Speaker 1: We come here to begin a new era, an era
Speaker 1: of real promise. In this meeting, for these days, we
Speaker 1: have put our people first, and we have thought about tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We are bound together by geography, by history, by culture,
Speaker 1: but most important now by shared values. We have tried
Speaker 1: to give life to these values at this summit by
Speaker 1: agreeing to create a free trade area throughout our hemisphere,
Speaker 1: to bring together our nations, to improve the quality of
Speaker 1: life for our peoples, and to strengthen and make permanent
Speaker 1: the march of democracy. This is more than words. This
Speaker 1: is a commitment to deeds. Hello, and welcome to Stephaniel.
Speaker 1: It's the podcast that brings the global economy to you.
Speaker 1: And that was President Bill Clinton at the closing ceremony
Speaker 1: of the First Summit of the America's which he convened
Speaker 1: in Miami. As you heard there, it was supposed to
Speaker 1: mark the beginning of a new era of cooperation across
Speaker 1: the America's. In fact, all it started was a tradition
Speaker 1: of holding these summits every few years, which generally didn't
Speaker 1: achieve much. That free trade area of the America's that
Speaker 1: went nowhere, and the US hasn't hosted another one until now.
Speaker 1: With President Biden holding his own summ into the America's
Speaker 1: in just a few days time in Los Angeles. The
Speaker 1: guest list, though, is still in doubt to be honest.
Speaker 1: So are those shared values President Clinton talked about back
Speaker 1: in ninety four. I'm going to talk about all that
Speaker 1: later with Juan Bablo Spinetto, who runs all of Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: economic and government coverage in Latin America. After that, we
Speaker 1: also have a chat with one of the authors of
Speaker 1: a major new report about where we get our human
Speaker 1: capital from. It's not where you might think, it turns out.
Speaker 1: But first, here's our Mexico City based reports, admire Ather
Speaker 1: buch To explain why plans for this summit are in
Speaker 1: such a mess. Episode is in momento. The it's in momento.
Speaker 1: The initial in lais the America. You are said only
Speaker 1: him Blomundo. That was Andress Manuel Lopez Brador, also known
Speaker 1: as Amlo, the popular and populous President of Mexico, expressing
Speaker 1: his support for a new era of cooperation throughout the America's.
Speaker 1: In fact, improving relations across the region is a key
Speaker 1: objective for President Joe Biden too. He needs the support
Speaker 1: of Mexico and its Latin American neighbors to prevent the
Speaker 1: persistent of rival of migrants at the US's southern border
Speaker 1: from becoming a political problem. However, a meeting of the
Speaker 1: region's leaders next week in Los Angeles is looking less
Speaker 1: like an opportunity to men defences and more like a
Speaker 1: political fiasco. The US is hosting the Summit of the
Speaker 1: America's for the first time since the summits founding in
Speaker 1: and on the eve of the event, not all of
Speaker 1: the would be participants have accepted their invitations. At the
Speaker 1: top of the list of holdouts is am Loo, who
Speaker 1: has threatened to boycott the event unless the US also
Speaker 1: invites Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. For now, inviting the heads
Speaker 1: of those three nations is a non starter for the
Speaker 1: Biden and illustration. The standoff is exposing the fault lines
Speaker 1: across the America's, including a desire by leaders in the
Speaker 1: region for the US to stop imposing its political vision.
Speaker 1: Here's Andres Rosenthal, a Mexican career diplomat. The history goes
Speaker 1: back to four when the US decided to convene the
Speaker 1: first Summit of the America's basically with the clear intention
Speaker 1: of trying to gauge interest in the region for an integration,
Speaker 1: a economic integration of the America's somewhat similar to the
Speaker 1: European Union. UH. It was not successful. There were too
Speaker 1: many differing views regarding the possibility of integration, as I'm
Speaker 1: sure they still there still are today. It's the first
Speaker 1: time that the United States hosts the Summit of the
Speaker 1: America since it was clear to my mind at least
Speaker 1: that this was an attempt by President Biden to reaffirm
Speaker 1: US interest in the region, uh, notwithstanding all of the
Speaker 1: other distractions going on, and to be able to bring
Speaker 1: the leadership of the region to Los Angeles in order
Speaker 1: to discuss issues such as migration, economic competitiveness, climate change.
Speaker 1: But we haven't even gotten to the part where leaders
Speaker 1: can discuss crucial issues. First, Latin America's leaders need to
Speaker 1: show up. Almost says if Biden does not treat all
Speaker 1: countries equally, he will send his foreign affairs men as
Speaker 1: or to the summit, but the Mexican president himself will
Speaker 1: stay home. Meanwhile, other countries have said they refused to go.
Speaker 1: Qubas president said he would not go even if he
Speaker 1: did get an invite. Guatemala has made a fuss over
Speaker 1: US criticism of its justice system, and Honduras as president
Speaker 1: said she would not go if other leaders were left out.
Speaker 1: The question for Biden is whether a lackluster turnout is
Speaker 1: enough or if the boycott by some nations is one
Speaker 1: snub too many. Guala Lupea Cabrera, a political scientist and
Speaker 1: migration scholar at George Mason University, says the hubbub is
Speaker 1: a sign of the loss of US influence in the
Speaker 1: region and it comes at a tricky time for the
Speaker 1: Biden administration. The u s midterm elections are in November,
Speaker 1: and they will determine whether Biden's Democratic Party retains its
Speaker 1: majority in Congress. The US is concerned in Latin America's
Speaker 1: whether Mexico and its neighbors will help block migration and
Speaker 1: boost trade. But almost he's standing up to Biden as
Speaker 1: a winning political strategy that could help his own party
Speaker 1: in the upcoming Mexican regional elections and later on. The
Speaker 1: current administration is thinking about a midterm elections and also
Speaker 1: UH stability in terms of diplomacy and a hemispheric stability.
Speaker 1: It's important for for the Democrats in a very complicated
Speaker 1: electoral process that will probably not result in big in
Speaker 1: a big victory for them. On the contrary, so at
Speaker 1: this point also migration, it's it's at the center probably
Speaker 1: of the discussion, considering that a number of people from
Speaker 1: different parts of the world start a journey in different
Speaker 1: parts of South America, and we have the problems in
Speaker 1: Central America that have been magnified because of COVID nineteen pandemic.
Speaker 1: The pandemic has been a time of big change in
Speaker 1: Latin America and many of the leaders who have been
Speaker 1: invited to the summit I have never met one another
Speaker 1: in these two years. Chile elected at three five year
Speaker 1: old leftist Colombians voted in a first round election for
Speaker 1: a Garia fighter turned mayor, and Brazil lost its love
Speaker 1: for the conservative and brash Yeah Tonto Honduras, his former president,
Speaker 1: got extradited to the US on drug trafficking charges, a
Speaker 1: huge fall from Grace, and Mexicans cemented their support for Amlo,
Speaker 1: who has frequently criticized the US for its intervention in
Speaker 1: Mexico security and energy affairs, while calling for more US
Speaker 1: investment at a time when economic recovery has been too slow. Rosenthal,
Speaker 1: the diplomat says the embarrassing debate over whether or not
Speaker 1: to attend the summit could have been avoided. The US government,
Speaker 1: the White House has mismanaged this issue because they should
Speaker 1: have foreseen this from the very beginning, and they should
Speaker 1: have made whatever efforts needed to be made, either not
Speaker 1: to hold the summit if they weren't going to invite
Speaker 1: some of the countries of the region, or to find
Speaker 1: some solution before they it became a political heart patago.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration's objection to hosting Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba
Speaker 1: centers on its characterization of those countries as undemocratic. To
Speaker 1: be sure, though the US has negotiated with the countries
Speaker 1: on its no fly list in the past. Vanessa Rubio Marquez,
Speaker 1: who once worked in Mexico's Foreign Affairs ministry, remembers what
Speaker 1: it looked like when the United States was just another participant.
Speaker 1: I was in that very historic moment in which a
Speaker 1: President Castro shook hands with back then President Obama. I
Speaker 1: was in twenty in Panama at another summit of the
Speaker 1: America's So I guess what what a president man had
Speaker 1: in mind was the possibility of having once again all
Speaker 1: of the countries of the Amisphere invited to the stummits.
Speaker 1: But of course, in the context of this very divided
Speaker 1: Latin America, what has been happening is that countries have
Speaker 1: cited one way or the other. So we can get
Speaker 1: a bit more context now. From Juan Pablo spinetto Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Managing editor for Economics and Government, Maya's boss JP, thanks
Speaker 1: for coming on, Stephanomics. We've had some of the history
Speaker 1: in that piece. But the plasmo the guest list for
Speaker 1: these summits has always been a problem, hasn't it always?
Speaker 1: And thanks for the invitation, Stephanie. Um. You know, the
Speaker 1: issue of Cuba has been for decades, very sensitive, obviously,
Speaker 1: and you have guessed that the White House thought about
Speaker 1: it before, but it didn't and uh show up and
Speaker 1: exploded when I'm law decided to play politics and say, okay,
Speaker 1: if you don't invite these guys Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaraga,
Speaker 1: I'm basically not going to go to this meeting, which
Speaker 1: put the White House in a very tough position. When
Speaker 1: I was looking back at some of the sort of
Speaker 1: colorful history of some of these meetings that even before
Speaker 1: the Summit of the America's There was a There was
Speaker 1: a North South summit in Cancoon in Mexico in nineteen one,
Speaker 1: which which famously also caused all the same issues around
Speaker 1: whether or not Castro could come. So remind me what
Speaker 1: happened there exactly. It happened the same as you know now.
Speaker 1: That was forty years ago. Ronald Reagan was going to Cancun.
Speaker 1: That put Mexico in a tight spot because they needed
Speaker 1: to decide what to do with Cuba. Mexico has always
Speaker 1: been very friendly to to Cuba during the p r
Speaker 1: I years, and so the solution they came up was, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna invite Fidel Castro, but we're gonna in
Speaker 1: white team. A few days before to a meeting in Costmel,
Speaker 1: So the president at the time, Lopes Potio, called Fidel
Speaker 1: to make the invitation and he traveled by ship by
Speaker 1: a navy yacht from the island to Costomel, which is
Speaker 1: also an island in the Caribbean. Cost of Mexico held
Speaker 1: a meeting. Cosmo is actually rather nice than Cancoon. Fantastic,
Speaker 1: fantastic place. And I actually I think they met a
Speaker 1: few times there in Costumel and um and they had
Speaker 1: a meeting there. So Mexico has always been doing that
Speaker 1: balance right, knowing that they can get on a fight
Speaker 1: with the US, but at the same time, you know,
Speaker 1: making their point, their stands and showing that they are
Speaker 1: allies with the Cuban regime. And coming back to today,
Speaker 1: when you think of sort of more broadly among Latin
Speaker 1: American leaders, do they think this summit by President Biden
Speaker 1: is entirely politically motivated and to do with the u
Speaker 1: s midterms or do you think they give him some
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt that he wants to support integration
Speaker 1: across the region. I think it's a bit confusing the
Speaker 1: message that the US is sending, because obviously it's nice
Speaker 1: to be invited, but we haven't seen a strong agenda
Speaker 1: so far. There were we reported, you know, the interests
Speaker 1: of the White House to focus on trade, but you
Speaker 1: need deliverables, right. One of the reasons why the the
Speaker 1: Brazilian presidents didn't want to go to la had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Cuba, obviously, but because of his internal reasons,
Speaker 1: and he is fighting a very tough re election campaign
Speaker 1: and his point was what it is for me to
Speaker 1: go to l A, which is twelve hours away from
Speaker 1: Brazilia to meet with Biden who never pick up the
Speaker 1: phone and talk to me until now. And we're not
Speaker 1: gonna get anything, but you know, a photoshop. Um. So
Speaker 1: the Origion expects, uh, you know, more concrete steps and
Speaker 1: not just to be you know, lecture about migration. Basically,
Speaker 1: you and I were in I mean I was in
Speaker 1: Mexico with you a couple of weeks ago and we
Speaker 1: talked about this. You know, if when you don't spend
Speaker 1: time there, you don't realize quite how strange in some
Speaker 1: ways the President Amlo is. You know, he's not a
Speaker 1: sort of tradition he's a populist, but he's not traditionally
Speaker 1: left wing. He had a very tight fiscal policy, didn't
Speaker 1: spend a lot during COVID. He's very dedicated to these
Speaker 1: kind of big projects, quite old fashioned projects, like building
Speaker 1: a big new petrol refinery. Do you think the Americans
Speaker 1: even sort of know what to make of Amlo or
Speaker 1: do they understand what makes his government tick or does
Speaker 1: anyone understand what makes his government take I think you know,
Speaker 1: they do in a way, um, in the sense of
Speaker 1: they have been very respectful, to be honest of of
Speaker 1: Mexico's autonomy and that's something that even Amlow recognized and
Speaker 1: he's very um grateful for. Uh. He always talked about this,
Speaker 1: and this is very important to any Mexican president right
Speaker 1: the the the appearance of negotiating as a as as
Speaker 1: spears and not a not as being imposed by the
Speaker 1: US right now, it's a very difficult negotiation because in
Speaker 1: a way for the US, the only thing that matters
Speaker 1: right now is migration, and especially not having a migration
Speaker 1: crisis during the midterm. So uh that you know, on
Speaker 1: one side, um prevents the development of other projects, but
Speaker 1: at the same time gives some a lot more leeway
Speaker 1: to play his own cards, right knowing that by containing migration, uh,
Speaker 1: the Americans will be happy. I mean, if we step back,
Speaker 1: the other thing that we probably talked about even more
Speaker 1: when we were in Mexico, it was not anything to
Speaker 1: do with the summit. Anything that's going to happen in
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles is but what's happening in Washington and
Speaker 1: precisely what's happening inside the Federal Reserve. I mean this Historically,
Speaker 1: a period of rising US interest rates has been bad
Speaker 1: news for many countries. In Latin America, and certainly we
Speaker 1: saw in the eighties and in the mid nineties when
Speaker 1: the US was increasing interest rates making money more expensive,
Speaker 1: it was a lot of countries in Latin America that
Speaker 1: ended up paying a heavy price for that. So is
Speaker 1: that How worried are people in Mexico and around the
Speaker 1: region about that possibility? Now? Of course? Uh, you know
Speaker 1: here something very interesting happening, which is the Latin Riican
Speaker 1: central banks were the first ones to move. Brasil started
Speaker 1: to increase the interest rates um in March last year,
Speaker 1: so and the tightening cycle has been very aggressive so far.
Speaker 1: So by the time they these years started to move,
Speaker 1: Latin America already created a cushion that you know, you
Speaker 1: can see it basically in stronger exchange rates. Uh, that
Speaker 1: you know, at the same time prevented the capital outflows
Speaker 1: that tend to generate those crises UM as we saw
Speaker 1: in the past. Now, to me, the answer here, the
Speaker 1: main point is how far the fat is ready to go.
Speaker 1: I think if we if the titaning cycle in the
Speaker 1: US is something reasonable and we start to see inflation
Speaker 1: coming down, even even if it's not getting to two
Speaker 1: percent anytime soon, Latin America will be uh in as
Speaker 1: safe as safer place than you have imagined, um, considering
Speaker 1: the scope of this cycle now, and that's interesting to
Speaker 1: be may not of course people's radar that actually that
Speaker 1: the many of the major central banks in Latin America,
Speaker 1: certainly in Mexico, had raised interest rates long before the FATS,
Speaker 1: And we're ahead of the game when we spend time
Speaker 1: criticizing the FED for having got behind the curb. So finally, JP,
Speaker 1: I mean, you've you know, you've been around the block
Speaker 1: a few times, if I may say that, you've seen
Speaker 1: some of these summits come and go. Do you think
Speaker 1: it's salable, salvageable? Do you think that the Mexican president
Speaker 1: in the end will go to l A? What do
Speaker 1: you think he may not go? I mean, it's funny
Speaker 1: he said, you know, he may design next week on
Speaker 1: the spot, and he's not very far from l A,
Speaker 1: so he it's a flexible ticket. He even joke up stuff.
Speaker 1: He even joke about flying to Tijuana and taking a car.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think it's salvageable in the sense
Speaker 1: of it's going to happen. The president who will be
Speaker 1: there if I'm not doesn't go, it will be mostly
Speaker 1: his mistake or he's you know, he will be losing out.
Speaker 1: I think in the end if everybody else go, I
Speaker 1: don't think we're gonna see a lot of the little
Speaker 1: bubbles um that's the main thing. But we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a meeting, We're going to have a photo and you know,
Speaker 1: somebody laterals and that's always interesting and well. It certainly
Speaker 1: goes along with the long tradition of photo ops that
Speaker 1: these of these summits, but not a lot of deliverable
Speaker 1: as well for those people who are waiting in tenter
Speaker 1: hooks to see how this summit of the America's goes down.
Speaker 1: We will potentially be talking to Maya from l A
Speaker 1: next week. But Juan Pablo Spinda, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm not a person I caught up with
Speaker 1: in devils. The other day was Spen Smid, the director
Speaker 1: and chair of the McKinsey Global Institute. And the institute
Speaker 1: puts out reports which usually draw on enormous amounts of
Speaker 1: data and experience to say something interesting about the world.
Speaker 1: And they've just published a big one about human capital
Speaker 1: and the value of experience. It's based on the careers
Speaker 1: of four million workers in several countries. Human capital is
Speaker 1: one of those phrases that politicians talk about a lot.
Speaker 1: I started by asking Spen what was so special about
Speaker 1: this report. They looked at how much of that skill
Speaker 1: is also built inside the job called through the accumulation
Speaker 1: of experience. And what we find is that about half
Speaker 1: of the human capital, which is two thirds of the
Speaker 1: humans wealth creation is actually coming from experience, which is
Speaker 1: basically what you get after you're born and your endowment
Speaker 1: of birth. But so it's lifetime earnings as well. So
Speaker 1: we significate as an approximation. So basically you look at
Speaker 1: how much does subbody to make in its total life
Speaker 1: and if you take you come in and that would
Speaker 1: be your starting salary. Let's they continued, with no additional experience,
Speaker 1: no additional job gains or something like that, you would
Speaker 1: be at half of what you would make as what
Speaker 1: you gain through experience. And that we're not the earnings
Speaker 1: is a proxy for that capital. It's it's not the
Speaker 1: fundamental metric. This is the one that we found it
Speaker 1: best to measure it. And just to go back a
Speaker 1: little bit, so what what were you what were you
Speaker 1: using to draw these conclusions? What data did you use.
Speaker 1: We lose twenty years of profiles big data, four million
Speaker 1: people's profiles from different countries US India, and we basically
Speaker 1: knew what people had at formal education, what they got
Speaker 1: as their starting salaries, and how they then progress for
Speaker 1: twenty years through their jobs where they then ended up.
Speaker 1: And we followed their job moves inside the companies that
Speaker 1: they worked at and also rotating to other companies and
Speaker 1: potentially coming back if you want. And so we learned
Speaker 1: not only that experience was to have, but there were
Speaker 1: a few other surprising results. One thing that surprised me
Speaker 1: probably the most, is that the increase in human capital
Speaker 1: due to experience is the most for the people who
Speaker 1: have the least incoming. So the progression through experience is
Speaker 1: the highest for counter workers stone Mason's crafts people. So
Speaker 1: if you don't have a lot of formal education, you've
Speaker 1: got you can have a much You actually keep relations
Speaker 1: of skills and and so somehow they make more steps,
Speaker 1: whereas if you come in as a dentist, you stay
Speaker 1: a dentist. And then with the second surprise for us,
Speaker 1: where there is a group of people about a third
Speaker 1: in the US a quarter in India, if you take
Speaker 1: that spectrum that just moves more so they accumulate their
Speaker 1: experience faster by going from job to job inside the company,
Speaker 1: sometimes rotating through other companies, and as a result, they
Speaker 1: have a much faster experience game, which I think is
Speaker 1: also draws an implication for what companies need to do
Speaker 1: in terms of how they develop their people. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's interesting. So McKenzie. They're obviously your clients are
Speaker 1: usually businesses, and a lot of your reports tend to
Speaker 1: focus on lessons for businesses and to some extent and
Speaker 1: governments because you also work for governments. But this was
Speaker 1: one that I read thinking, actually, it has a lot
Speaker 1: of takeaways for individuals. You know, what are the sort
Speaker 1: of broader lessons. It sounds like you should move around
Speaker 1: a lot. I actually think these learnings are vestiprocal for
Speaker 1: individual and the companies because the company doesn't that doesn't
Speaker 1: allow their people to make steps and as a result,
Speaker 1: basically going to deep end again and then learn again,
Speaker 1: it doesn't help to further the human capital of their people,
Speaker 1: and as a result, they're not helping furthering their company.
Speaker 1: But if you are an individual and you say I'm
Speaker 1: kind of comfortable at what I'm doing, and you don't
Speaker 1: try yourself in the deep end, or at least try
Speaker 1: to persuade your company that you work for to be
Speaker 1: thrown to be deep end again and pick up an
Speaker 1: next set of learnings. Um, then you're basically also not
Speaker 1: making that development. So it's both responsibility the companies to
Speaker 1: say we should be thinking about that, because you know,
Speaker 1: it's easy for a company to say, let's keep the
Speaker 1: person in the role they have because they do it well.
Speaker 1: But if you want to step up your own human capital,
Speaker 1: if you know it would be on the balance sheet
Speaker 1: of a company, then the best way to manage the
Speaker 1: balance sheet is to keep moving the people to the
Speaker 1: next step where they again accumulate the next step of capital.
Speaker 1: Who is talking about what you can do as an
Speaker 1: individual or certainly as an employer to invest in yourself
Speaker 1: in a given company. But I guess one of the
Speaker 1: slightly hard even harder conclusions from this report is that
Speaker 1: you should be letting people go and work for other
Speaker 1: companies and other places. I mean, I'm someone who has
Speaker 1: moved around a lot, but I'm conscious now that I
Speaker 1: have people, you know, as part of a big team
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg. You know, I don't part of me wants
Speaker 1: to tell them go and get new jobs, but as
Speaker 1: a business, we've not always been very comfortable with that. Yes,
Speaker 1: so I'm not sure you should sort of proactively send
Speaker 1: you the way. But if the best thing for a
Speaker 1: person is to go, that doesn't mean they can't come back.
Speaker 1: And in a way you should expect if you can
Speaker 1: celebrate an experience game that is relevant to the return,
Speaker 1: why would you not have that return? And I do
Speaker 1: think there is a group of people that just feel
Speaker 1: more comfortable to go into an experienced curve inside a
Speaker 1: single company, and people that like that rotation and maybe
Speaker 1: even develop skills faster. But why would you then say
Speaker 1: you don't come back? Although one of the awkward conclusions
Speaker 1: I think I'm reading right that if you want to actually,
Speaker 1: if you want to maximize your income, and not everybody
Speaker 1: wants to do that, then you are better off moving around.
Speaker 1: Balder moves inside the company and balder moves across are
Speaker 1: for the individual probably the best maximizing, at least for
Speaker 1: that ball that we looked at. It's not so, it's
Speaker 1: not it's a small group that actually doing that. We
Speaker 1: think a lot these days about social mobility, And this
Speaker 1: in a way is about micro social mobility. How do
Speaker 1: people move up through jobs? And you say, you know
Speaker 1: it's actually you're going to really struggle if you start
Speaker 1: off as a cashier. There's a lip, probably a limit.
Speaker 1: Will be very few people who will be able to
Speaker 1: rise right to the top of an industry. But if
Speaker 1: but you can do better by by moving and by
Speaker 1: taking risks. I mean obviously a lot of people less advantage, people,
Speaker 1: people with less education, will feel financially constrained from moving jobs,
Speaker 1: from from taking risks, taking a job that they don't
Speaker 1: necessarily have the skills for. So just from that social
Speaker 1: mobility perspective, were there are there any conclusions here about
Speaker 1: how should we address training, how should we make it
Speaker 1: easier for people to move around? Well, the first point
Speaker 1: I would make is when we say the experience gained
Speaker 1: for the cashier is bigger than for the dentist, what
Speaker 1: is that actually? So just if you look at it,
Speaker 1: the cashier becomes departmental leader in the store, and if
Speaker 1: they're really good, they might even be store leader. That's
Speaker 1: how far they might not become the CEO of the company.
Speaker 1: But that is two very big steps that the cashier
Speaker 1: can make if you're starting point as a cashier, and
Speaker 1: I think we should think about how do we celebrate that.
Speaker 1: You can't only celebrate the person who came in from
Speaker 1: university and became the CEO. Why don't we also have
Speaker 1: narrative that this is significant progress and people make as
Speaker 1: as you say, they gain more than their incoming earnings,
Speaker 1: and that's not because they stay cashier. And you can
Speaker 1: take that from the counter to chef, from sus chef,
Speaker 1: as you come in as a sus chef and you
Speaker 1: become chef. It's these paths that have quite some brange
Speaker 1: that we should celebrate. And it's not all high school, university,
Speaker 1: n b A. And so you know, that's of course
Speaker 1: where the elites will spend their time thinking. But I
Speaker 1: think for a large group of people, these steps are
Speaker 1: very important and we should find ways to celebrate them,
Speaker 1: create narratives around them, and we should celebrate them equally.
Speaker 1: Then you know some of you who came and CEO story,
Speaker 1: and then I think that will provide a little bit
Speaker 1: more context to people, because otherwise people say, I've become
Speaker 1: a sou chef and that's what I am, But the
Speaker 1: su chef many actually move up. Many move up, and
Speaker 1: that's what this data suggest spend. Thank you very much. Well,
Speaker 1: that's it for this episode of Stephanomics. Will be back
Speaker 1: next week, but in the meantime to please rate the
Speaker 1: show if you like it, and check out the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Terminal and News website for more economic news and views
Speaker 1: on the global economy. You can also follow at economics
Speaker 1: on Twitter. This episode was produced by Magnus Hendrickson, with
Speaker 1: special thanks to Maya Ava Book, Juan Pablo Spinetto, and
Speaker 1: Sven Smith. Mike Sasso is executive producer of Stephanomics and
Speaker 1: the head of Bloomberg Podcasts is Francesco Levi.