normally for the BBC for specialist journalists of the year.
Speaker 1: It's just and you know what, I get me emotional.
Speaker 1: But what I really wants to say about this equal
Speaker 1: pay problem at the BBC is what it forces the
Speaker 1: BBC to do is to retrofit in defense, you know, defenses,
Speaker 1: justifications of the indefensible. The BBC gets most of its
Speaker 1: funding from the public. Its newest charter required the broadcaster
Speaker 1: to reveal how much it pays its top talent. The
Speaker 1: government thought that people should know where their money was going.
Speaker 1: It turned out it was mostly going to men. The
Speaker 1: BBC had a wide pay gap at its most senior levels.
Speaker 1: The top man made over two million pounds, the highest
Speaker 1: paid woman just a quarter of that. You have an
Speaker 1: equal pay problem, but you can't admit it because you
Speaker 1: don't want to confront what maybe fiscal liabilities, which we
Speaker 1: all agree are there. The BBC's pay scandal and Carries
Speaker 1: public statements caused a big headache for the company. The
Speaker 1: broadcaster has faced almost two hundred equal pay complaints and
Speaker 1: a flood of negative press. The BBC told Bloomberg in
Speaker 1: a statement, we are committed to making the BBC the
Speaker 1: best place for women to work, and have said we
Speaker 1: want to close the gender pay gap and have women
Speaker 1: in half of leadership and on air rolls by When
Speaker 1: individual issues over pay have been raised, we have sought
Speaker 1: to resolve them as quickly as possible, but Carry wants
Speaker 1: more from the BBC. My problem will be resolved by
Speaker 1: an acknowledgement that my work was of equal value to
Speaker 1: the men who I served alongside as an international editor.
Speaker 1: Carrie's story doesn't sound that different than the ones we've
Speaker 1: been telling you about in the US, but there is
Speaker 1: one big difference between here and there. The British government
Speaker 1: isn't just requiring the BBC to fest up about pay,
Speaker 1: it's requiring all of its biggest businesses to report their
Speaker 1: gender pay gaps. Companies don't have to get as specific
Speaker 1: as the BBC did. Remember, the BBC is funded by
Speaker 1: British taxpayers, so that's why it had to disclose. But
Speaker 1: as part of a new law that went into effect
Speaker 1: this year, all large companies in the UK have to
Speaker 1: report to the government what they pay men versus women.
Speaker 1: And Carrie's story was kind of a prelude to the
Speaker 1: reckoning the entire country is going through now. When you
Speaker 1: look at the world, you know what the population like,
Speaker 1: Where is our place like? Where is our value? Where
Speaker 1: going to deserve people for equal work? The gender alive
Speaker 1: stops to keep women not on a pedistal but in
Speaker 1: case you don't feel it, But when you see the numbers,
Speaker 1: it's shocking. Get a power equalization between the sexiest women.
Speaker 1: What do they want? We want to end gender inequality
Speaker 1: and to do this we need everyone involved. Without women's work,
Speaker 1: the wheel of the country they did not turn. You
Speaker 1: always ask who's the best person, and it forms a
Speaker 1: white bloke that's got to pay something wrong. And here
Speaker 1: are the all male nominees. Welcome back to the paycheck.
Speaker 1: I'm Rebecca Greenfield. The pay gap isn't just a phenomenon
Speaker 1: in the US. Globally, women make about half of what
Speaker 1: men do, and that's average earnings. According to the World
Speaker 1: Economic Forum, the UK looks a lot like the US.
Speaker 1: There are some equal pay laws on the books, but
Speaker 1: on average women make a little under twenty less than men.
Speaker 1: But unlike the US, the UK is trying to fix
Speaker 1: things on a national scale. The country is in the
Speaker 1: middle of a big nationwide experiment. As of April this year,
Speaker 1: every large company in the UK had to publicly report
Speaker 1: its gender pay gap. That is, the raw, unadjusted difference
Speaker 1: between what all the men and all the women make
Speaker 1: in a given company. It's a shaming initiative. Companies who
Speaker 1: have particularly big gaps, and a lot of them do,
Speaker 1: will be theoretically incentivized to close them. So far, over
Speaker 1: ten thou companies have reported, and what they've reported in
Speaker 1: most cases is that men are making more than women.
Speaker 1: Goldman Sachs remember the company from episode one that's fighting
Speaker 1: a class action gender discrimination suit here in the US.
Speaker 1: It's female UK employees make less than half of what
Speaker 1: the men do. Over at Bloomberg dot com, there's a
Speaker 1: graphic that compiled all the company pay gaps, including ours.
Speaker 1: These numbers aren't broken down by job title or level
Speaker 1: of experience, so they don't tell us anything about what
Speaker 1: men and women are being paid for the same jobs.
Speaker 1: What these numbers show is that at most companies, women
Speaker 1: hold very few of the highest paid positions. The question
Speaker 1: is what happens next. Susie Ring, a reporter in Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: London bureau, reports, now that gender pay reporting is the
Speaker 1: law in England, every single UK company with two fifty
Speaker 1: employees or more has had to report their gender pay gap.
Speaker 1: They had a deadline of a to do it, and
Speaker 1: the figure they were asked for was simple, no fancy
Speaker 1: math needed, just what an average do the men make
Speaker 1: at your company versus what the women make. If the
Speaker 1: men make a lot more, it likely means yours as
Speaker 1: a company where men are mostly at the senior levels
Speaker 1: with the best paid jobs, and women have a lot
Speaker 1: of the more junior roles. I can remember it being
Speaker 1: very male top heavy, so I remember attending events and
Speaker 1: the men at the front were exactly that. There are
Speaker 1: men um and I remember looking at those people and thinking,
Speaker 1: will I ever be standing on that stage with those men?
Speaker 1: Or actually is it? Is it a man's job? Is
Speaker 1: it the league manstrow white meal jaw? Actually? This is
Speaker 1: Sarah Farquaharsen. She's thirty two and has been working in
Speaker 1: customer service since she was seventeen. She says that through
Speaker 1: her years in the industry, she's noticed something about her colleagues.
Speaker 1: They're mostly women, and the people in the most senior
Speaker 1: ranks mostly men. Sarah now works for Virgin Money, the
Speaker 1: financial services business of Richard Branson's sprawling Virgin Empire. She
Speaker 1: works at the company's customer service center in the northern
Speaker 1: English city of Newcastle. It's her job to check on
Speaker 1: how well other customer service agents are answering customer complaints.
Speaker 1: She's also paid less than most people at her company.
Speaker 1: Customer service workers are among the lowest paid groups at
Speaker 1: Virgin Money, and most of the customer service workers are women.
Speaker 1: That's why, even though Virgin Money has a female CEO
Speaker 1: and it openly celebrated this new gender pay reporting law
Speaker 1: and wants to be at the fourth of women's equality,
Speaker 1: the company ended out reporting a thirty two gender pay gap.
Speaker 1: Here's their CEO, Jane A. Gardia. The reason that we
Speaker 1: report gender pay gap for thirty two is that although
Speaker 1: I'm you know, we have a female chair, female CEO,
Speaker 1: and we've got female representation on our EXCO at our
Speaker 1: next senior levels of management, we are about male and
Speaker 1: our customer services brilliant staff are predominantly female. And so
Speaker 1: when you add up everybody's salaries and divide the male
Speaker 1: and the female salary, then you get the thirty two
Speaker 1: percent pay gap. And that's why I still think numbers
Speaker 1: are important, because our objective is to get to fifty
Speaker 1: fifty throughout the organization, and that means recruiting more brilliant
Speaker 1: men to be fabulous customer service agents and recruiting more
Speaker 1: brilliant women to be you know, in all layers, if
Speaker 1: you like, of the hierarchy of management, and at that
Speaker 1: point our gender pay gap will be equal. When I say,
Speaker 1: Virgin Money wanted to be out front in the fight
Speaker 1: for women, here's an example. They reported gender pay figures
Speaker 1: a year before they legally had to revealing their pay
Speaker 1: gap for twenty sixteen. Back then the number was even
Speaker 1: bigger thirty six. So here was Virgin Money trying to
Speaker 1: do the right thing and be transparent about their numbers
Speaker 1: before they technically had to, and their numbers have not
Speaker 1: been making them look good, and women weren't moving up
Speaker 1: into the higher ranks from customer service rolls. The customer
Speaker 1: service segment accounted for about half its gender pay gap.
Speaker 1: Here's why Sarah, the customer service worker at Virgin Money,
Speaker 1: thinks things ended up that way. I think customer services
Speaker 1: has has historically been a female thing. Um, so you've
Speaker 1: probably got the forty fifty years worth of female experience
Speaker 1: in that area. We work all sorts of shift patterns
Speaker 1: of virgin and and and I mean that might lend
Speaker 1: it that actually might lend itself to women more because
Speaker 1: historically and we have got a we culturally have more
Speaker 1: of an issue where there is still a view that
Speaker 1: the woman is the caregiver. And so if if a
Speaker 1: man returns to a full time and a woman needs
Speaker 1: to fit to it, I was around that she will
Speaker 1: go for a business who offers flexible working. Jana and
Speaker 1: Guardia says getting their gender pay gap from thirty down
Speaker 1: to is a start, but she acknowledges they've got a
Speaker 1: lot of work to do. Remember, going to a number
Speaker 1: of organizations and broadly forty year old white men saying
Speaker 1: to me, when you're trying to take my job and
Speaker 1: my son's job away from me. And the point is
Speaker 1: that we have to give ourselves time to my progress
Speaker 1: because we're not in the business of firing men. It's
Speaker 1: about making sure that every time there's a new job advertised,
Speaker 1: we've got diverse job lists to choose from. It's about
Speaker 1: making sure that in the organization people are understand that
Speaker 1: um everybody is filled with unconscious bias. Virgin Money is
Speaker 1: working on changes that will get more men into customer
Speaker 1: service jobs and more women into executive positions. The bank
Speaker 1: offers flexible hours across the company and looks at job
Speaker 1: applications blind to try and reduce the chances of gender bias.
Speaker 1: But a big part of their work, maybe even bigger
Speaker 1: than getting more women into executive roles, is going to
Speaker 1: be getting more men into customer service jobs. And I
Speaker 1: think that's really important because it means that you have
Speaker 1: to change some attitudes of men. You know, sometimes men
Speaker 1: think I don't want to go into a customer services job,
Speaker 1: you know, I want to go into a different role.
Speaker 1: But actually that's the way I think that in financial
Speaker 1: services organizations, men and women can make a lifetime career
Speaker 1: that's going to be successful. It's going to be full
Speaker 1: of integrity, and it's going to mean that they can
Speaker 1: grow to be whatever they want in in the businesses
Speaker 1: of the future. What Virgin Money is going through this
Speaker 1: very public realization that they've put more men at the
Speaker 1: top and more women at the bottom of their company.
Speaker 1: That's happening to a lot of companies in the UK
Speaker 1: forced to open up their pay gap numbers. Thousands of
Speaker 1: businesses are facing an uncomfortable truth and they have to
Speaker 1: figure out how to explain these numbers to the whole country.
Speaker 1: Some companies tried to massage the data to make their
Speaker 1: numbers look a little bit better. Earlier this year, it
Speaker 1: came out that some accountancy firms and law firms didn't
Speaker 1: include partners in the numbers the highest paid tears in
Speaker 1: their firms. What they were doing was legal. The government
Speaker 1: had said it was okay to report this way, but
Speaker 1: when people found out businesses were leaving partners out of
Speaker 1: the equation, their outrage forced a number of companies to
Speaker 1: restate their figures. Then there are the companies that didn't
Speaker 1: report in time for the deadline, even though they had
Speaker 1: to buy law. About fifteen hundred businesses missed the April cutoff.
Speaker 1: In theory, a company can face an unlimited fine for
Speaker 1: not reporting, but we don't yet know how easy this
Speaker 1: will be to enforce and how much companies who don't
Speaker 1: comply will really have to cough up. But for most companies,
Speaker 1: what the reporting did was to force them to look
Speaker 1: closely at how their businesses were structured and why women
Speaker 1: often seemed to drift to the bottom of that structure.
Speaker 1: I mean, one classic thing was Ryanair, where there's a
Speaker 1: pay gap and they were saying, well, it's obvious we've
Speaker 1: got seventy percent pay gap because all the men of
Speaker 1: pilots and all the women are serving the drinks. But
Speaker 1: they've got a global pilot shortage. Why don't they train
Speaker 1: some more women as pilots. That was Harriet Harman. She's
Speaker 1: a British politician and she's also the reason this big
Speaker 1: new law exists. Ryanair, the company she was just talking about,
Speaker 1: says that they've seen an increase in applications from female
Speaker 1: pilots and are quote committed to developing this welcome trend.
Speaker 1: Harriet is not surprised by the big gaps and companies
Speaker 1: are reporting. Her third or six year long political career
Speaker 1: has been a lesson in how the different roles are
Speaker 1: for men and women in every industry, including government. When
Speaker 1: she was elected as a Member of Parliament in only
Speaker 1: three percent of British politicians were women. It seemed like
Speaker 1: women were blocked from lots of areas of British politics.
Speaker 1: Harriet was like a one woman wrecking crew, breaking through
Speaker 1: those blockades one by one. She was the first UK
Speaker 1: female Solicitor General for American listeners, that's basically the equivalent
Speaker 1: of the Deputy Attorney General, and also the first Minister
Speaker 1: for women, a role that had never existed before her.
Speaker 1: It was her job to make policy about issues like
Speaker 1: women's rights. One of her crusades has been gender paid transparency.
Speaker 1: But to a lot of politicians, this idea of forcing
Speaker 1: companies to state their pay gaps, it was just too radical.
Speaker 1: I was a bit on my own arguing for transparency
Speaker 1: for pay transparency, but I felt it would put the
Speaker 1: power in women's hands if they could actually see what
Speaker 1: was going on, if the veil of discrimination was torn off,
Speaker 1: because what had been happening for years is the National
Speaker 1: Statistical Office would be reporting the overall figure of the
Speaker 1: pay gap, and every organization they'd go, oh, tucked up,
Speaker 1: isn't that awful a pay gap? We're so against? That
Speaker 1: must be happening somewhere else. We'd never have it here.
Speaker 1: But of course it always was happening here. Harriet realized
Speaker 1: that without widespread support, the only way she'd ever get
Speaker 1: the law through was to go step by tiny step.
Speaker 1: The first step was to introduce an imperfect solution, make
Speaker 1: the program voluntary. Companies could make their pay figures public
Speaker 1: if they chose. Even getting government to do that, create
Speaker 1: a system for companies to report their pay gap if
Speaker 1: they wanted to was controversy. Show we had such a
Speaker 1: fight down to the wire. It was the very last
Speaker 1: piece of legislation that got through before the general election,
Speaker 1: which we then lost. But I didn't manage to get
Speaker 1: the bill through until the literally the last day. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and ten. Companies did not jump to publish
Speaker 1: their pay figures because the reporting was voluntary. Every business
Speaker 1: worried about sticking their neck out if they didn't have to.
Speaker 1: So by Tift, five years after the voluntary solution was
Speaker 1: put into place, only five companies in the whole country
Speaker 1: had reported their numbers. Clearly, making reporting optional wasn't working,
Speaker 1: but politicians couldn't agree on making reporting mandatory either. Vince Cable,
Speaker 1: seventy five year of British political icon and leader of
Speaker 1: the Liberal Democrats party, was Business Secretary by this time.
Speaker 1: He says his political opponents were really resistant to forcing
Speaker 1: companies to report. Here he is describing how they put it.
Speaker 1: The argument feels as well, what is it going to
Speaker 1: tell us because men and women are doing different geomaty
Speaker 1: is measuring like for like. But of course, as we know,
Speaker 1: that raises the basic question about why are there and
Speaker 1: women doing different roles. In the end, it wasn't even
Speaker 1: Harriet or Harriet's party who made the reporting mandatory. A
Speaker 1: coalition government had taken power after Harriet's party Labor, was
Speaker 1: voted out, and basically what happened was that the left
Speaker 1: wing party of that coalition pressured the right wing to
Speaker 1: make a campaign promise when it was trying to get reelected.
Speaker 1: When they were reelected, it was the right wing Conservative
Speaker 1: party who had to make good on their promise and
Speaker 1: ended up forcing companies to reveal their gender pay gaps,
Speaker 1: and that's where the UK is now. It took years
Speaker 1: for a mostly male government to decide that companies should
Speaker 1: even be asked to state what men and women make,
Speaker 1: and even now that the numbers are out, there was
Speaker 1: still seeing companies try to make their numbers better without
Speaker 1: paying women more, or failed to report or not adequately
Speaker 1: explain why women end up in the low paid jobs
Speaker 1: and men in the high paid ones. Given how long
Speaker 1: it's taken us to get to this point, I asked
Speaker 1: Harriet how long she thinks it should take the country
Speaker 1: to close its gender pay gap. These are things that
Speaker 1: management can change if they want to, And therefore I
Speaker 1: think that women have waited long enough and endured unequal
Speaker 1: pay long enough. If you try and add together all
Speaker 1: the costs that women have borne by an equal pay,
Speaker 1: it is untold billions. So I would say sooner rather
Speaker 1: than later, I think women have fed up with waiting
Speaker 1: for equality. We don't know yet how much there will
Speaker 1: affect the pay gap in the UK. Its main purpose
Speaker 1: is to diagnose the problem. It's up to companies to
Speaker 1: look at their number and decide what, if anything, they're
Speaker 1: going to do. But in another European country, there's a
Speaker 1: new law that's getting a lot of attention. It compels
Speaker 1: companies to do something about the pay gap. Iceland, like
Speaker 1: the US and the UK, passed equal pay and anti
Speaker 1: discrimination laws decades ago. The anti discrimination law has been
Speaker 1: strengthened four times since nineteen seventy six, and the country
Speaker 1: has also passed laws requiring an equal number of men
Speaker 1: and women on company boards. But despite all of this,
Speaker 1: Iceland still has a pay gap of about sixteen percent,
Speaker 1: so this year it doubled down. While the UK has
Speaker 1: been looking at the average pay difference between men and women,
Speaker 1: Iceland has passed a new law focused on men and
Speaker 1: women who hold the same job. Claire Setteth reports starting
Speaker 1: this year, companies with more than twenty five employees have
Speaker 1: to submit to the government official salaries for every job
Speaker 1: and and if one employee is making more than another
Speaker 1: who's doing his or her exact same job, a company
Speaker 1: has to justify that discrepancy in writing. My name is Rosa,
Speaker 1: maybe because of those long surnames mean we use giving
Speaker 1: names in Iceland, so you can call me Rosa. But
Speaker 1: I'm the head of the Equality Unit at the Ministry
Speaker 1: of Welfare and in Iceland. Rosa is in charge of
Speaker 1: this big new salary law and the experiment the country
Speaker 1: ran to see if it would even work. In two
Speaker 1: thousand eight, Iceland launched a pilot version of the law
Speaker 1: with real businesses to see what worked and what didn't.
Speaker 1: One of the businesses that participated was Iceland's Customs office,
Speaker 1: where men tended to be in field jobs and women
Speaker 1: worked in the office. Those field jobs they paid better,
Speaker 1: so custom officers working out in the field, for example,
Speaker 1: are of the cases made. And they had had the
Speaker 1: unwritten rule that those men could return to the headquarters
Speaker 1: when they were close to their retirement aids and just
Speaker 1: do ordinary office work. But then they were sitting and
Speaker 1: sharing offices with women that were working as secretaries and
Speaker 1: the equal past and that is based on the rule
Speaker 1: of paying equally for jobs of equal value. So employers
Speaker 1: needs to ask those questions, what are we paying for?
Speaker 1: You know, what value has this job for the company?
Speaker 1: Here were men working alongside women doing the same jobs,
Speaker 1: and because of their field job salary histories, the men
Speaker 1: were getting paid more under this new law. The customs
Speaker 1: are has had to explain that to the government, and
Speaker 1: Iceland decided that If the only reason you're paying one
Speaker 1: employee more than another is that he's an older man
Speaker 1: close to retirement, well that's not a good enough reason.
Speaker 1: The Customs Office volunteered to be part of this experiment,
Speaker 1: they didn't necessarily think they'd find much of a paid discrepancy.
Speaker 1: Rosa says that a lot of companies were in this boat.
Speaker 1: But many employers set that at the beginning, we are
Speaker 1: not discriminating in our company. But in many cases they
Speaker 1: found out that their workplaces were just astenti biased as
Speaker 1: any other, and that there were in some cases discriminating
Speaker 1: against individuals. I didn't know, and I don't think that
Speaker 1: people decide that they are going to discriminate against people,
Speaker 1: or that they're going to pay this guy or this
Speaker 1: woman more or less than the colleagues. It's something that happens.
Speaker 1: When companies discover a pay gap like this, they're required
Speaker 1: to fix it. They can give people raises or even
Speaker 1: make pay cuts, but essentially they have to bring people
Speaker 1: in line with the stated salary for their job. To
Speaker 1: be clear, this new law is just one small part
Speaker 1: of Iceland's pay gap strategy. In fact, Rosa isn't really
Speaker 1: sure why Iceland's getting so much pressed for it. We
Speaker 1: are getting a lot of attention for the work we
Speaker 1: are doing. It's it's unbelievable, you know, because I've been
Speaker 1: around since in this field, since twenty years or for
Speaker 1: twenty years, and I mean, we have never had this
Speaker 1: attention for the policy field. Here's something incredible about Iceland
Speaker 1: in any given year between forty and Parliament is women.
Speaker 1: The reason Iceland has been able to tackle this issue
Speaker 1: is that women have enough power to be able to
Speaker 1: make the changes they want. In fact, this whole focus
Speaker 1: on workplace equality got started because in whopping of the
Speaker 1: country's women went on strike from their jobs, from child
Speaker 1: care and chores at home to protest their mistreatment. In
Speaker 1: Iceland was the first country in the whole world to
Speaker 1: democratically elect a woman as head of state. All those
Speaker 1: women have helped get these laws passed. Even with all
Speaker 1: these changes, closing Iceland's gap is taking an awfully long time.
Speaker 1: They still have that six percent pay gap, and once
Speaker 1: you account for the differences in the types of jobs
Speaker 1: men and women hold or hours worked, six percent of
Speaker 1: that gap still persists. A decade ago, it was eight
Speaker 1: but at this rate it's going to take another thirty
Speaker 1: years to get it down to zero. Politicians have learned
Speaker 1: from experience that genter equality doesn't come about on its
Speaker 1: owner court. They need to push things and um. They've
Speaker 1: also learned that if they will wait on the normal
Speaker 1: poses legislative chances, they can wait forever. The fact that
Speaker 1: even in Iceland, where so many laws are already on
Speaker 1: the books to narrow the pay gap, where so many
Speaker 1: women are making the laws, there's still a sixteen percent gap.
Speaker 1: So as you just how hard it is to get
Speaker 1: to true equality. Iceland wants to eliminate its pay gap
Speaker 1: within the next five years. But that gap is the
Speaker 1: results of generations of traditions and habits and beliefs that
Speaker 1: we've held about women and men's place in society. That's
Speaker 1: something that can't just be fixed with a few raissa.
Speaker 1: Iceland had a magic ingredient to getting laws passed a
Speaker 1: lot of women lawmakers. The United States isn't tackling the
Speaker 1: pay gap on the same national scale as Iceland and
Speaker 1: other countries, but that could change. A record number of
Speaker 1: women in the US declared they were running for office
Speaker 1: in If those women win, who knows they might look
Speaker 1: to Iceland for inspiration, but that's a lot of ifs.
Speaker 1: For now, most of the effort to close the pay
Speaker 1: gap here isn't happening on the federal level. Next week
Speaker 1: we'll find out what happens when it's up to companies
Speaker 1: and not the government to fix pay inequality. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to another episode of The Paycheck. If you like
Speaker 1: the show, please head on over to Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to rate, review and subscribe. The show
Speaker 1: was reported by Susie Rings Claire Setteth and hosted and
Speaker 1: reported by me Rebecca Greenfield. It was edited by Chessca
Speaker 1: Levie and produced by Magnus Hendrickson. We also had helped
Speaker 1: from Jillian Goodman, Janet Paskin, and Liz Smith. Our original
Speaker 1: music is by Leo Sidron. Carrie Vanderyott did the illustrations
Speaker 1: on our show page, which you can find at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com Slash the Paycheck. Francesca Levie is head of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Podcasts.