Speaker 1: On Flex and Frooms Flex and Firms. This is the
Speaker 1: Flex and Frooms catch up podcast.
Speaker 2: It is Flex and Frooms on cater The podcast is
Speaker 2: the gift that keeps on giving. I need you to
Speaker 2: understand how much of a skill it is to be
Speaker 2: able to share our thoughts off the cuff like this.
Speaker 2: Someone sent me a message the other day reflecting on
Speaker 2: this podcast I used to do, and how at the
Speaker 2: time they couldn't appreciate that although my approach was straightforward,
Speaker 2: the information always slapped and they couldn't get past the
Speaker 2: straightforward approach to hear the information. So that I say,
Speaker 2: you're lucky that I don't rely on external validation to
Speaker 2: feel something. I gave it to myself. But I will
Speaker 2: take that I appreciate It's.
Speaker 3: A nice little treit on the side, a little treat anyway.
Speaker 1: Podcast time, Flex and Frooms.
Speaker 3: Something that we often speak about on the show is riches,
Speaker 3: not so much rags. We're not really focusing on the
Speaker 3: come up story as much as the current day swag
Speaker 3: and riches, some would say, And so I'm always looking
Speaker 3: for stories that exacerbate this narrative, or rather look as
Speaker 3: if we are trying to inter it in a meaningful
Speaker 3: and exciting way. That's why I'm on the City Morning Herald.
Speaker 3: As you know, this is my publication of choice. You
Speaker 3: go to and I see this title, most of us
Speaker 3: don't really want to be rich, for better or worse.
Speaker 3: And I'll just start by saying, Sydney Morning Herald has
Speaker 3: really been popping its bussy coming out with these opinion
Speaker 3: pieces lately. They've really been put in some pizazz into
Speaker 3: the titles. And I'm not sure if it's because it's
Speaker 3: the cost of them in crisis. And then you get
Speaker 3: the subscribers up, but it's generating interest.
Speaker 2: Have you let them know?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: But hopefully this will get back to someone great. So
Speaker 3: this guy called Roskins, don't know his story, but he
Speaker 3: wrote this opinion piece and he thinks that most Australians
Speaker 3: would like to be rich if the riches were delivered
Speaker 3: to us on a plate. But Australians don't actually want
Speaker 3: to become more productive to make money. So now some
Speaker 3: people are like, if you just work, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: It turns out the average person doesn't want to work
Speaker 3: that hard, which should come as no surprise. So this
Speaker 3: question has arisen because the productivity Commissions five yearly has
Speaker 3: just come out, as we know, around the election, these
Speaker 3: kind of things come out, and the productivity performance that
Speaker 3: was discovered is that we haven't gotten much richer over
Speaker 3: the last decade. But you know how it's always like
Speaker 3: Australia is prospering more and more money. It turns out
Speaker 3: that it's not actually because of individual wealth. Obviously, it's
Speaker 3: because of the mining projects and whatnot. And the reason
Speaker 3: why we're becoming more wealthier is because people are squeezing
Speaker 3: more productivity out of us, as we know. So really
Speaker 3: when the government.
Speaker 2: Oh so, what you're saying is like when people are
Speaker 2: saying Australia is getting richer, it's not the individuals getting richer.
Speaker 2: It's the corporations getting richer because they're able to squeeze
Speaker 2: more labor out of us at the same wage or
Speaker 2: rate or whatever. Yes, we're working more optimally, but not
Speaker 2: for our own personal gain.
Speaker 3: And yet apparently the ways to get more productivity out
Speaker 3: of people is to give them the education, give them
Speaker 3: better machines, improve the way businesses organize their work organized
Speaker 3: in bunny rabbits. So it actually says that the rate
Speaker 3: of productivity improvement over the past decade has been the
Speaker 3: slowest in sixty years. So it's all giving me a
Speaker 3: lot of different facts.
Speaker 2: I mean, that makes sense to me. I feel like
Speaker 2: a couple of years ago, when the narrative that millennials
Speaker 2: are lazy was running rampant. I know there was a
Speaker 2: small subset of millennials were really offended by that because
Speaker 2: they had kind of been indoctrinated into hustle culture and
Speaker 2: were really working at quite insane race to achieve success.
Speaker 2: And they did that, but that was not the main narrative.
Speaker 2: If anything, the counter narrative was just as strong and
Speaker 2: was being spread by more people, people saying, well, I
Speaker 2: don't want to actually work, I don't dream of labor,
Speaker 2: I don't want to upskill, I don't want to stay back,
Speaker 2: I don't want career accolades. And that message just got
Speaker 2: suppressed in silence or overshadowed by the rags to riches,
Speaker 2: get rich quick, hustle culture rise and grind narrative. And
Speaker 2: you know, neither one is good or bad or whatever.
Speaker 2: But I think it's really important to interrogate the way
Speaker 2: we feel about work so we can figure out what
Speaker 2: purpose work serve. Work serves for most of us. Right,
Speaker 2: So you and I work, and we talk very often
Speaker 2: about how I mean, we have different approaches to work.
Speaker 2: I want to work so I can make a lot
Speaker 2: of money and not work. How I do it is incidental,
Speaker 2: because what other choice do I feel like I have. Right,
Speaker 2: The kind of life I want to live requires me
Speaker 2: to work at a really, really, really hectic rate. And
Speaker 2: I've said it plenty of times. I would never work
Speaker 2: the way I've worked in the last ten years to
Speaker 2: achieve the same amount of success. I wouldn't do it,
Speaker 2: but I can only know that from doing it. There
Speaker 2: are a ton of people who are way more critical
Speaker 2: and who can say I actually don't want to work
Speaker 2: that hard period. But now that people's daily needs are
Speaker 2: being put into question, the fact that people can't even
Speaker 2: meet their daily needs without overworking themselves is a conversation
Speaker 2: we can't have when people are convincing themselves that work
Speaker 2: is a very exciting thing for them and that they
Speaker 2: dream and live of labor. But I also think it's
Speaker 2: counterintuitive to assume that no labor is the solution, like
Speaker 2: you're going to I don't want to work yourself into homelessness.
Speaker 3: Well, this just interested me because of the whole hustle
Speaker 3: culture narrative. I feel like in the last ten years
Speaker 3: that's when the girl boss was invented. Like obviously in
Speaker 3: the nineties you had the like women and mums working
Speaker 3: like from the eighties onwards and then, but the real
Speaker 3: girl bossification of like young women creating companies was of
Speaker 3: the last ten years. So it's interesting to me that
Speaker 3: the data actually doesn't show that, just as we're coming
Speaker 3: into the slump of people actually questioning neoliberalism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but girl bossary isn't. Girl bossary is a counter
Speaker 2: conversation to natural hustle culture and capitalism. It wasn't made
Speaker 2: for women or with women in mind. No, it was
Speaker 2: made by men and four men. So the fact that
Speaker 2: girl bosstery is risen and dropped is secondary to the
Speaker 2: fact that the general patriarchal narrative to work is confused
Speaker 2: because people don't think, okit, flex and frooms flex and
Speaker 2: firms flexy.
Speaker 3: Do you engage in cryptocurrency?
Speaker 1: Well, the hot question is it's a hot question.
Speaker 2: I would say actively no, but passively yes because of
Speaker 2: rooms not financial advice. But frooms bought an old coin.
Speaker 2: So I bought an old coin and I lost I
Speaker 2: don't know money, and I thought it's not fun anymore.
Speaker 2: It got to a point where, because I didn't know
Speaker 2: what I was investing in, I said, this is not
Speaker 2: dissimilar to gambling, and I don't believe in gambling. So
Speaker 2: I stopped.
Speaker 3: Really went down that route. Well, a woman has sent
Speaker 3: in an issue that she wants us to dissect involving
Speaker 3: her husband and crypto, which is always a bit of
Speaker 3: a terrible sentence, i'd say.
Speaker 1: She says, this is the title.
Speaker 3: My husband, a thirty four year old man, were scammed
Speaker 3: out of eleven thousand dollars, and now I, twenty nine female,
Speaker 3: am thinking we need to divorce to protect my own
Speaker 3: financial security. Okay, it's Monday, guys. I can't always, how
Speaker 3: do I say, use my words correctly?
Speaker 1: I need a bit of warm up.
Speaker 3: I just ate a whole bunch of vodkapasta. Okay, but
Speaker 3: let's get back into the story. She writes, we had, have.
Speaker 2: We Some people just can't read out loud. I did
Speaker 2: have to find out very quickly on in high school.
Speaker 3: I had to get extra comprehension levels when I was seven.
Speaker 1: But now I'm a writer. So an a a radio
Speaker 1: host is that nepotism. We'll let the door, all right.
Speaker 1: This is the story.
Speaker 3: We have had an open relationship due to sexual compatibility.
Speaker 3: We have been married almost seven years. My husband has
Speaker 3: never really seen anyone outside the relationship, but started using
Speaker 3: a dating app a month ago and met Leoni, who
Speaker 3: scammed him out of eleven thousand dollars in an internet
Speaker 3: cryptocurrency sheam. I have been considering divorce for some time,
Speaker 3: but after seeing how careless and dishonest he is with
Speaker 3: our money, I'm now thinking I will need to divorce
Speaker 3: him to protect my own financial stability.
Speaker 1: That's on that.
Speaker 3: I've been fretting away a ten k deposit to a
Speaker 3: divorce attorney, and now that seems like an amount of
Speaker 3: money he or we could clearly live without. My husband
Speaker 3: also now claims he won't try and date anyone anymore,
Speaker 3: but I did not want to close a relationship, especially
Speaker 3: given the fact that he has lost my trust. Any
Speaker 3: advice is appreciated.
Speaker 2: This is so laateate.
Speaker 3: I don't even know like it wouldn't an open relationship
Speaker 3: mean that you would have heaps of trust?
Speaker 2: I think that's where ethical non monogamy comes to. That's
Speaker 2: that's the difference. Some people do open, some people do ethical.
Speaker 2: How old's a husband thirty four years old, so young
Speaker 2: enough to know or young enough to have a pretty
Speaker 2: good amount of Internet literacy, smart enough to not get
Speaker 2: conned into a crypto dating app scam. And this is
Speaker 2: the thing about dating apps, right, this illusion of access
Speaker 2: to hotties, because the only people who get scammed out
Speaker 2: of money on a dating app people dating outside of
Speaker 2: their equal attraction. There's a random person with a fake account.
Speaker 2: They're using model pictures. Your ego says, oh my goodness,
Speaker 2: this is my physical equal. I'm hot. They're hot, They're
Speaker 2: obviously into me. And when this hot person, whoever signed
Speaker 2: positive attributes for being hot, asks me silly questions like.
Speaker 1: Wats your day of birth? And email?
Speaker 2: What's your email? A dress? Watch your full number and
Speaker 2: a dress? And can I have your binance logging?
Speaker 3: Can I get the twenty five special code please that
Speaker 3: you've written on a No.
Speaker 2: You say, well, Leonic clearly loves me, and so I
Speaker 2: will do this for her. You're a dummy, dummy I
Speaker 2: would say divorce because of the money thing. You're so right.
Speaker 2: I just feel like for seven years you've been married,
Speaker 2: we saw what happened to Adele? And if you didn't
Speaker 2: see what happened to Adele, Adele and her now ex
Speaker 2: husband were going through quite a tumultuous divorce. They themselves
Speaker 2: weren't speaking out about it, but obviously sources came forward
Speaker 2: it and disclosed what had happened. And he was trying
Speaker 2: to sue her for this immense sum like millions and
Speaker 2: millions and millions of dollars, and his reasoning for being
Speaker 2: entitled to that money was because she made a lot
Speaker 2: of her wealth writing songs about their love.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, what happened?
Speaker 2: Well, they took I think they thought they figured it.
Speaker 2: What happens when you figure it out out of court settlement? Yeah,
Speaker 2: they settled. So if that could happen to it, it
Speaker 2: happened to you keep your money safe, divorce him, not
Speaker 2: because he's gonna come for your money, because you can't
Speaker 2: trust him to make smart decisions. If it's not this scam,
Speaker 2: it's the hey mom scam, Hey mom, can you just
Speaker 2: send me your bank details?
Speaker 3: I will say I don't want a victim shame those
Speaker 3: that have been, No, I will.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to be cut by a scam.
Speaker 3: I feel like I've been very close close to being
Speaker 3: chopped up by a scam, and therefore I feel bad
Speaker 3: for him. However, it's a little bit like, can't make
Speaker 3: a retribution if you will.
Speaker 2: This is how easy out. Yes, facts, if you were
Speaker 2: really right or die, you would stay. You're not a
Speaker 2: right or die, So please leave him asap.
Speaker 3: Good luck, Sis, and I hope she could do like
Speaker 3: a Charlotte Yawke from Sex and the City when she
Speaker 3: ends up marrying the divorce lawyer and she's actually.
Speaker 1: His perfect match.
Speaker 2: Oh that's sweet.
Speaker 3: She does have a little period where she tells him
Speaker 3: that she's way hotter than him and they break up
Speaker 3: because he has self esteem.
Speaker 1: Then they end up getting is she right?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, ah yeah objectively So she's a truth teller.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she really put her hell back into that. This
Speaker 1: is flex and rooms on Kata.
Speaker 2: Another day, another sleigh, this one in particular thanks to
Speaker 2: Shivas Regal. Love your work, thanks for spending a marketing
Speaker 2: budget on the girlies. Let's talk success, but the contradictions
Speaker 2: of gaining success.
Speaker 1: We've spoken about it before where I.
Speaker 2: Said that I don't think that you can be considered
Speaker 2: successful unless you're inherently seen as cringe. I just feel
Speaker 2: like duality is real. With every good there is a
Speaker 2: bad up, there is a down. With every left, there
Speaker 2: is a right. With every successful person is a cringe
Speaker 2: person in the same exact body.
Speaker 3: We do say in terms of who to date, a
Speaker 3: content creator is probably least run this, which every time
Speaker 3: it's not looking good for us. BROV Speaking for myself,
Speaker 3: obviously we have some unresolved trauma in the studio here today, but.
Speaker 2: It's all from the use of we every time.
Speaker 3: I agree that with every piece of success there is
Speaker 3: a flop. You just want to hope that your flops
Speaker 3: aren't publicized.
Speaker 1: No you don't.
Speaker 2: Think no, please continue.
Speaker 3: Well, I was gonna say flops are inherently embarrassing. Some
Speaker 3: would say we both did agree, and I will say
Speaker 3: both of us on this one that flops are an
Speaker 3: important part of being successful because, as you know, you
Speaker 3: miss one hundred percent of the shots that you don't take,
Speaker 3: and when you're taking a lot of shots, some of
Speaker 3: them are going to land or hit the hoop correctly.
Speaker 3: And I think you're.
Speaker 2: Hit the hoop correctly, which sport.
Speaker 3: It's starting to sound like mister Universe trying to explend it.
Speaker 2: The reason why I think the flop shouldn't be hidden
Speaker 2: is if you find yourself inadvertently projecting a narrative that
Speaker 2: you are an infallible person, your fall from grace would
Speaker 2: be dramatic. It'll be the thing that forever you know,
Speaker 2: whereas you do a few and look. A flop doesn't
Speaker 2: have to be objective. It can be a subjective flop,
Speaker 2: your favorite thing you've ever done in your career in
Speaker 2: the eyes of somebody else, flop city shocking.
Speaker 1: How do you deal with being a flop? Seriously serious?
Speaker 3: Let's say you make something that you think is amazing
Speaker 3: and based on your metrics. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 3: likes or engagement or for whatever reason, it doesn't land
Speaker 3: the way you intended.
Speaker 1: Do you care? I care, but you have to double down.
Speaker 2: You gotta double down. It's one thing to know that
Speaker 2: you yourself aren'nhappy with the way that something's been perceived
Speaker 2: or interpreted. But don't let it be the common narrative, please.
Speaker 2: I will say there is a fine line too, of
Speaker 2: showing people the process and not normalizing what is a
Speaker 2: very odd thing to be, which is an exceptional person
Speaker 2: some exceptional people, and I would say that people who
Speaker 2: have amassed a lot of success are exceptional. It's not
Speaker 2: a common thing. Do themselves a disservice by trying to
Speaker 2: show up as someone who's regular. And yes, the narrative
Speaker 2: is helpful sometimes, but it's not like, for example, I
Speaker 2: was saying before. Tory Lane's R and B singer rapper,
Speaker 2: quite famous for insert make the stallion, put the verb
Speaker 2: in if you will. Tory Lanes is a very famous artist,
Speaker 2: a very prolific artist, a very objectively successful artist, one
Speaker 2: heaps of awards. Is renowned to be incredible because he
Speaker 2: had a hit and it went viral, and people assume
Speaker 2: that would have been the inception of his career. No,
Speaker 2: this I released as mixtapes back to back to back
Speaker 2: to back. When covers were a thing before everyone you
Speaker 2: wet copyright making covers as soon as the song got popular.
Speaker 2: He would make a cover as soon as someone was
Speaker 2: up and would come and he would try and collaborate
Speaker 2: with them. Now, if we look at his body of work,
Speaker 2: he probably has one thousand songs available to be consumed publicly.
Speaker 2: But people refuse to see that necessary that we can
Speaker 2: have access to that. So we're not all like, oh,
Speaker 2: we released one song as you Have Yes and you
Speaker 2: Wonder why the Grammy hasn't come.
Speaker 3: I was collaborating with a real Grammy, real Grammy winner
Speaker 3: and another Grammy affiliated artist.
Speaker 1: That's probably one of my biggest successes.
Speaker 3: And there have been other flop songs such as Tuna
Speaker 3: I can't say it on air, but Tuna Dick. That
Speaker 3: was a ode to a coworker that wouldn't let me
Speaker 3: heat up tuna in the microwave.
Speaker 1: Somehow didn't get fired.
Speaker 3: Definitely made redundant about a year later, but I did
Speaker 3: write on the coattails of that song for a little while.
Speaker 2: Thank you for sharing.
Speaker 1: Flex and firms Flex and free.
Speaker 2: Cater never miss a beat. If you are the type
Speaker 2: of person who believes you don't have to say please
Speaker 2: and thank you to your AI. You're Siri, You're Bixby,
Speaker 2: You're Alexa. You are the weakest link, and you're the
Speaker 2: first one they're going to take it. I'm telling you,
Speaker 2: let's just have.
Speaker 3: A quick moment. Bixby is a real thing. Android uses stand.
Speaker 2: Up, stand up now. I was off grid when chat
Speaker 2: chat bet what's the called chat GPT? I was off
Speaker 2: grid when chat GPT was announced. I was in Ghana
Speaker 2: doing Eat Prey Love Barely online. So when I came back,
Speaker 2: I was so behind the curb and I thought it
Speaker 2: was going to die out. I thought it was going
Speaker 2: to I thought it was going to be discussed into obscurity.
Speaker 2: I didn't pay attention. Come to find out that four
Speaker 2: months later, a new chat beat what is.
Speaker 1: This thing called chat GPT?
Speaker 2: A new chat GPT has launched that's apparently ten times
Speaker 2: better than the original, And people who know what these
Speaker 2: things mean are scared. So as I stay with Glee,
Speaker 2: you should be scared to listen to this.
Speaker 4: It's only been six hours since GPT four was released,
Speaker 4: and these are the crazy things that people have been doing.
Speaker 4: After you see these use cases, things may never be
Speaker 4: the same again. For example, it turned this hand drawn
Speaker 4: napkin into a fully functioning website, and that is because
Speaker 4: GPT four can now process images and spit out texts,
Speaker 4: whereas with GPT three you could only do text to text,
Speaker 4: which means you can feed it an image and GPT
Speaker 4: four can tell you why it's so funny or generate
Speaker 4: social media captions based on the image that you feed it.
Speaker 4: It can also do drug discovery, finding similar drugs and
Speaker 4: making sure they're not patented, purchasing from a supplier and
Speaker 4: including an email with a purchase order, finding loopholes in
Speaker 4: contracts and exploiting them. You'll also see more accuracy in
Speaker 4: GPT four compared to GPT three, which sometimes gave you
Speaker 4: the wrong answer. My most hated subject tax accounting. You
Speaker 4: can get it to interpret tax code for you. Of
Speaker 4: course you always need to check with an accountant, but
Speaker 4: basically you paste the whole code in there and ask
Speaker 4: a question based on your situation, where it can interpret
Speaker 4: the code and also give you the answer with reasoning.
Speaker 4: To get access to GPE D four, you do need
Speaker 4: to have a GPT plus once you've signed up. You
Speaker 4: should see this at the very top. I'll be playing
Speaker 4: around with GPT four, so follow on for more tips
Speaker 4: and tricks.
Speaker 2: I feel like what people fail to disclose is that
Speaker 2: to receive any benefit from using chat GPT, you need
Speaker 2: to have a baseline of extreme intelligence, because I wouldn't
Speaker 2: even know to ask these things to do these things,
Speaker 2: let alone trust that the answer it's giving me should
Speaker 2: be acknowledged, like it can help you with.
Speaker 3: Tax What do you mean you don't even know what
Speaker 3: a tax is? Okay at this point, no, I mean
Speaker 3: it like, what is the tax code? I'm being serious, Okay,
Speaker 3: chat GPT four do we endorse?
Speaker 2: I endorse because I think the sooner, the sooner we
Speaker 2: get serious about AI singularity, the sooner we start knowing
Speaker 2: Asmov's law robotics, like we know our TikTok for you
Speaker 2: pages the better stuff. It's really scary. And also I
Speaker 2: think that a lot of us have this belief that
Speaker 2: if things were to go down and buy down, I
Speaker 2: mean it's robot AI was uprise, that we'd be safe.
Speaker 2: No babes were the weak is link already.
Speaker 3: And given how quick this came about, you know how
Speaker 3: like things compound and then they get bigger really quickly.
Speaker 3: Like if you make a dollar a day and then
Speaker 3: you do something with it, it can become.
Speaker 1: A million dollars a week.
Speaker 2: Talk an investing, don't make me go into it.
Speaker 3: Take the paper clip to a house phenomena from like
Speaker 3: two thousand and four. If the same principles have been
Speaker 3: applied to chat GPT, it could only be a matter
Speaker 3: of months until humans. Until humans are rendered obsolete.
Speaker 2: The only solution is becoming an analog babe, because there's
Speaker 2: digital digital every day is not helpful. All your digital
Speaker 2: marketers out of a job tomorrow. We need farmers.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, farm wants a wife.
Speaker 2: We need Okay, we need we need plumbers.
Speaker 1: I don't want to actually do the farming.
Speaker 2: Probably, what's a wife? Enough?
Speaker 3: Listen, you got two women willing to go on farm
Speaker 3: and what's a wife? Me and my old ego who
Speaker 3: will come out because I'll be pretending to be a character.
Speaker 1: Will you really go one farm with his wife?
Speaker 2: Any kind of reality TV show dating situation.
Speaker 3: I was at a friend's birthday lunch the other day.
Speaker 2: No, we're not getting firms.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to the Flex and Frooms Daily podcast.
Speaker 4: For more, Tune Indicator on DAB or stream it on iHeartRadio.