Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
Speaker 1: at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
Speaker 2: look at working from home for working moms. It looked
Speaker 2: like a new way for working mothers to strike a
Speaker 2: balance between a career and family, but now it may
Speaker 2: be turning into a dead end, and one senator has
Speaker 2: placed a whole non military promotions. We're going to look
Speaker 2: at what this means for the Senate as a whole,
Speaker 2: and we'll discuss the incredible shrinking office not just that
Speaker 2: more people want to work from home, but office space
Speaker 2: itself is dropping, a trend that actually started before the pandemic.
Speaker 2: But we begin with the big disconnect of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: at least where the economy is concerned, because many predicted
Speaker 2: that the big economic story for this year would be
Speaker 2: a recession. President Biden's top economic advisor, the Director of
Speaker 2: the National Economic Council, Isle Brainerd, is a former vice
Speaker 2: chair of the Federal Reserve. In last month, she discussed
Speaker 2: the risk of recession in the near term.
Speaker 3: We are seeing strong ongoing growth with inflation coming down.
Speaker 3: We're seeing unemployment staying below four percent twenty months in
Speaker 3: a row now with inflation coming down, and so those
Speaker 3: data which have been sustained now for a relatively long
Speaker 3: period of time, suggests that there's ongoing resilience there.
Speaker 2: So we haven't seen a recession. There is no expectation
Speaker 2: of a recession, and the resilience of the economy has
Speaker 2: economists and analysts believing that if there is a recession,
Speaker 2: the recovery will be swift. So the story, the disconnect
Speaker 2: is between the consumer sentiment and consumer behavior. Let's bring
Speaker 2: in Betsy Stevenson, a Bloomberg opinion columnist and an associate
Speaker 2: professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan.
Speaker 2: She was also on the President's Council of Economic Advisors
Speaker 2: and was the chief economist at the Department of Labor.
Speaker 2: Tell us what is going on? What is this disconnect?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, when a lot of people hear this,
Speaker 4: they're like, of course, people are mad. Prices are high,
Speaker 4: They're higher than they were in twenty nineteen, and they
Speaker 4: don't like that, And the fact that prices are high
Speaker 4: and that makes people mad is not the puzzle. It's
Speaker 4: that they are spending more than they were spending in
Speaker 4: twenty nineteen, and not just more as in you know,
Speaker 4: they have to spend more to make up for inflation,
Speaker 4: but they're buying even more stuff. They're you know, treating
Speaker 4: themselves a consumption spending adjusted for inflation is very very high.
Speaker 4: So they're spending as if they think it's good economic times.
Speaker 4: But then when we ask them, how do you feel
Speaker 4: about the economy, they are in the dumps, you know,
Speaker 4: as low in this period as they were in some
Speaker 4: parts of the two thousand and eight recession.
Speaker 2: Be more of a reflection of a political affiliation. If
Speaker 2: you're complaining about the economy and at the same time
Speaker 2: you're spending more money than you've ever spent before, not
Speaker 2: because of inflation, but because you want more stuff.
Speaker 4: So economists tend to believe in what we call revealed preference.
Speaker 4: So this is where this disconnect is very puzzling to economists,
Speaker 4: because you're telling me you think things are bad, but
Speaker 4: you're spending as if you think things are good. So
Speaker 4: which is it? Is it? What you're saying out loud
Speaker 4: or is it your behavior. One of the things that
Speaker 4: could explain that kind of difference would be if actually
Speaker 4: you think the economy's fine, that's why you're spending like
Speaker 4: it's fine, but you're telling people who ask you what
Speaker 4: you're telling the pollsters that you hate the economy because
Speaker 4: you're a Republican and the Democrats in power, and that
Speaker 4: you know, makes you hate the economy no matter what's happening.
Speaker 4: And in fact, there's recent research that's come out that
Speaker 4: shows that that can explain about forty percent of the disconnect.
Speaker 4: So we do have a partisan veil that affects our perceptions. Luckily,
Speaker 4: that partisan veil doesn't affect our behavior.
Speaker 2: So we have seen disconnect like this before. That's an
Speaker 2: historical perspective that would go along with this.
Speaker 4: Such a good question. You just ask, what we see
Speaker 4: is not as big of a disconnect as we're seeing
Speaker 4: right now. That's why it can only explain about forty
Speaker 4: percent of the disconnect. But what we do typically see
Speaker 4: is if I ask you how the economy is doing,
Speaker 4: and then I look at your your spending on average,
Speaker 4: those things have been pretty well lined up. But if
Speaker 4: I then also had asked you, you know, what party
Speaker 4: do you identify with. What you'll see is that the
Speaker 4: Republicans are more optimistic about the economy when there's a
Speaker 4: Republican in power, you know, even when the economy is
Speaker 4: doing sort of poorly, and that Democrats would be less
Speaker 4: optimistic about it, and the reverse would be true if
Speaker 4: a Democrat was in power. So, you know, we don't
Speaker 4: see is the kind of disconnect we're seeing right now
Speaker 4: on average, but we do see that there is somewhat
Speaker 4: of a disconnect. And so some people have argued that
Speaker 4: it's the increase in partisanship that has caused this big disconnect.
Speaker 2: And we are talking with Bloomberg columnist Betsy Stevenson about
Speaker 2: the big disconnect between consumer sentiment and consumer behavior. The
Speaker 2: money illusion, which you mentioned in your column. What is that?
Speaker 2: How does that apply here?
Speaker 4: You know, when you get a raise, everybody wants to
Speaker 4: think that that raise is because of your hard work,
Speaker 4: and so you want your income to go up. You
Speaker 4: want to get that raise, but you don't want the
Speaker 4: prices to go up. Now, sometimes we get a raised
Speaker 4: because of our hard work, but a lot of the
Speaker 4: times we get a raised just because of inflation, and
Speaker 4: inflation is when all prices in the economy are going
Speaker 4: up on average, and that usually includes the prices of workers.
Speaker 4: So that that's one of the reasons why we can
Speaker 4: never reverse inflation. And that's something I think people really hate.
Speaker 4: But if we wanted to take all prices in the economy,
Speaker 4: you know, down twenty percent on average, we'd all have
Speaker 4: to take a twenty percent pay cut to do it,
Speaker 4: as well as as cutting the prices of the things
Speaker 4: we paid for, because it get you know, it's that
Speaker 4: idea that you know, if I walk into a grocery
Speaker 4: store and I hand over one hundred dollars for my groceries,
Speaker 4: well that's one hundred dollars of revenue for the grocery store,
Speaker 4: and the grocery store uses that money to pay its workers.
Speaker 4: So think about a mom and pop store. You know,
Speaker 4: they're they're paying themselves and they're paying for their they're
Speaker 4: paying their suppliers. So if you're paying more, somebody's getting more.
Speaker 4: Is it the supplier, is it the mom and pop?
Speaker 4: What money illusion is the fact that we focus on
Speaker 4: what are called nominal prices, that's the sticker price for
Speaker 4: some things, and we tend to try to think about
Speaker 4: real prices, meaning adjusted for inflation for other things. And
Speaker 4: that means that we can we can be angry about
Speaker 4: the prices while not being angry about what that has
Speaker 4: meant for. Say, are our house prices right? And I
Speaker 4: have yet to hear somebody in this economy say inflation
Speaker 4: is out of control, my stock portfolio is up too much,
Speaker 4: my house price is up too much. It's this ridiculous inflation.
Speaker 4: That stuff needs to come down. My house price better
Speaker 4: fall twenty percent. Right. Nobody's saying that. People who want
Speaker 4: to buy a house who aren't in the market are
Speaker 4: saying that, but not the people who who own a house.
Speaker 4: So we tend to focus on the way inflation harms us,
Speaker 4: and then we try to ignore the way it benefits us.
Speaker 2: I'm wondering how long this disconnect can last, or does
Speaker 2: it matter how long it lasts. Is it something that's sustainable?
Speaker 2: Is it something that folks will eventually grow out of,
Speaker 2: the pendulum will swing.
Speaker 4: Even that's such a good question. I think there's a
Speaker 4: there are two distinct things, which is how long does
Speaker 4: it keep distorting people's behavior? And I think people would eventually,
Speaker 4: you know, get used to too higher prices. You know,
Speaker 4: I think my grandparents probably never stopped complaining about the
Speaker 4: fact that, you know, they used to only have to
Speaker 4: pay five cents for a coke. But I think that
Speaker 4: they probably were buying as you know, they were making
Speaker 4: buying decisions about coke at the in the late you know,
Speaker 4: and at the end of their life, as if they
Speaker 4: didn't have money illusion, But they certainly were still complaining
Speaker 4: about it. So you know that money illusion can affect
Speaker 4: our perception that things have gotten worse, I think, for
Speaker 4: a long time. And it probably depends a lot on
Speaker 4: sort of how old you are when these things happen
Speaker 4: and whether to be To be clear, inflation hurts some
Speaker 4: people while it benefits others. It tends to be very redistributed, redistributative,
Speaker 4: and if we look in our economy over the last
Speaker 4: couple of years, the people who change jobs got huge
Speaker 4: wage increases, So those were some of the people who
Speaker 4: who won, but not everybody wanted to or could change jobs,
Speaker 4: and the people who stayed in their jobs ended up
Speaker 4: really losing out. Their wages didn't keep up with inflation.
Speaker 4: If you look at union members, their wages weren't keeping
Speaker 4: up with inflation. That's why we've seen so many big
Speaker 4: union battles like the UAW. Their wages had eroded really
Speaker 4: substantially due to inflation because they didn't have a cost
Speaker 4: of living adjustment in their contract. So people who are
Speaker 4: hurt by inflation may feel angry about it, you know,
Speaker 4: for the rest of their lives. The question will be
Speaker 4: really around when people sort of adjust to the new
Speaker 4: price level and go about making decisions without giving a
Speaker 4: lot of thought to the fact that prices are higher
Speaker 4: today than they were ten years ago.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Betsy. Betsy Stevenson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist
Speaker 2: and an associate professor of public policy and economics at
Speaker 2: the University of Michigan. Coming up, we look at how
Speaker 2: working from home has shifted from a new path for
Speaker 2: working moms to possibly a dead end. You're listening to
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
Speaker 1: at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, and you
Speaker 2: might have thought that remote work or work from home
Speaker 2: would make things easier for working mothers, but more often
Speaker 2: we're finding more workplaces retreating from remote work options and
Speaker 2: now a push of course to get more people back
Speaker 2: in the office. Let's talk about what this all means
Speaker 2: with Beth coo At, a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering corporate America. Beth,
Speaker 2: are there more flexibilities now for working moms?
Speaker 5: So this is a really interesting question because I think
Speaker 5: we did see during the pandemic a lot of companies
Speaker 5: started to offer more flexibility and remote work for everybody,
Speaker 5: and that was a great, a huge perk, a huge
Speaker 5: boon working moms all of a sudden could kind of
Speaker 5: juggle their lives in a way that was a lot easier.
Speaker 5: But I think the issue here is the way working
Speaker 5: from home is perceived. So the perk might still be there,
Speaker 5: but it's the perception I think that is really the issue.
Speaker 2: The perception being that if you're working from home, you're
Speaker 2: not really working exactly exactly.
Speaker 5: So I think what everybody was working from home, it
Speaker 5: was like, great, this, we can do this, this is fine.
Speaker 5: Every It was kind of kind of leveled the playing field.
Speaker 5: Now that companies have started to call people back to
Speaker 5: the office, people who have sort of continued to take
Speaker 5: advantage of working from home, are you know, outraging called
Speaker 5: lazy by big corporate America CEOs. You know that they're
Speaker 5: not working as hard, that they can't really be leaders.
Speaker 5: So so even though the option for them still might
Speaker 5: be there, it doesn't do them a whole lot of good.
Speaker 5: If this is kind of the stereotype that's continuing to
Speaker 5: be perpetuated, is.
Speaker 2: That the only stereotype that you might be encountering as
Speaker 2: a working mom, specifically obviously working from home. There's that
Speaker 2: stereotype that's always kind of been there. If you're working
Speaker 2: from home or remote working, you're not in the office,
Speaker 2: the manager doesn't have eyes on you, so there's some
Speaker 2: question about your productivity. Is it worse if you are
Speaker 2: a working mother?
Speaker 5: I well, it's sort of a double edged story for
Speaker 5: working moms, which is often the case.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: So on the one hand, if you're at the office
Speaker 5: too much, people are like, well, where I wind you
Speaker 5: with your children? Like, I think that is actually a
Speaker 5: question that people ask, and you know, are they good?
Speaker 6: How can they possibly be a good mom? If they're
Speaker 6: here all the time.
Speaker 5: And then on the flip side is if you're not there,
Speaker 5: if you are trying to juggle and make it work
Speaker 5: and work flexible hours, then the question is are you dedicated?
Speaker 5: You know so, I think it's a really fine line
Speaker 5: for a lot of women.
Speaker 2: Didn't We learn during the pandemic that working from home
Speaker 2: does work. A lot of places were able to transition
Speaker 2: quite seamlessly.
Speaker 6: One would have thought that.
Speaker 5: You know, we saw record profits, but a lot of
Speaker 5: companies during the pandemic. It seems though, that this really
Speaker 5: was a perk that companies offered in a tight labor market,
Speaker 5: right we saw you know, employment, unemployment was record low.
Speaker 5: We just it was such a hot job market. And
Speaker 5: now that things have pulled back a little, it seems
Speaker 5: that this was really not some big structural change, that
Speaker 5: it really was kind of a tool that companies used
Speaker 5: to lure workers, and a lot of them have walked
Speaker 5: it back.
Speaker 2: Is this also a generational thing? As younger workers are
Speaker 2: coming up through the corporate workplace and they become managers,
Speaker 2: will they fall into that trap of believing that people
Speaker 2: who are working from home aren't really or will that
Speaker 2: be where we start to see more working from home
Speaker 2: actually come to fruition and help those working moms.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I do think there is a generational shift here, right.
Speaker 5: A lot of the people who are at the top
Speaker 5: kind of grew up this way, coming into the office.
Speaker 5: This is how they learned to do their jobs, and
Speaker 5: it's hard for them to see another way. So I
Speaker 5: do think that a shift in leadership as a next
Speaker 5: generation rises could really help this.
Speaker 6: You know, one thing I didn't notice.
Speaker 5: Is that a lot of women are kind of cutting
Speaker 5: their own paths right rather, they're leaving those jobs. They're
Speaker 5: saying this isn't for me, and they're starting their own companies.
Speaker 5: They're they're becoming independent contractors. And you know, in the
Speaker 5: companies that these women start, maybe there's.
Speaker 6: An answer there too.
Speaker 5: Maybe they will kind of, you know, implement some of
Speaker 5: these policies that we know really do help women.
Speaker 2: And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Beth Kelat
Speaker 2: about the push to return to the office and what
Speaker 2: that means for working moms. Let's get a historical perspective here, Beth,
Speaker 2: How is this different than it has always been for
Speaker 2: working moms?
Speaker 5: So I think, you know, it's always been the juggle, right,
Speaker 5: it's always but there was no flexibility, so you had
Speaker 5: to you had to be at the office nine to
Speaker 5: five and you kind of had to be available for
Speaker 5: twenty four to seven. And this is I should be clear,
Speaker 5: this isn't for women really climbing the corporate ladder, right,
Speaker 5: And a lot of women then chose, you know, either
Speaker 5: you opted out, it was too hard, you couldn't make
Speaker 5: it work, or you know, you just kind of slugged
Speaker 5: it out you thought through it.
Speaker 6: And I think, you know, we know, even even in.
Speaker 5: Households where both both you know, husband and wife are
Speaker 5: really but you know, partners are both working and in
Speaker 5: really competitive fields, very demanding fields, it's still women who
Speaker 5: end up doing more of the household work.
Speaker 6: So I think that hasn't changed.
Speaker 5: We've seen that men have definitely taken on more household work,
Speaker 5: but still women are doing more the majority of it or.
Speaker 6: More of it.
Speaker 5: So you know, I think here we people thought working
Speaker 5: from home maybe could be a solution, and it really
Speaker 5: has helped. Like we we know, this research shows us
Speaker 5: that when women can choose how and when they do
Speaker 5: their jobs, that is a huge tool in closing the
Speaker 5: gender cap.
Speaker 2: When companies are able to accommodate working moms. How does
Speaker 2: that help them?
Speaker 5: Well, First of all, turnover is a huge issue. Right,
Speaker 5: If you can retain your employees, that's a big deal,
Speaker 5: and I think it it also. I mean, just because
Speaker 5: someone who's working from home doesn't mean they aren't as
Speaker 5: dedicated and or working as hard as anybody else. So,
Speaker 5: you know, I do think being able to keep these
Speaker 5: incredibly hard working women in the workforce is.
Speaker 6: A boon for everybody.
Speaker 5: And figuring out a way to do it that works
Speaker 5: for them, I think that also does go a long
Speaker 5: way in terms of retaining employees. Right, It creates a
Speaker 5: lot of loyalty if you can be flexible.
Speaker 2: What are some of the other responses that you have
Speaker 2: seen from working moms? How are they handling this? How
Speaker 2: do they manage?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 5: So I do think this is this is a big
Speaker 5: thing where before I think a lot of women might
Speaker 5: opt out, Right, we did see that. I think that's
Speaker 5: not really what's happening. Rather than be opting out or
Speaker 5: giving up or being mommy tracked or whatever you want
Speaker 5: to call it, I do think that they're sort of saying, okay, fine,
Speaker 5: if this, if you're not willing to redefine what the
Speaker 5: ideal worker looks like. Then I'm going to make up
Speaker 5: my own rules that fall outside the bounds of corporate America.
Speaker 6: So they are starting their own companies, they're becoming independent contractors.
Speaker 5: We've seen women who are become very senior say I
Speaker 5: don't want the time jump, right, this isn't for me.
Speaker 5: And I think, again, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Speaker 5: They're going to go on and start their own companies
Speaker 5: and that's going to let them make up the rules
Speaker 5: that really work for them.
Speaker 2: Do you find more women are also disappointed because they
Speaker 2: thought that this was going to be a path forward
Speaker 2: so they can balance their careers and their families, and
Speaker 2: now it looks like it's just being taken in a way.
Speaker 2: It's very hard to give a benefit or to provide
Speaker 2: a flexibility and then remove it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I would say this is not just for
Speaker 6: working moms either.
Speaker 5: I think a lot of people feel like they were
Speaker 5: I don't know that the companies have really kind of
Speaker 5: turn the tables on them in the sense that this
Speaker 5: was something that they were being told worked and kind
Speaker 5: of plan their lives around it, and then it was
Speaker 5: something that was withdrawn. So I don't think that's actually
Speaker 5: just for working parents. I think that's a huge issue
Speaker 5: for everybody that they kind of got used to working.
Speaker 6: This way, they did it well, and now.
Speaker 5: I think there is some some resentment that this is
Speaker 5: something that's no longer an option for them.
Speaker 2: Any chance it's going to come back. I know you
Speaker 2: don't have a crystal ball, but.
Speaker 5: I do think to your point, I do think there
Speaker 5: will be a generational shift at some point. No, and again,
Speaker 5: I don't think this is like never in the office, right.
Speaker 5: I think this is in the office when it makes sense,
Speaker 5: not just to tick a box.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 5: So I think there there's nuance here, and I'm hopeful
Speaker 5: that as we see a new generation to take over
Speaker 5: these roles, these top roles in corporate America, maybe they
Speaker 5: can figure it out.
Speaker 2: Bethco It is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporate America
Speaker 2: and coming up how one senator's block on military promotions
Speaker 2: may put a stain on the entire Senate. Don't forget
Speaker 2: We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your
Speaker 2: favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2: I'm Abe Morris Republican Senator Tommy Tubberville has a block
Speaker 2: on military promotions for eight months, in counting a protest
Speaker 2: move on his part, pushing back against the Pentagon's policy
Speaker 2: of paying travel expenses for military members seeking abortions. Even
Speaker 2: as members of his own party are criticizing him for this,
Speaker 2: Senator Tubberville says he won't budge.
Speaker 8: I'm still dug in, you know, I'm you know, I
Speaker 8: ran on as a pro life candidate. My state's pro life.
Speaker 2: But while responsibility for this falls on the senator and
Speaker 2: other Republicans, what about Democrats. Let's bring in Bloomberg opinion
Speaker 2: columnist Jonathan Bernstein, who covers politics, and Jonathan as always
Speaker 2: thank you for your time. What does this do to
Speaker 2: the Senate?
Speaker 8: Well, you know the problem with the Senate is that
Speaker 8: it has run for years on informal norms and procedures.
Speaker 8: There are rules, but the rules depend on senators sort
Speaker 8: of agreeing to do certain things that they don't have
Speaker 8: to do. And what's happened is that that's falling apart
Speaker 8: over the years. And so that you know the way
Speaker 8: that military promotions generally are done is that they come
Speaker 8: to this Senate has to confirm them for a general
Speaker 8: to become a you know, one star general to become
Speaker 8: a two star general. And what happens is they all
Speaker 8: come over from the President and the Senate processes them
Speaker 8: through committee, and then one day the Majority leader says,
Speaker 8: or the chair of the committee says, you know, I
Speaker 8: want sent to confirm the following eight items. And they
Speaker 8: do twenty forty sixty of them at a time. It
Speaker 8: takes two seconds. They're done. But if somebody objects and
Speaker 8: forces them to do each one individually, they each take
Speaker 8: hours of Senate floor a time. And there's no rule
Speaker 8: that says you can't do it. It's within the Senate rules
Speaker 8: to do what Taburvill is saying. But the Senate basically
Speaker 8: can't work if everybody does it, you know, takes full
Speaker 8: advantage of what they can do under the Senate rules.
Speaker 8: And because of that, it means that the Senate doesn't
Speaker 8: work the way that should for each individual senator.
Speaker 2: Do appearances matter in a situation like this? Would this
Speaker 2: move the needle on election day? Does it send a
Speaker 2: message to foreign countries? How do appearances play out here?
Speaker 8: You know, I doubt if it makes much of a
Speaker 8: difference for elections it does. You know, The thing is
Speaker 8: it may not actually affect voters. However, politicians are paranoid.
Speaker 8: The only question is what are they paranoid about? And
Speaker 8: no politician likes to be in a situation where they're
Speaker 8: not supporting the troops. So, you know what, it actually
Speaker 8: cause somebody to vote against a Republican senator against a
Speaker 8: senator because this is probably not would a senator feel
Speaker 8: that they were in danger? Very possibly? Yes, So in
Speaker 8: that sense it certainly could matter. I don't know. In
Speaker 8: terms of foreign affairs, I would say that, you know,
Speaker 8: the United States has enough trouble with convincing our allies
Speaker 8: that were a serious country after four years of Trump
Speaker 8: before this, and the possibility of Trump coming back that
Speaker 8: anything that sort of adds to hey, wait, we can't
Speaker 8: pass our appropriations bills, we are threatening a government default.
Speaker 8: We can't promote military officers certainly can't help.
Speaker 2: There are also those who say that this doesn't matter
Speaker 2: at all. Military convention just fine without all of these promotions.
Speaker 2: Your point is the bigger picture of how the Senate operates.
Speaker 8: Yeah, you know, the Senate is not a simple majority
Speaker 8: party rules institution. The way that the House is Senate
Speaker 8: has evolved to protect individual senators. They call them the
Speaker 8: rights of individual Senators, but that that it protects individual
Speaker 8: states interests as well or the interests of people who
Speaker 8: live in particular states, so that you know, if something's
Speaker 8: it's a huge country, right, it's three hundred and thirty
Speaker 8: some million people, and it's hard to represent the small
Speaker 8: interests within that. And one of the advantages of the
Speaker 8: Senate and having individual senators have so much influence is
Speaker 8: that they can, you know, if the Department of Transportation
Speaker 8: passes a rule, or if there's some the majority party
Speaker 8: has a piece of legislation that would have an adverse
Speaker 8: effect on maybe something that happens in a corner of
Speaker 8: Arkansas or a corner of Alasco or a corner of Montana.
Speaker 8: Their senators can stand up and say, I object, let's
Speaker 8: work it out. And something that they have sort of
Speaker 8: that their constituents have an intense interest in, they have
Speaker 8: a champion there who has the ability to stop everything
Speaker 8: and say, let's take into account the weird effect that
Speaker 8: this good rule overall is going to have on my state.
Speaker 8: And there's a lot of advantage to that. It's not
Speaker 8: worth you know, the malaportionment in the Senate, but there's
Speaker 8: still a good advantage of that. You can't do that
Speaker 8: in the House. If one member of the House, because
Speaker 8: it's a four hundred and thirty five member body, objects,
Speaker 8: they can't. There's nothing in the rules to allow them
Speaker 8: to do that. If senators use that power to shut
Speaker 8: down something that they have no chance of bargaining for.
Speaker 8: Tuberville's trying to get an abortion rule changed that he's
Speaker 8: in the minority on, and it's not a minority because
Speaker 8: he has something in particular people in Alabama. You know
Speaker 8: this effects Alabama particularly. This is something that's a national debate,
Speaker 8: and you know, the majority of the Senate supports the policy,
Speaker 8: the president elected by the whole country supports the policy.
Speaker 8: And Tabarilla says, no, I'm going to use my power,
Speaker 8: which is really there. The justification for the power is
Speaker 8: to do something to protect particular interests. I'm going to
Speaker 8: use it so the minority will rule over majority, and
Speaker 8: it can't work that way. So if they insist on this,
Speaker 8: then the next step is for the majority of the
Speaker 8: center say well, we're going to change the rules, We're
Speaker 8: going to change procedures. We're not going to allow this
Speaker 8: to happen, which would take away the ability of senators
Speaker 8: to use this for a positive what I think a
Speaker 8: lot of people would say would be a positive center.
Speaker 2: And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Jonathan Bernstein
Speaker 2: about the risky nature of Senator Tommy Tubberville's hold on
Speaker 2: military promotions and its impact on how the Senate operates.
Speaker 2: And you were just explaining about the domino effect that
Speaker 2: this has as they try to move forward on other issues,
Speaker 2: It tangles everything up. Why can't Republicans just do something
Speaker 2: about this one issue.
Speaker 8: Yeah, the problem is that and Tuberville is the one
Speaker 8: who's done this, He has a couple allies might leave Utah.
Speaker 8: But for the most part, most Republicans think this is
Speaker 8: a bad idea. Is that while he's doing it with
Speaker 8: military promotions, the rest of the party is doing the
Speaker 8: exact same thing on everything else other than military promotions.
Speaker 8: Because there are hundreds of executive branch nominations and quite
Speaker 8: a lot of judicial nominations which also go through pretty quickly,
Speaker 8: usually district court nominations, judges, non cabinet, non controversial executive branch,
Speaker 8: though those also go through usually by unions consent or
Speaker 8: on a voice vote very quickly, no problem. But the
Speaker 8: Republican Party is holding them up and forcing the Senate
Speaker 8: to spend a lot of time on each one. Not
Speaker 8: because they object to the particular nominations, although they do
Speaker 8: in some cases, which in my view is fine they
Speaker 8: should oppose those things, but on a lot of things
Speaker 8: which eventually go through by one hundred to zero vote
Speaker 8: or ninety to ten vote, they're forcing the Senate take
Speaker 8: a lot of time for each one, basically just to
Speaker 8: throw a wrench into how the government operates. And the
Speaker 8: problem for Republicans is if they accept the principle that
Speaker 8: people shouldn't do these blanket filibusters, then there's they perceive
Speaker 8: a slippery slope to the Democrats then saying well, okay,
Speaker 8: we're going to change procedures to get the military nomination
Speaker 8: promotion through. Let's change the procedures to get all of
Speaker 8: our judges through and the executive branch things through quickly
Speaker 8: without using a lot of and that when Republicans lose
Speaker 8: that way of using the rules, which they shouldn't be
Speaker 8: doing in the first place in my field, so you know,
Speaker 8: fifty six fifty seven, fifty eight senators from a party
Speaker 8: that also has the presidency and majority of the House.
Speaker 8: We're going to get rid of the filbuster and it's
Speaker 8: going to wind up looking governing about the way the
Speaker 8: House does. And you know, if you look over at
Speaker 8: the House these days, that's not exactly a promising idea.
Speaker 2: All right, Jonathan, we're going to leave it. Thank you
Speaker 2: for your time. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris.
Speaker 2: In the decade before the pandemic, the before times, the
Speaker 2: amount of office space per worker in the US was
Speaker 2: already shrinking steadily. So fast forward to today, twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: offices are still standing empty all across the country, and
Speaker 2: it looks like office space may actually still be shrinking.
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Opinion columnist Justin Fox covers business and economics, and
Speaker 2: he joins us now to explain what is going on,
Speaker 2: what is driving the shrinking office space at least before
Speaker 2: the pandemic and then after two different things.
Speaker 7: Before the pandemic, a lot of it was just this
Speaker 7: sort of mismatch between where the job growth was and
Speaker 7: where the office space was. Now, though some of those
Speaker 7: same places, like the San Francisco area, have a ton
Speaker 7: of empty office space in New York as a fair
Speaker 7: amount too. And yet, you know, it's a little hard
Speaker 7: to tell because most of the measures we have of
Speaker 7: office space per worker just based on sort of macro
Speaker 7: measures of how many people work in the sectors that
Speaker 7: are kind of the office, and when you compare that
Speaker 7: to how many of those people are working from home
Speaker 7: most of the time, it may be that you know,
Speaker 7: per hour that you're in the office, there's more space,
Speaker 7: but it also means, like on Wednesday, everybody's even more
Speaker 7: crammed together than ever. So it's this fascinating phenomenon that
Speaker 7: there's a bunch of empty space available out there and
Speaker 7: lots of companies saying, oh, we want to lure people
Speaker 7: back into the office, But there doesn't seem to be
Speaker 7: much interest so far, at least in trying to lure
Speaker 7: people back into the office by saying, welcome to this
Speaker 7: luxurious new space where you have an office where you
Speaker 7: can close the door or whatever.
Speaker 2: And so, even though employers want more workers in the
Speaker 2: office in this post pandemic era, the square footage space
Speaker 2: is going to wind up being smaller.
Speaker 7: It's a little hard to measure, but yes, that seems
Speaker 7: to be the trend. Like I got this chart that's
Speaker 7: in my article from Costar and talking to guy at Costar,
Speaker 7: you know, basically saying that all new leases that are
Speaker 7: being brought in, companies are taking about twenty percent space
Speaker 7: than they had before. And again in some cases there
Speaker 7: are twenty percent fewer workers coming in. But at the
Speaker 7: same time there if these companies are trying to push
Speaker 7: more people to come in, it's interesting that they're taking
Speaker 7: smaller space. I mean, one of the things that's happening
Speaker 7: is there's this belief that wow, if we have really
Speaker 7: snazzy office space in the newest, shiniest building, that more
Speaker 7: people will come in. It's not that they're paying a
Speaker 7: lot less money for their office space. It's this sort
Speaker 7: of weird thing going on in the market right now
Speaker 7: where companies are paying top dollar to be in a
Speaker 7: certain buildings, especially here in Midtown Manhattan, and then just
Speaker 7: totally ignoring others. And I think that's it's just calculation.
Speaker 7: They're like, well, maybe if we're in the nicest building,
Speaker 7: that'll be good and it'll impress our customers and whatever else.
Speaker 2: I like, how you put it, it's a weird thing
Speaker 2: going on in the market right now, and there is
Speaker 2: this trend that it's going to continue at least for
Speaker 2: a while. I'm just wondering if this is how it's
Speaker 2: going to be.
Speaker 7: I talked to somebody from Leaseman, which is a company
Speaker 7: that basically just surveys workers, ask them a whole bunch
Speaker 7: of questions about their work experience and how they get
Speaker 7: things done, and then calculates a couple of indexes based
Speaker 7: on that. And then companies, you know, workplaces that have
Speaker 7: high indexes can put a sticker on the door basically
Speaker 7: and say we're a leastman plus workplace. And they I
Speaker 7: had seen that they had done stuff in the past,
Speaker 7: you know, because everybody complains about open plan offices, and
Speaker 7: they just found if you looked at their ratings and
Speaker 7: whether it's open plan or private offices, there's just no
Speaker 7: correlation at all. It's like some people really like their
Speaker 7: experiences in open plan, some people really hate their experiences
Speaker 7: in mostly private offices. And it's the same way with
Speaker 7: office space. It seems there's just no pattern at all
Speaker 7: in how much office space you get versus how happy
Speaker 7: you are with work and how productive you are. And
Speaker 7: you know, and there are other there been, you know,
Speaker 7: experiments done about whether being too crammed together makes it
Speaker 7: harder to concentrate, and so there's some evidence that it
Speaker 7: can get problematic. But I think for the perspective of
Speaker 7: companies who are trying to figure out, oh, what's the
Speaker 7: best situation, there's not any really clear signal telling them
Speaker 7: to stop shrinking office space. And I think there are
Speaker 7: other Like in Asia particularly, people already make do with
Speaker 7: left space per worker than we're accustomed to in most
Speaker 7: of the US.
Speaker 2: Justin Box is a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers business
Speaker 2: and economics, and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2: We're produced by Eric Mullow, and you can find all
Speaker 2: of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're available as
Speaker 2: a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2: Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines
Speaker 2: are just ahead. I'm Amy Morris, and this is Bloomberg