Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane, along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jailey. We bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, Suncloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course, on the Bloomberg Terminal. Let's get to
Speaker 1: at our conversation of the day on market economics the
Speaker 1: state of the American economy. Gun Hatzius joins us. He
Speaker 1: is with Golden Sex. Yeah, I got eight ways to go,
Speaker 1: but I want to fold it into a slowdown in
Speaker 1: the fiscal umph to America. Did you adjust your g
Speaker 1: d P down because the fiscal party is over, The
Speaker 1: fiscal punch bowl is being taken away. That's certainly the
Speaker 1: reason why we think the economy is going to slow
Speaker 1: quite a bit in two thousand and twenty two. We
Speaker 1: have it going to just under two percent by the
Speaker 1: fourth quarter of next year. In the near term, I
Speaker 1: think there are still some reasons to expect stronger growth.
Speaker 1: The trend is down, but I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to be a straight great line. Will still get some
Speaker 1: boost from the receding delta. Wave, consumers have a lot
Speaker 1: of pent up savings, and I think the inventory cycle
Speaker 1: is also going to boost growth. But these are all
Speaker 1: relatively short term, right and going forward, you know, further on,
Speaker 1: I do think growth is going to be significantly saw.
Speaker 1: Whatever the flavor of inflation here, what does it do
Speaker 1: to the wage in the inflation adjusted wage I think
Speaker 1: that really depends on whether you look at the top
Speaker 1: end of the of the wage distribution or the bottom end.
Speaker 1: I think at the bottom end, we've seen a sharp
Speaker 1: acceleration in wage growth we think to about six percent
Speaker 1: if we just for all the changes in composition, and
Speaker 1: that's obviously, you know, the strongest we've had in many years.
Speaker 1: I do think that the expanded unemployment benefits were a
Speaker 1: big driver of that, and now that those have ended,
Speaker 1: I think we'll see a deceleration there. But in the
Speaker 1: middle and upper end of the income distribution will probably
Speaker 1: see continued gradual wage acceleration as the labor market titans
Speaker 1: and I still think it is it is tightening, so
Speaker 1: overall we have wages going sort of roughly sideways in
Speaker 1: the three and a half to four percent range. That's
Speaker 1: our current estimate of the underlying pace and then the
Speaker 1: real wage you know, really is going to depend on
Speaker 1: what happens to inflation. In the short term, there is
Speaker 1: no real wage growth. In fact, real wages probably declining
Speaker 1: slightly because inflation is is higher than that. Longer term,
Speaker 1: as you go into two thousand and twenty two, I
Speaker 1: think we'll again have real wage gains. So, yeah, just
Speaker 1: help we understand next year. Full pus in to the
Speaker 1: baseline for the year, but I'm more interested in the
Speaker 1: back half. Two Are you saying one point five to
Speaker 1: GDP growth by the time we get to the back end?
Speaker 1: That's right. The four percent is in part being driven
Speaker 1: by the strength in the later part of two thousand
Speaker 1: and twenty one that has a statistical carry over into
Speaker 1: the year. But as you go through the year and
Speaker 1: especially into the back half, we have it at three
Speaker 1: percent in Q three and then one seventy five in
Speaker 1: Q four. So she's definitely a trend towards slowdown, consistent
Speaker 1: with some of these temporary positives petering out as you
Speaker 1: go through the year. Yeah, and how do you think
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve will respond to them? Will they be
Speaker 1: looking at the cumulative games that you've pointed out, Will
Speaker 1: still be decent in the labor market or will they
Speaker 1: be worried about growth slow and bank below two Well,
Speaker 1: so a near term of course, you know, tapering is
Speaker 1: very likely to be announced at the next meeting that's
Speaker 1: going to take until the middle of two thousand and
Speaker 1: twenty two, and then I think the question is where
Speaker 1: is growth whereas the labor market, whereas inflation under our forecast,
Speaker 1: growth is much more moderate and inflation is on its
Speaker 1: way back down to something like two percent on core PC.
Speaker 1: In that environment, I don't think they're going to move
Speaker 1: directly to rate hikes, and we have the hikes not
Speaker 1: starting until two thousand and twenty three. But of course
Speaker 1: it's really going to depend on the on the data
Speaker 1: and how they compare with the criteria that the Committee
Speaker 1: has laid out. They've been very clear about that. Well,
Speaker 1: tapering isn't going to help much in reducing the supply
Speaker 1: side in facial inflationary pressures that are out there, you
Speaker 1: could argue there's limited options for the FED to do
Speaker 1: anything about that. Are the ripple effects though, of that
Speaker 1: being more persistent than maybe expected, being underestimated, the ripple
Speaker 1: effects from the supply side shortages, it's be taking longer
Speaker 1: and that I think that's you know, pretty clear in
Speaker 1: the inflation numbers in you know, I think a good indicator.
Speaker 1: Obviously only one industry is used cars, where auction prices
Speaker 1: again rose in September after several months of the clients.
Speaker 1: So I do think in the in the next several
Speaker 1: months will still have a significant inflation issue. We think
Speaker 1: four pc inflation by the end of the year is
Speaker 1: at four and a quarter percent, up from three point
Speaker 1: six percent at the moment. As you go into two
Speaker 1: thousand and twenty two, though, slower growth in demand and
Speaker 1: probably also a redirection to some degree of that demand
Speaker 1: from the good sector. Right now, it's very concentrated in
Speaker 1: the good sector. It's probably going to normalize somewhat and
Speaker 1: some of it is going to move into services, you know.
Speaker 1: I think that is going to result in UH relaxation
Speaker 1: basically of these of these supply bottlenecks and declining books prices.
Speaker 1: But we're not yet in terms of supply issues. We
Speaker 1: also have a real energy crunch out there in the
Speaker 1: world that is driven crude oil prices to now eighty
Speaker 1: two dollars a barrel on w T I what is
Speaker 1: the real economic impact of crude north of AD. I
Speaker 1: think again it adds to the near charm stackflation narrative.
Speaker 1: It's bad for growth, but you know, at the same
Speaker 1: time boots inflation mainly headline there. There's not a major
Speaker 1: impact on the core numbers. They are the high numbers.
Speaker 1: They are really driven by other factors. But it's all
Speaker 1: pointing in the in the same direction in terms of
Speaker 1: way on growth and making making inflation higher. Yeah, long
Speaker 1: ago and far away, a younger hotsis defined the housing
Speaker 1: market in America as we saw housing prices collapse. Let's
Speaker 1: go to your Brookings effort here the balance sheet effects
Speaker 1: of the home price downturn. We need a rewrite sheet
Speaker 1: effects of the home price upturn. What do you make
Speaker 1: of this boom, Yahn? What does it mean for our
Speaker 1: viewers and listeners? Well, I think it is one of
Speaker 1: the items on the strong side of the ledger and
Speaker 1: one reason I think why we are getting a good
Speaker 1: amount of balance sheet support that is upsetting to some
Speaker 1: degree the negative fiscal impulse. But I think ultimately the
Speaker 1: negative fiscal impulse is probably going to be larger, in
Speaker 1: part because this housing boom underlike the pre two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven or two thousand and eight housing boom doesn't
Speaker 1: feature the same amount of mortgage equity withdrawal, you know,
Speaker 1: wholem equity, borrowing, cash out refis, etcetera. That was really
Speaker 1: a particular sort of way to turbo charge the housing
Speaker 1: wealth effect back then. We're not seeing that to the
Speaker 1: integrat degree now, so I also think the consumption effect
Speaker 1: isn't going to be as large. Yeah, just quickly, a
Speaker 1: final question, what do you make of this stag inflation
Speaker 1: conversation that's taking place right now? What are you when
Speaker 1: your team tan of clients about it? But I think
Speaker 1: in the near German's real if you're just defined stagflation
Speaker 1: as you know, deceleration and growth from the extremely rapid
Speaker 1: pace that we had a couple of quarters a goal
Speaker 1: and much higher inflation than we've had in several decades.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just a description of the fact. The
Speaker 1: question is, I think what happens as you go into
Speaker 1: two thousand twenty two, and I think that's going to
Speaker 1: be a more traditional, you know, sort of cyclical slowdown
Speaker 1: narrative also with the clients and inflation. But we're not
Speaker 1: there yet, and we're probably not going to be there
Speaker 1: for at least a few months longer. You just quickly then,
Speaker 1: just looking at the FED forecast real GDP next year,
Speaker 1: there are at three point eight year of four This
Speaker 1: is for twenty two core pc. There are two point three.
Speaker 1: Just you and just quickly confirmed. What are you at
Speaker 1: for two for on core pc? So on a for
Speaker 1: corpc by the end of the year, we're a so
Speaker 1: a little bit below the FEDS forecast for GDP growth.
Speaker 1: We're at three point three percent if you look at
Speaker 1: it on the fourth quarter to the fourth quarter basis.
Speaker 1: It's the way the FED looks at it. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: thank you, sir. I appreciate that clarification got my sex
Speaker 1: chief economist on the path forward. Ye, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: So picture the scene you have won the Nobel Prize
Speaker 1: in Economics, but you don't know you've won the Nobel
Speaker 1: Prize in economics, and Tom the phone rings you live
Speaker 1: in America on the West coast maybe, and your phonus room.
Speaker 1: Do you pick up the phone? Well, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you pick up the phone, but that is the great,
Speaker 1: great tradition and maybe you miss it a few times.
Speaker 1: Is Guido im Men's did this morning of the three
Speaker 1: winners here. This is a gentleman who did the hard
Speaker 1: work the math out of Brown University in the House
Speaker 1: of Tony Land Gast Grido Evans has been definitive in econometrics.
Speaker 1: Think Claude Granger and Robert Angel of San Diego a
Speaker 1: number of years ago. Grado, this is an award for
Speaker 1: labor and the choices of society makes in trying to
Speaker 1: figure out jobs and wages. Discreat choice is the hallmark
Speaker 1: of your work. What are the modern choices we're making
Speaker 1: in labor in two thousand twenty one? Well, thanks thanks
Speaker 1: for having me say. I mean, first all, it's just
Speaker 1: been great shining this with with josh Anglis and David
Speaker 1: Carr because they've they've been such role models for me
Speaker 1: that they've been so fun to to work with and
Speaker 1: have his colleagues, and in addition kind of Alan Couger
Speaker 1: who's also worked in this this area, and all three
Speaker 1: of them kind of have been working on these really
Speaker 1: important subscentive questions and sacked and having been their colleagues,
Speaker 1: then that motivated me to look at a lot of
Speaker 1: the methodological issues related to their questions. To make their
Speaker 1: arms is more convincing and more credible and hopefully more
Speaker 1: useful for policymakers. I look, Guido at the present work
Speaker 1: here in the hallmark of this is to take David
Speaker 1: Carter and Ellen Krueger over to what Angerston in Ben's
Speaker 1: did an econometrics and math, over to the modern technology
Speaker 1: of Amazon, target and the rest getting sixteen seventeen eighteen
Speaker 1: dollars an hour because they can't find labor. From where
Speaker 1: you sit, what does the marginal wage due to all
Speaker 1: of America with Amazon going out looking for the marginal employee.
Speaker 1: But at the moment, I think it's all very much
Speaker 1: influx after the pandemics, of course, has had great effects
Speaker 1: on on inequality and it's it's had such an equal
Speaker 1: impact on different parts of the of the labor market,
Speaker 1: and so I think Ellen and David's work is still
Speaker 1: extremely relevant there and I think the current administration has
Speaker 1: probably taken up very seriously. Yeah, Guido, obviously your work
Speaker 1: focused on natural experiments in the actual study of empirical data.
Speaker 1: As we talk about monetary policy and a federal reserve
Speaker 1: that wants to operate on actual, realized data versus expectations,
Speaker 1: is that something that can only really be done with
Speaker 1: hindsight bias. No, I think a lot of these methods
Speaker 1: are very relevant for for informing future policies, and a
Speaker 1: lot of the datual experiment literature has also made roads
Speaker 1: into macroeconomics and is incredibly interesting work going on there
Speaker 1: that early on the Christian David Roman is very interesting
Speaker 1: work there nowadays, uh, I mean Necamora and Don Science
Speaker 1: and doing very interesting work trying to also tease out
Speaker 1: correlation and causality in macroeconomic settings, where these classes are
Speaker 1: even more challenging than in the settings with my code
Speaker 1: data that David, Josh and I have typically looked at
Speaker 1: Professor Emmons, what is so important here? And I think
Speaker 1: we'll do just one final questionnaire as you go to
Speaker 1: your massive media day and celebration of this award, And
Speaker 1: the final question is we have a certitude about data.
Speaker 1: It's in our economics, it's in our academics, it's in
Speaker 1: Wall Street, it's in everything to do with the financial media.
Speaker 1: You grew up in what I'm gonna call the Baysie
Speaker 1: in the house, which is real doubt over ninety and certitude.
Speaker 1: Are we too confident about our data that we're trying
Speaker 1: to guess the future on I think I think that
Speaker 1: that's a super interesting question, and that's that's something that
Speaker 1: that's occupy a lot of my of my thinking. We're
Speaker 1: trying to I think traditionally we've we've certainly aired on
Speaker 1: the side of putting too much faith in the in
Speaker 1: the models, and so a lot of the methods have
Speaker 1: been developing have been trying to get away from that
Speaker 1: and trying to make these methods more robust, but as
Speaker 1: as ongoing challenges and in doing so, professor, before you run,
Speaker 1: did you miss the phone call? What time did they call?
Speaker 1: I miss I missed the first phone call. I got
Speaker 1: the second one. Uh so, I was been a long
Speaker 1: day before for us. I was. I was sleeping well
Speaker 1: and uh I wasn't expecting this as it's often the way, sir,
Speaker 1: as it's often the white They missed the phone call.
Speaker 1: Queen Emmant s, thank you so and congratulations so much.
Speaker 1: E tunny walk about Prize for Economics winner and Stanford
Speaker 1: University Economics professor, that's home. They always missed the code.
Speaker 1: That's what I find always funny about this. They always
Speaker 1: missed the code. Right now and we are well timed
Speaker 1: to speak to one of our great labor economy, and
Speaker 1: she is inquisitive, to say the least out of the
Speaker 1: Michigan Shop Claudius sam Joe's joins us always controversial, always opinionated,
Speaker 1: and knowing that it is a day of celebration in
Speaker 1: her world, which is labor economics, Claudia, and we want
Speaker 1: to stay in theme. But if I look at Guido
Speaker 1: in Ben's, if I look at Joshua Angerston, particularly if
Speaker 1: I look at David Card and Alan Krueger, um, I
Speaker 1: just have to say, this is a day of the
Speaker 1: minimum wage. Fold their work into the observation. Amazon has
Speaker 1: to give out eighteen dollars an hour to find someone today.
Speaker 1: All right, So for these Nobel Prize winners today, you know, congratulations,
Speaker 1: uh and I agree. There you can go back to
Speaker 1: the really path breaking work that David Card and Alan
Speaker 1: Krueger did in the early nine nineties, and it was
Speaker 1: very careful, empirical work. Go out in the world and
Speaker 1: see what is happening in states that raise minimum wage
Speaker 1: and states that don't. Now, a lot of happened in
Speaker 1: terms of research that since then, but they at least
Speaker 1: raise the question that you raise wages and you don't
Speaker 1: lose out on business. It's not bad for the company.
Speaker 1: Normally in economics we'd say this, this is gonna be
Speaker 1: a problem for employers, it's gonna be a problem for businesses.
Speaker 1: And they found in one case, and like I said,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of literature, there's a lot of debate
Speaker 1: after that about the effects of minimum wage, but it
Speaker 1: really opened up a conversation. Let's get past our models
Speaker 1: and let's go see what's happening to all of this,
Speaker 1: and the the incredibly acute mathematic tics of Angers and
Speaker 1: Emmons as well also working. I should point out with
Speaker 1: Alan Krueger Claudia some what this comes down to is
Speaker 1: the reality right now. And I have a question on
Speaker 1: local economics, think David blanche Flower at Dartmouth is Amazon
Speaker 1: target cost go? Are they the marginal price determinant of
Speaker 1: the wage in local economies? Well, this is a trend
Speaker 1: we have seen for decades. So this goes way beyond
Speaker 1: COVID in that you have local labor markets where there
Speaker 1: is a dominant employer. Amazon's a big company in terms
Speaker 1: of customers buying things. Amazon can be a big employer
Speaker 1: if you are in an area that has one of
Speaker 1: the warehouses. I grew up in Indiana, close to an
Speaker 1: inter state. When I go home, there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: warehouses in place now or being built. They tend to
Speaker 1: pay above the local wage, but then they have a
Speaker 1: lot of bargaining power over the workers, and and that
Speaker 1: can lead to real problems, not just in terms of wages,
Speaker 1: but working conditions. Right Like, we know from a lot
Speaker 1: of people that have worked in these plans or these warehouses,
Speaker 1: it's not an easy job. And John, you wonder if
Speaker 1: this is the new form of unionization almost the dominance
Speaker 1: of these companies setting the marginal wage. Let's build on
Speaker 1: some of this time, the contribution of Card and Kruger
Speaker 1: to the real world, the real economy for good, Claudia,
Speaker 1: a quote of yours. I want economic policy to be good,
Speaker 1: like economists to do good in the world. Larry, you're
Speaker 1: referring to Larry Summers. Here is something of it. I
Speaker 1: don't now. I see him as a roadblock to achieving
Speaker 1: that girl that was in an interview with Political magazine.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that, Claudia, Right, Well, this is
Speaker 1: this really is not about Larry. It's it's about the
Speaker 1: change that needs to happen. In economics. I think if
Speaker 1: of a generation of economists, particular in macroeconomics, there is
Speaker 1: a I have a mental model. I have a way
Speaker 1: the world should work, and I'm going to keep going
Speaker 1: back to it. Larry did an interview with Noah Smith,
Speaker 1: and he was really clear, I don't have a model.
Speaker 1: He has an intuition and that comes from years of
Speaker 1: experience watching the economy. But the real contribution of the
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize winners today is to say, let's step back,
Speaker 1: let's go get the data, let's look at the world,
Speaker 1: and not do introspection. It is too hard and can
Speaker 1: really lead to a stray if you're doing that from
Speaker 1: the Ivory Towers in Cambridge, Massachusetts. So that's really and
Speaker 1: Larry just happens to be a flag bearer of the
Speaker 1: old guard. And I just particularly in this crisis, particularly
Speaker 1: in the way that different groups of people, marginalized workers,
Speaker 1: the ones who end up working at Amazon, they need
Speaker 1: economists to be out in the world looking at the
Speaker 1: data and not sitting back and using past experience, using
Speaker 1: intuition to make decisions. So that that's what that concerned
Speaker 1: that I'm raising is about what your advice. Clodia then
Speaker 1: to a students of economics right now who are just
Speaker 1: starting gout and be much bigger question I think for
Speaker 1: policy Mike, is that the Federals who have been conditioned
Speaker 1: by everything you just said. Mm hmm. Yeah. So economics
Speaker 1: is all around us, right, It's not just listening to
Speaker 1: what the Fed is gonna do, what the markets are doing.
Speaker 1: A really big debate that's happening right now that is
Speaker 1: absolutely using the tools of the prize winners today are
Speaker 1: the debates about what is causing the labor shortage. How
Speaker 1: important was unemployment insurance in that holding back of workers.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of debate on Friday about not seeing
Speaker 1: big numbers now that it are in early September, those
Speaker 1: benefits expired and they're absolutely using those methods because we
Speaker 1: saw different states roll off their benefits at different points
Speaker 1: this summer. So these tools, they've been refined since they've
Speaker 1: been developed. But like, but economists are out there trying
Speaker 1: to answer the questions, the questions about people about labor markets.
Speaker 1: The policymakers need to know so that they can make
Speaker 1: big decisions. Well, let's talk about the questions in the
Speaker 1: labor market. Participation has remained stubbornly low. We saw more
Speaker 1: evidence of that on Friday. Is that again transitory as
Speaker 1: we talk about so many of the shortages out there
Speaker 1: are or is that something structural? Well I said throughout
Speaker 1: this COVID is the enemy of everything that is happening
Speaker 1: in our world, and it is absolutely the case in
Speaker 1: labor markets. Now it's not the only factor, I think
Speaker 1: in the labor markets, and we actually see this a
Speaker 1: lot of places. What whatever problems we were living with
Speaker 1: before COVID, those became so much worse. Right, if you
Speaker 1: think about before COVID, there were a lot of parents
Speaker 1: that struggled to get childcare. It was often extremely unaffordable
Speaker 1: in areas of the country like where I live outside
Speaker 1: of Washington, d C. And then we have COVID and
Speaker 1: it becomes harder, it's less reliable, and our parents are
Speaker 1: concerned about it not being safe, and so that decision
Speaker 1: that was always hard. Do you have like the one
Speaker 1: wage earner off of the mother who would make less wages,
Speaker 1: do you have her stay at home or do she
Speaker 1: go back to work? Right like, that got so much worse,
Speaker 1: and we saw a lot of parents drop out of
Speaker 1: the labor force early on, and one of the disappointments
Speaker 1: on Friday was it's fall. Schools are reopening. It's a
Speaker 1: little rocky because people kids get sent home if a
Speaker 1: COVID exposure. Women didn't come back last month. September were
Speaker 1: supposed to be one of the big ones. So that's
Speaker 1: just one example, Claudia, is what you're saying helping make
Speaker 1: the case for some of the social policies on the
Speaker 1: table in terms of longer term economic spending in Congress.
Speaker 1: Childclaire is included in that right. So, I think we're
Speaker 1: at the point now where we we have seen this
Speaker 1: in so many places, the structural problems the labor market
Speaker 1: in general, low wage workers had a lot of problems
Speaker 1: in terms of what they were able to bargain for before,
Speaker 1: so let's fix those. This crisis has amplified and made
Speaker 1: it so obvious that the inequalities, the inequities and our
Speaker 1: economy are they're holding us all back. Now. Congress has
Speaker 1: not done big future looking long term investments in the
Speaker 1: country for a long time, and frankly, it is absolutely
Speaker 1: frustrating to see the whole debate about how many trillion
Speaker 1: dollars we have a lot to do in this country
Speaker 1: and sadly, I think Congress doesn't have a lot of
Speaker 1: crap practice recently and getting it done. Claudia, we've gotta
Speaker 1: leave it that we appreciate your time this morning. We're
Speaker 1: ready to thank you very much for being with this,
Speaker 1: Clodia Sanda of the Family Institute, and a whole wealth
Speaker 1: of experience, Tom Back of the Federal Serve as well
Speaker 1: on the COVID On the vaccine, I don't know where
Speaker 1: I said things are getting better, but where I sait
Speaker 1: maybe isn't the rest of America or the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. It is a world of vaccine protest, whether
Speaker 1: in Rome this weekend and thousands of Melbourne, Australia again
Speaker 1: and others around the world, and the oddity in America
Speaker 1: of possible vaccine protests by businesses and by their employees.
Speaker 1: Joshua Scharstein joins them. JOHNS. Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public Health. Joshua,
Speaker 1: are you surprised by vaccine protest? I'm not not surprised,
Speaker 1: given just how polarized the whole pandemic has been over
Speaker 1: the last year and a half. Um but I think
Speaker 1: we have to realize that when there are a lot
Speaker 1: of cases people see the problem right in front of them,
Speaker 1: and they're more likely to go get vaccinated when they're
Speaker 1: not a lot of cases people wonder, well, you know,
Speaker 1: do I need to get vaccinated? And then there's so
Speaker 1: much misinformation out there that keeps him from getting vaccinated.
Speaker 1: So as we look to the future and the good
Speaker 1: news that it looks like on the you know, the
Speaker 1: right side of the delta waves coming down, things look
Speaker 1: a little bit um more optimistic going into the fall
Speaker 1: and winter. Um. But also it may be that people
Speaker 1: will feel less likely to be vaccinated because of that.
Speaker 1: So I think we're going to be seeing this and
Speaker 1: it might be industry by industry, particularly for industries where
Speaker 1: workers might leave the general council or the chief medical
Speaker 1: officer of a given fortune five hundred company dials Sharfstein
Speaker 1: and says what should we do? How should business respond
Speaker 1: to vaccine protest? Yeah, I've been on the phone with
Speaker 1: some businesses like that, some organizations, and it's really important
Speaker 1: to focus on countering misinformation. There is so much misinformation.
Speaker 1: I've done some you know, big kind of town halls
Speaker 1: with employees and the questions come from truly out of
Speaker 1: left field, um, with sometimes just almost snow basis in
Speaker 1: reality whatsoever. And you know, I think, um, one of
Speaker 1: the insights I've learned from some experts and misinformation is
Speaker 1: that people like me, we tend to think we explain
Speaker 1: it once. People should understand meanwhile, the misinformation is coming
Speaker 1: to people morning, noon, and night. So it's really important
Speaker 1: for employers to constantly be communicating different ways, different messengers,
Speaker 1: you know, UM, people that their employees can relate to
Speaker 1: and be relentless because the misinformation is relentless. Well, this
Speaker 1: is no longer just about adults. Dr Sharfsty And obviously
Speaker 1: we're awaiting an FDA decision on the vaccine for children
Speaker 1: that could come later this month. CBS, and you have
Speaker 1: put out a poll over the weekend that even among
Speaker 1: vaccinated parents, only sixty one percent of them are willing
Speaker 1: to have their children get a shot. Do you understand
Speaker 1: that hesitation. I think that it is a little premature
Speaker 1: to be making too much of those polls because we
Speaker 1: really haven't had a full airing of the data, full
Speaker 1: discussion with the advisory committee. You know, all we really
Speaker 1: have is that acclaimed by the company at this point.
Speaker 1: So I think parents are are right to be saying Okay,
Speaker 1: let's take it one step at a time now, Just
Speaker 1: like with the adult vaccine, I think there'll be some
Speaker 1: people who jump out and want to vaccinate their kids early,
Speaker 1: and others maybe a little bit more in the wait
Speaker 1: and see camp. It's going to be really important for
Speaker 1: the FDA and CDC not just to make a decision
Speaker 1: based on the evidence that they have now, but to
Speaker 1: explain how they're going to get more evidence, how they're
Speaker 1: going to be able to share that evidence so that
Speaker 1: people can see what's happening and ideally build confidence with
Speaker 1: more and more people over time. Is her immunity still
Speaker 1: an achievable goal, Well, you know, to the extent that
Speaker 1: her immunity means there's there's not going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of COVID around, I think we're going to hopefully
Speaker 1: get there unless there's a big mutation in the virus.
Speaker 1: But her immunity doesn't mean no virus, and it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean no risk, and it doesn't mean there couldn't be
Speaker 1: outbreaks here and there, particularly where their pockets of people
Speaker 1: who are unvaccinated. Um So I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: more likely scenario is that we will be living with
Speaker 1: the virus and hopefully we'll be living with a low
Speaker 1: level of the virus rather than a medium level of
Speaker 1: the virus. And tell me if you notice that the
Speaker 1: messaging has changed on TV. The commercials are less about
Speaker 1: get a vaccine and much more about mental health. Did
Speaker 1: you notice that in the last week or so. I
Speaker 1: can't think of a single vaccine commercial that I've seen
Speaker 1: from New York State over the past week or so
Speaker 1: on TV. I think there are subtle shifts here. Part
Speaker 1: of it is the impatience of people, and part of
Speaker 1: it is legitimate protest. I mean, what's fascinating to me
Speaker 1: is how will this a man when finally we'd get
Speaker 1: five year olds to eleven year olds? Uh? You know,
Speaker 1: you know, John, I have to admit a seven year
Speaker 1: old descendant on the house this weekend. It was an
Speaker 1: odd and beautiful thing. We tried to trade the two
Speaker 1: dogs for the seven year old, but that didn't work.
Speaker 1: I didn't imagine that tim work. And you know, to
Speaker 1: be honest, John is an idiot. I was confronted with
Speaker 1: what others like Mr Bramo, it's face each and every day.
Speaker 1: Let me unvaccinated doctor, if you notice them, I'm noticing
Speaker 1: something or nothing at all. I see a lot more
Speaker 1: now about mental health than I do about get a vaccine. Um,
Speaker 1: I have not particularly noticed that, but I'm not maybe
Speaker 1: watching TV in New York. I would say, though mental
Speaker 1: health is extremely important, and you know, this pandemic has
Speaker 1: affected people in so many different ways and so difficult
Speaker 1: in so many different ways. It's really important to pay
Speaker 1: attention to that too. But you know, a vaccine is
Speaker 1: a path to fewer cases, which hopefully will you know,
Speaker 1: help everyone's mental health. Doctor. Thank you, doctor Joshua Schafstein.
Speaker 1: There of Johns Hopkins to Bloomberg School a public health
Speaker 1: by staying. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Join us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio and I'm Bloomberg Television each day from
Speaker 1: six to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom keene In. This is Bloomberg