Tony Hsieh, Jeff Bezos's Twitter fingers, and Big Tech in Congress (again)

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Sacks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunello Cacchinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the Best Fall Arrivals and Style inspiration.

Support for this show comes from IBM.

Is your AI built on everyone or is it built to work with your business data?

IBM helps you integrate and govern unstructured data wherever it lives, so your business can have more accurate AI instead of just more of it.

Get your data ready for AI at iBM.com.

That's IBM.com.

The AI Built Built for Business, IBM.

This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Kara Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway.

What's up?

We have a lot to talk about.

Not happened over the weekend.

I mean, first of all, let's clear up.

Last Thursday, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sunar Pichai all appeared virtually before the House Energy Commerce and Subcommittee to talk about misinformation.

The lawmakers seem pissed off, but I feel like they, again,

a big, a whole lot of nothing.

Pennsylvania Democrat Mike Doyle opened asking if they bore responsibility.

Of course, they didn't answer.

Republicans' new talking points are about protecting children.

Big tech is essentially giving our kids a lit cigarette and hoping they stay addicted for life, said Bill Johnson from Ohio.

Now, the Pew study, though, is showing that three-quarters, two-thirds of Americans think social media have a negative effect on the country.

CEOs were evasive, saying Zuckerberg saying it was America's problem, not a Facebook problem.

Lawmakers increasingly getting nervous.

But what was interesting was that

the tone was not positive and yet nothing is going to happen.

What do you think?

Well, they call them lawmakers and not righteous speech makers for a reason.

It's

at some point these elected represents.

They got to do something.

Yeah.

At some point, these elected representatives need to command the space they occupy and stop.

It's almost,

you know,

now in criminal trials,

the victims have an opportunity to put the

criminal or the, I guess it's the convicted person on stand and just basically

elocute.

Yeah, elecute.

That's a great word.

That's the word.

And that might be...

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but

this feels like that.

It's like, okay, enough already.

Do your fucking job and make some laws.

Enough of the elocution.

yeah it's we get it they're wrong you're right you've posed for the cameras now now do your job you're called lawmakers so make some laws uh i i think we've just had enough we're we're past the investigation hearing righteous speech stage we should be moving into the lawmaking phase of this

which is more difficult well it's interesting i interviewed amy klobuchar today for sway as you know but you may not have listened to it but she was talking about that she's a much more you know, sort of, let's get these bills done.

She did talk about the difficulties of passing them in these environments, how hard it is to get any legislation through.

And a lot of it had been bottled up by Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

You know, a lot of some, she, she is, that woman writes bills like she, you know, she's, she writes more bills than anybody and is a very aggressive lawmaker.

And that's even difficult.

So I think what's what will be interesting to hear because there's another hearing coming up and there's another hearing, but it does feel as if enough is enough.

Let's just make some laws.

Let's just get down to it, essentially.

I really, I keep, you know, I don't, I think I'm even getting bored of it.

You know how much I like to see them under stress and things like that.

So we'll see what happens.

There's some things definitely moving through, and there's some of these bills are attached

to like HR1.

There's some attached, they're attached all over the place.

But what they do has to do is get, you know, get the funding to the FDC and the Justice Department more funding, get some of these privacy bills going, and then move on to

where the liability is.

Or else they're just going to be doing everything by executive order, which is not what they're there for.

Agreed.

We'll see.

So, one of the other stories that I thought was quite depressing was Wall Street Journal did a deep dive on the death of Tony Shea.

The problem was his entourage, his core team, friends, employees, musicians, he bankrolled them.

They moved to Park City and became enablers.

He and they were high on nitrous oxide.

Some of the pictures were disturbing.

Psychedelic mushrooms, nothing wrong with, you know, a lot of things, but in this case, they seemed to have really enabled him to the point of death, essentially.

You know, they had stuff all over his house.

There was a lot of details about post-its and how he'd become increasingly isolated by people he paid.

And one of the things that was interesting is he insisted he was fine and considered it a betrayal to anyone to help him, including, you know, many, many people.

Jewel came in and others.

And it was just a really, it's stuff I'm not, I said it was tragic and I wasn't surprised by even a bit of it because even in earlier days, he had liked to have a group of entourage around him.

He was always with an entourage when I saw him,

whether it was in Las Vegas or he came to code or stuff like that and or in his bus or whatever.

And but it took on this sort of malevolent feeling.

And that story kind of underscored it.

Yeah, but look,

I don't think Tony Hshay

is dead because of a a group of people who are enablers.

I think Tony Shea is dead because of Tony Shea.

Yes, that's fair.

And the reality is

maybe they were enablers, but he was in charge.

Because he has money,

he was able to surround himself with people who would do what he asked.

And so I remember watching, it's just brought up.

I remember like 20, 30 years ago watching a behind the music on Glenn Campbell.

Remember Glenn Campbell?

Yes.

I love Glenn.

Are you kidding?

Hello.

And he had a cocaine habit.

And they asked him about his cocaine habit.

And he said that he had been surrounded by

bad actors who convinced him to do cocaine.

It's like, boss, no one held a gun to your head and told you to do cocaine.

And

I think Tony Shea is a very likable guy.

And again, I think we afford innovators a certain level of idolatry and excuses.

He's responsible for his own addiction.

It's tragic.

And, you know, we want to find other actors and turn the innovator into the victim.

I don't know.

I think that's fair.

It's a tragic story.

He did this, quite frankly, he did this to himself.

You know, it's interesting.

I like your tough love there, Scott.

I do.

You know, one of the things, though, that I think does happen is that, is that when you look, someone told me when you look around and everyone is on your payroll, you've got a problem.

Like when you look around and everyone around you, and it is certainly your fault, there is some level of who would do this.

That was the part I couldn't get.

There's like these people who would just let this this happen over and over and again.

Like, I'm friends with people.

Yes, exactly.

No, I know that.

But, like, if you're a friend, I mean, I have been very tough on friends who have been in tough situations.

And that's what's the saddest part of this: is that there was no ability to intervene on his family's behalf, on his friends' behalf.

And therefore, these people, you know, it's a story over and over again.

And this, I think the thing that you put your finger on is this idolatry of the innovator is absolutely true.

This idea that it was, when, when I think about it, you know, everybody, I didn't like his whole, you know, his whole smile bust or whatever, happiness bust.

And, you know, I would say, you were just silly.

This is ridiculous silliness.

And one of the things was, was everyone was, I remember like, oh, it's fine that he does this.

And I was like, it's juvenile.

It's weird.

It's, and it was, it just was, it's just, it was sad because he was a lovely man of all things.

He was quite a lovely man.

So I just thought it's worth reading.

Yeah, but it's, it takes a certain level.

And I'm,

you know, I always go back to this notion.

I really enjoy coaching young people and especially young men.

And what I found, it's really important to keep people around you who don't buy your rap.

And that is occasionally say, no, Scott, you're being a narcissist or Scott, you're kind of falling in love with your own press.

Or I have actually a group of

older men in my life that like call me out of the blue and say, that was a shitty take.

You're wrong.

And it upsets me.

And I don't like them for about 24 hours.

And then I realize how important they are to have in my life.

Yeah.

And you always want to maintain a group of people around you who will tell you that you're all wet.

Because it's very easy to start screening those people out of your life, especially when you have hundreds of millions of dollars and just can surround yourself with a full-time party of people who, like you said, I don't want to call them they're your enablers, but you have consciously decided to have no no guardrails around you.

So you're essentially trying to tell me you love me, right?

Is that what's happening here?

Because I do that.

Is that what's happening?

You do, yeah.

I complete you.

Is that what's going on?

100%.

Your friends, your friends who tell you this.

It all comes back to the cat.

You just like crumble like it, like a cake in the rain as

someone left.

House of cards.

And when I like send you a text that is even slightly angry, you get, you get, I get very upset.

You get very upset.

I sometimes am like, should I do this?

And I go, send.

Like, it's really you're my jenga but i keep pulling out the box i cry when it crashes and then like and then another 24

let's play some more janga i don't like i won't play gen i won't play it i don't like games like that anyways tony shea and and enablers look you you

you know when you have this kind of money you choose to enable yourself all right moving on to the big story which is about that uh the fight to unionize an alabama amazon warehouse all last week twitter amazon execs went after Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in quite ridiculous terms, I thought, because they both support workers in the Amazon warehouse who are trying to unionize.

So they had a Twitter war.

It was amazing.

Dave Clark, who's a big executive at Amazon, says, I often say we are the Bernie Sanders of employers, but that's not quite right because we actually deliver a progressive workplace.

And then when House Representative Mark, I think it's Pocan, called BS on said that workplace was so demanding that workers had a pee in bottles,

Amazon News account.

You really don't believe that peeing in bottles

is a thing, do you?

If it were true, nobody would work for us.

Of course, then there was a story that actually people do pee in bottles

and actually defecate in bags, which is even more repulsive.

And then Senator Warren jumped in about tax loopholes and the company's snotty tweets.

And then Amazon News, again, whoever this is, and who is the Dan Scamino of this, this is extraordinary and revealing.

One of the most powerful politicians in the United States said she's going to break up an American company so that they can't criticize her anymore.

And then it turns out, as Jason Del Rey from Recode and others have reported, that this was from the top.

This was Bezos going for it.

What did you think of this?

I kept thinking of you all weekend.

I think this is really interesting

on a number of levels.

The first is, and you went on a Twitter storm that I thought cut to the quick of the issue.

And the first thing I thought was,

this is Bezos.

Nobody goes after a senator without clearing it through Jeff.

And first off, some immediate questions pop up that are uncomfortable for Amazon.

And communications in public relations is all about communication is with the listener.

And they really,

I'm trying to think of an academic term here.

They fucked up.

And that is, quite frankly, they're right.

Senators Sanders and Warren.

are the butcher who shows up and complains about how bad the meat is.

Like, well, you're the butcher.

But here's the thing.

They absolutely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here.

Yeah, agreed.

That's what I said.

I don't like when she does this, but who cares?

They're a big company.

But go ahead.

Go ahead.

But there's some real rookie moves.

And it's amazing that this is a company that's typically very disciplined.

And this was a rare lack of discipline.

And it comes from...

It comes from individuals.

And this, again, goes back to the notion of enablement.

When you're the wealthiest, smartest businessman in the world, you surround your.

with people who tend to not check you.

And he gets angry.

Somebody, there wasn't anybody there to say, you know what?

When we tweet back at an individual as a corporation, it was some of those tweets, the tweets against or in response to Center Centers were from Amazon News.

News, yeah.

First off, this is the biggest rookie move in communications.

When you communicate from a corporation to an individual, the corporation has lost before the dialogue starts.

Yep, agree.

Because Amazon is a big trillion dollar corporation.

And when they start getting into it with an individual, no one's going to side with the faceless corporation.

No, no, exactly.

And two,

they could have torn them both apart.

They could have, the response should have been, Senator Warren, as the largest consumer company or the fastest growing consumer company in history, we have a vested interest in the success of society's ballast, which is the middle class.

As a function of that, we have raised minimum wage to more than double what it is in that state.

Two, we have hired more people than any corporation in history within 12 months.

In the Q4 of 2019, we affected

what is effectively the biggest pay raise in the history of mankind when we took all of our employees.

They could have just gone data point, data point, data point.

Why didn't they?

What was the audience for these tweets?

That's what I said this this morning on CMBC.

I'm like, just make the case for yourself

in a polite way.

I'll tell you what the audience was.

The audience was a 57-year-old man who's on testosterone who hadn't had lunch and got angry.

And there was no one around him to go, you know, boss, this is a bad idea.

We knew that was.

People inside said they'd push back, but there was no pushing back.

Well, they weaponized Dave Clark.

He looks like a jerk now.

Yeah.

Because the reality is they're right.

They're Trumpy.

I thought it was very Trumpy.

Well, but that's another great point is in contrast, let me get this.

Trump is 10 times the asshole

of Warren or Sanders, and yet you never went after him personally?

Never.

Not once.

And you know what?

The next shoe to fall is she gets under their skin.

She does.

People are going to start going, you know what?

Is this a little scary that we have an individual, Jeff Bezos, who's prone to this anti-union or these missives?

And by the way, what's he in charge of?

The Washington Post.

People are going to start making that connection.

Yeah.

What's the scary part, Scott?

The next shoe to drop will be people will start going, is this the individual who's anti-union,

who's who's

also happens to be in charge of what is probably one of the most powerful media companies in the world.

And they'll start connecting like, okay, does he get angry?

He weaponized David Clark.

He said, David, go get him.

Is that what he potentially does with his editors, the Washington Post?

Yeah, I guess I won't be the editor of the Washington Post.

You know, I have gotten calls from two media reporters saying you're on the list.

And I was like, you've got to fucking be kidding.

Let me see if I can take care of it this weekend with these tweets,

which is funny.

Yeah, but okay, so I'm going to go on a limb here.

A, I think you'd be wonderful.

B, I think you're qualified.

I think they put you on on the list so they can say a lesbian journalist is on the list.

And it makes them feel like they're somewhat wokey.

Yeah.

Well, he wouldn't be able to push me around.

I'll tell you.

I think it's a head fake.

Oh, I agree.

I'm kidding.

I'm totally unqualified.

I'd drive that newspaper right into a wall.

Actually, I do think you are qualified.

I don't know.

I did start off there in the mailroom.

Nonetheless, I think these are, let's go to the implications for unionizing.

The union fight was started by Daryl Richardson, a 51-year-old black entry-level picker in the Bessemer warehouse.

Who could be better?

An irresistible David Bertha's Goliath showdown.

Fight is not over money.

They make $15.30 an hour, high for the area.

It's about control of the workers' time and efficiency demands, like trips to the restroom.

And Alabama, just 20 centimeters, it's the right to work law.

Does this, what, what do you think is going to happen?

The voting is happening right now.

This is a big deal because it's not a small group of people, like at Google or other Amazon things.

This is 6,000 people.

It could have implications, wider implications, or set off a chain reaction across Amazon warehouses.

This is just, this is probably the biggest moment for unions in the last decade because it's so high profile.

And Amazon is the largest employer or the fastest growing employer in the world right now.

But at the same time, there's real issues and there's also huge issues around the middle class.

And if you look at minimum wage and union membership, those are the two strongest signals in terms of the decimation of the middle class.

The fact that we have an increased minimum wage and the fact that union membership has literally been cut in half.

So union membership's been cut in half in the last 30 years.

I think if the union loses here, this is probably the last nail in the coffin because the reality is unions have done a shitty job.

Their image is bad.

Even coming out of the pandemic, I think unions are a big loser because I think the teachers unions across America came across fairly or unfairly as putting the compensation of teachers ahead of kids' well-being.

I think that's the impression that parents had, is that teachers' unions were using the pandemic as an excuse to

get additional compensation, which quite frankly, they might,

they need to catch up.

Teachers are underpaid.

Even that's a general statement because there's so many different school districts.

I just think unions

as a brand have done a terrible job.

They have to win here.

They just get weaker.

I wonder if there's another construct for better representing the middle class.

I wonder if unions' time has just come and gone, quite frankly.

Well, it's not a member of a union.

Because

unions lose here, it'll look like Jeff being an asshole is worked, but it didn't.

It didn't work, Jeff.

You're an asshole.

But okay, but here's the thing.

In Bessemer,

if two people, if a husband and a wife or a husband and a husband or a wife and a wife work at that plant, $30 an hour in Bessemer, I mean, or $60,000 in household income in Bessemer.

That's a solid middle-class life in Bessemer.

And they have access to health insurance.

So, I mean, what's really scary is what if the union wins and Amazon says we're leaving Bessemer?

Yeah, that's right.

They might do that.

They will.

I mean, they play hardball.

What was interesting is a lot of the reaction was how many people were defending Bezos in the group.

They wanted to focus on Warren and everything else.

And it was fascinating how many people, very much like Elon, not quite the same level, were like, hey, he's the best.

And so whatever he says goes.

It was really interesting, like angry, mostly men, I have to say, like they sort of have this aspirational quality to I'd like to kick some ass like that Bezos guy does.

So it was interesting.

It was an interesting ramp.

But he still was an asshole.

What I don't care with Bezos, though, is why they don't pull a Chesky.

Chesky took a big amount of stock.

I mean, Bezos is not afraid to reinvest.

in his company.

And the $15 an hour was a bold move.

They could have put out a tweet saying, Senator Warren, we look forward to working with you as we worked with Senator Sanders around minimum wage issues.

I mean, they absolutely could have kneecapped her

with data and

a forceful yet dignified manner.

Instead, she like

yeah, tweaked him.

But the thing about what I don't understand about Bezos is a guy's with $160 billion, why wouldn't you go to a shareholders and say, and has a trillion-dollar company, you're all going to incur a 5% dilution, and I'm going to set up a $50

billion fund for for workers

around healthcare, around working moms.

And it's just like,

I just don't want to.

He just doesn't want to.

You know, if Mackenzie Bezos are running it, that's what would happen here.

Mackenzie Scott was running it.

That's what would happen.

Yeah.

He just doesn't want to.

Same thing with Elon.

Go back to work.

I don't care if you get COVID.

Like, you know what I mean?

Like, this is, you know, and then the statistics bear it out at that factory.

You know, they don't care.

I don't know what else to say.

They just don't mind being assholes.

And they think it's, and if he wins here, he's going to be insufferable in that they think this worked.

I was behind him on the sexting.

I'm like, go for it, Jeff.

But in this one, ugh, you're just.

You were pro-sexting?

I was pro.

I was like, no, I was pro-sexting and pro-him pushing back in that really loud and obnoxious way.

I loved it.

I thought it was great.

It was great.

I was great.

But in this case, Jeff, you're an asshole.

Someone should tell you.

This is an asshole move.

Even if you win, you're an asshole.

I think this says more about unions than it says about Bezos.

We'll see.

All right.

We're going to go on a quick break and we'll be back to talk about our favorite adults that we work.

Thumbtack presents Project Paralysis.

I was cornered.

Sweat gathered above my furrowed brow and my mind was racing.

I wondered who would be left standing when the droplets fell.

Me or the clawed sink.

Drain cleaner and pipe snake clenched in my weary fist.

I stepped toward the sink and then...

Wait, why am I stressing?

I have thumbtack.

I can easily search for a top-rated plumber in the Bay Area, read reviews, and compare prices, all on the app.

Thumbtack knows homes.

Download the app today.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn.

From talking about sports, discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them.

But it's not just person-to-person, it's the same connection that's needed in business.

And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections.

But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.

According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply.

Only on LinkedIn ads.

Okay, we're back with our second big story.

We work announced last week they're emerging with a SPAC BoX acquisition.

Okay.

All right.

We work.

Tell me, Scott, what do you think?

We're more bullish on WeWork now, aren't we?

Are we correct?

Well, here's the thing.

Anytime you do an analysis of a company through the lens of shareholder value, it has to be set against the context of the valuation.

And as you know, you know, my kind of,

I don't know, occasionally you have a moment.

One of my quote-unquote moments is when I wrote a piece saying that two weeks before WeWork was supposed to be public at a $50 to $70 billion valuation.

I said, this company is not going public.

Bullshit.

Yeah.

This company is not worth this.

And then it just literally unwound.

Yeah.

And, but here's the thing.

I'm actually, I don't want to say I'm bullish on WeWork, but I don't think it's any shittier than most of the SPACs going out right now because instead of being valued at $47 billion, it's valued at nine.

A real estate company, it says what it is.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

They've laid off 8,000 people.

They've cut costs dramatically.

They have a manager versus a messiah running the company now.

Sandeep Pantrani is a real manager and a disciplined operator versus the 30-year-old faux Jesus they had.

And also, the market is coming to them because coming out of the pandemic, I think you're going to have thousands of companies.

They're going to say, we want office space, but we want less,

but we want it to be cooler and more social and more flexible, which plays to their strengths.

In addition, the commercial real estate business is a $12 trillion asset class.

And right now, we work as the strongest brand in a $12 trillion asset class.

Can you name another office building brand?

There could be one, yeah, but no.

There isn't.

I mean, the largest office

are Vornado or Equity Office.

No one types in Vornado Atlanta, but they type in.

Vornado Vito.

No one types in Vornado Atlanta, but they type in WeWork Atlanta.

So what do you have?

You have valuation is now 80% less.

Costs are way down.

Sandeep is saying they'll be profitable by 2021.

So in sum, in some, this has gone from a ridiculously stupid consensual hallucination concept, losing $150 million a week to a company where I think, you know what?

I think it's actually probably.

Someone's got to do it.

Probably

a decent buy.

I don't, I've gone from bear to, I don't want to call myself a bull, but like a cow.

I've gone from bear to cow on this.

You're a cow.

What do you think?

I think you're right.

I think you're completely right.

I had no problem.

Some of the WeWork branding stuff gets a little tired quickly.

You know what I mean?

Like they have to keep it fresh.

You know, I'd like them.

I hope they freshen up because it had a little bit of that, like the weird, I got sick of them after a while.

Like, you know, it's sort of like, I don't know, like pedal pushers are in and then they aren't.

Then it's cool-ots and then it's long peds.

Like it felt like possibly dated.

So I don't know if going into one right now, I could do it and be like, what is what, you know, 10 years, five years ago is calling and it wants to come back kind of thing.

But the first thing, if they said, if we said, all right, Vox is setting up.

a Dallas office and we want it to be small and flexible, what would we do?

We wouldn't know what to do.

We'd go we work.

We go we work.

That's what I mean.

That's what's great about

convenience, and it, you know, it's sort of like whether it's a four seasons, whether it's a Burger King, you know what you're getting, you know what you're getting when you're there, yeah, exactly.

Global, so I think that's I think it's smart, yeah.

They're, they're, they're, they can do it.

So, this, it's a SPAC is the best way to do this too.

Actually, it's actually kind of perfect on some level.

Yeah, the whole SPAC thing is just incredible.

There's already been more SPACs, more capital raised from SPACs in 2021 than there was in all of 2020.

It's just 295 SPACs have gone public in 2021.

Yeah, that's $93 billion.

When is this going to end?

Why don't we have a SPAC?

That's

a SPAC to SPAC ourselves.

We have to NFT ourselves.

We have to SAP ourselves.

Me, baby.

SPAC me.

We got an NFT.

We got a SPAC.

We got a lot to do.

We got a lot to do.

Tornado NFT SPAC.

So you are in an upcoming documentary about this WeWork situation.

You look quite comely in it, I have to say.

Quite comely?

Really?

Yeah, yeah.

You a little hot for the dog?

No, not even slightly.

You can admit it.

Not even slightly.

So, Scott, I think this is good.

We're now positive on WeWork, correct?

Even though you like take them apart in this documentary, we're now positive.

I'm cow-ashoted.

I need to understand the numbers, but here's the thing:

the WeWorks back will be seen as an innovator.

They will be judged by a different set of metrics.

Yeah.

If Sandeep can deliver profitability in the last quarter of this year, gosh, who knows?

And not only that, they enter into a market, cheap prices.

Yeah, they enter into a market where everyone else is retreating.

There's no, there's no commercial office player playing offense right now.

Yep.

And I also think people underestimate how difficult it is.

I think what they do, the whole community stuff, the cool architecture,

I think that's harder than people think.

I think that vibe just doesn't happen.

All the commercial real estate owners are saying, well, we can do flexible space.

These are the, these are next to academics, these are the least aspirational, cool people in the world.

And they don't, I'm not sure they know how to create like a hip millennial vibe.

Nope.

Why not let them do it?

I agree.

I think it's a good thing.

I think it's a good thing.

All right.

Can you moo right now?

I'm not going to moo.

Please moo.

Is this the kinky part of you?

You know what?

I'm not going to play.

I'm not going to play your games.

Do not objectify me as an animal.

You complete me.

All right.

Let's bring on

Pivot.

Someone is going to make you talk right now.

A friend of Pivot, tough, tough person who we have great admiration for.

Zephyr Teachad is a law professor at Fordham and author of Break Hem Up and a candidate for New York governor.

If that's correct, Zephyr, are you?

I was a candidate for New York governor in 2014.

You were not right now.

Are you?

I have some thoughts about the governor, but.

Oh, excellent.

Excellent.

We're going to get to the governor, Cuomo.

And

so you're not a Comosexual, in other words, correct?

That's gone.

That's all done.

Okay, but let's talk about the big tech CEOs.

They testified in Congress last week.

Do you see any movement in their testimonies?

It's such a hard hearing after the spectacular hearing last year with David Cicillini.

You know, you see like what a great hearing can be when

lawmakers come with documents asking about particular deals,

really.

getting into the nitty-gritty.

And I think there was some, I think there was some value in this hearing.

And I think it is part of a move that shows that Congress is going to act.

It's very clear to me.

It's very clear that Congress is going to act.

Where and how is unclear.

It was great to see lawmakers talking about the business model.

It didn't get much more granular than that.

I mean, there was the one moment where

Zuckerberg was asked how much money he makes from kids under 13.

Good question.

And he didn't answer.

I mean, he repeatedly

didn't answer anything.

But getting more questions like that, figure out 10 conspiracy theories and say, okay,

how much did this affect your bottom line?

Getting more into the financial model is what I would like to see in these hearings, but at least you're seeing them talking about the business model.

And that is a shift.

So, yes, there was plenty of the,

you know, why aren't you moderating better

kind of question

plenty of grandstanding, but we're starting to talk about the business model.

And then you saw, you know, Congressman Rogers talk and really, you know, talk about suicide and the devastating effects on teenagers and depressions.

Those were a few moments that really stood out.

I mean,

the one other, there wasn't a lot about breakups,

which I think we could use more of along with talking about the business model.

But there was a moment where Armstrong from North Dakota did get Zuckerberg to admit something that we all know, which is that if we're looking at market structure, we should be looking at non-price factors.

And

I mean, I don't know that we need Zuckerberg's admission there, but it's still,

I still think

that's important.

Okay.

All right, Scott.

Well, most importantly, the really key question here is Professor TChat, have you appeared on any other podcasts recently?

go ahead say it say it what show were you on what podcast are you on kara doesn't know this you're on prof g that's right because i invest in our relationship

don't tell her i invest in our relationship ask her an actual question please it was it was a it was a highlight of 2020.

really

that's right that's right yeah except until now go ahead any actual questions

so professor what do you think of Representative Cicillini's notion that they should go after a variety of

legislation instead of trying one big omnibus bill?

That the strategy is going to be to try and go after them from a variety of angles.

You know,

I am not the Hill strategist here, but I think there is a value in getting a series of strong pieces out there.

And so we can really talk about the impacts.

And, you know, we're going to be, what I'll be looking for are one,

it sounds pretty technical, but it's really essential.

Are we taking power away from judges?

Because right now we have

judges that

starting with Reagan, but the last 40 years have so deeply embedded with a

Robert Bork mentality, a consumer welfare mentality, that if you give a lot of play in the legislation, if you still allow judges to decide whether something is anti-competitive or not, you're not going to see the kind of substantial breakup

regime that I think we need to see.

So that's one thing I'll be looking for in the legislation, both in the House and in the Senate.

I'm a big fan of Klobuchar's leadership in this area.

Her current bill

is still, it's a bill that was drafted a few years ago and I hope gets updated to have more of this kind of

braight line legislation because that can make a big difference.

A second thing to be looking for in legislation is whether when you're looking at mergers, whether mergers can be waived through with conditions or whether there's a default presumption that you actually block the merger if it's anti-competitive.

Right.

So they have to prove that it's they have to prove themselves.

So one of the things you call monopolies are private systems of government.

And you've also said monopoly power is white power.

Can you roll that out for us?

Yeah, I mean, it's basically the private systems of government.

Everybody would have understood before 1980, and I think a lot of people increasingly understand now that when that's a certain point of both size and control,

it's governing.

It's governing.

And that particular line isn't easy to tell.

But when you look at something like Amazon and the way it treats the sellers on this platform, I mean, I see the cost that it gives to those sellers as a kind of private taxation

because it just has the power to whimsically set the rates.

It's not governed by a back and forth within a seriously competitive market.

And Justice Douglas said this in the 1950s, all forms of private power tend to form into a government in and of itself.

And so historically, in this country, we used to be a real leader on this.

As we know now, we're actually,

it's harder to start up here than in Europe, but that we understood that anti-monopoly law a core reason for anti-monopoly law was to protect democracy to sort of not allow rival forms of private government to coexist um with public government all right but what about white power specifically and then in your book you startly talking about the human drive for power that leads to tyranny so talk a little bit more detail about that yeah i mean i i think it's one of the areas that's gotten the least attention is the ways in which the merger wave has really wiped out and by merger wave i mean 40-year merger wave,

has really wiped out extraordinary locuses of

Black power when you look at Black economic power and Black community power.

Just, for instance, when you look at insurance companies, funeral homes, pharmaceutical companies,

there are

Is that because people of color over-index the small businesses and small businesses just lose in concentration of power?

Yeah.

And so

the answer is: I'm going to interrupt you.

I just want to interrupt you for a second.

Isn't it worse than that?

Isn't it basically monopolies are about white patriarchal older power?

There just aren't that many monopolies that have young female people of color at the top.

No, that's exactly right.

Yeah.

And I come from electional, I come from studying systems of power in the electoral field.

And this is the oldest trick in the book.

If you merge three congressional districts,

one of this is the old southern trick.

You merge three congressional districts, one of which would have had a black representative with two white districts, and then say everybody's at large, then you have three white representatives.

So, this system of merging has allowed, has been a driver.

And then you see where the money has gone.

And, you know, until there's protests, and it's always sort of like protest and then we change our policy, it was Google and all the big tech companies, along with ATT and Big Pharma, who was fun, who were funding the voter, um, the voter suppression bills through ALEC

through 2010.

So you have a double mechanism of both the way in which mergers wipe out key centers of

power and then fund greater destruction of that power.

Absolutely.

So I'm just curious,

today they're voting in Alabama about Amazon.

Do you have any thoughts on where that's going to go?

Speaking of powerful white guys.

i mean i i'll be we'll all be looking closely i i do think it's um it's a beginning and

uh you know if we're really i think it's a beginning or an end i apologize for keeping no no

he he just mentioned this that's why because he just mentioned the idea that if the unions don't win if the unions lose here i kind of see this as we're all of a sudden in the bottom of the ninth for unions as a constructor representing the middle class i think this has got big implications on the future of unions if they lose here well i think what it does scott is it turns, which has already been happening with unions, is it turns more and more to antitrust and anti-monopoly.

I think that's right.

Because if you are going to have relative power, it's basically, it's effectively,

even with all this attention, it's so hard to organize in Bessemer.

But that basically to be able to organize, you need to have somewhere else to go.

You need to be able to say, you know, we actually have good jobs elsewhere that we can go to and not have the market controlled by one or two companies.

And so you're seeing this with the Teamsters, for instance.

You know,

they're talking more and more about anti-monopoly.

If we want to have unions, you also need to break up these companies.

You can't.

Yeah, the best union is competition.

So these individuals can take the force higher rents on their labor from other companies bidding on their labor.

It feels like the best union in the world would be a less feeble government that

breaks up these companies, no?

Well,

I mean, I believe in union power itself.

So I don't want to say the best union in the world.

I don't want to overuse the term union.

But let me let me I apologize, good.

I have tremendous, by the way, I love Professor Teacha.

I could listen to her all day.

So this is, I'm asking you these questions because I want to learn from you.

But quite frankly, I think unions are a perfect example of being right and ineffective.

Everything they say, I think makes sense.

They're a ballast for the middle class and they have gotten the shit kicked out of them for 30 years.

They have been ineffective.

Don't we need something else?

I mean, how aren't we just always waiting for unions to reassert their power and it never happens?

Do we need a new construct here?

Well, I think we need unions.

And the new construct is,

you know, far more, and we're starting to see it in the last couple of years, far more aggressive unions, unions who are not willing to compromise as easily.

And we need antitrust.

I mean,

I know I'm just going back to this, but when you have this like massive concentration of power, and in my book, I'm pretty tough on unions because they haven't haven't used the merger moment as a leverage point in the way they could, because they have a moment where they can access more information.

But they tend to use it, and I'm sympathetic, but they tend to use it to say, well, can we just get a decent contract for five more years?

Even if in five more years, then we're

we are, you know,

we'll support your merger with this massive hospital chain in exchange for just give us a decent contract for five more years.

Five more years, they have no leverage.

And so using those merger moments is key, key.

But we as a society also need to support unionization

by having Biden be out there more front as a, as a, you know, using his platform as

he has.

And it's been great.

That matters.

That matters.

That mattered

in the 40s when we had a pro-union president and decentralizing, you know, antitrust is how you make capital harder to organize and unionization is how you make it easier for people to organize.

And we need both.

Yeah.

Well, you know, what would be interesting here is if Trump was president, he might be for the union here because he's, you know, he sort of supported, he was sort of playing into the white working list, but he hates Bezos.

It's kind of, it would be interesting to see what his take would have been at this point.

He's just so bad faith.

It's just, yeah.

All right.

Speaking of bad faith, Cuomo.

You called on him to resign, and that said he's been abusing his power for decades.

So tell us, give us your take on this.

I don't even want to ask any questions.

Just love your take.

What's going to happen too?

I mean, Cuomo is not going to resign unless he feels like he has no source of power left.

He does not care about being loved.

He doesn't really have anywhere else to go.

But he is in the toughest situation in his career because for the first time, it's gone national.

And people who've been, you know, in New York reading the paper for the last 10 years have seen the ways in which he really uses his office to protect his own power.

So the guy who's at the center of New York's vaccines right now is a guy named Larry Schwartz.

10 days ago, he was caught calling county executives, checking in on two things.

One,

what's your vaccine need?

And two,

are you going to support the governor?

And, you know, you don't need to be, be, yes, sometimes those were separate calls, but it's from the same guy, the same

day.

This is the same guy who quashed subpoenas way back in 2014

when an anti-corruption commission was getting too close to Andrew Cuomo's friends.

He has no public health background.

He's been living in the governor's mansion.

I mean, the weirdness and clubbiness and just self-protection of Andrew Cuomo It gets weirder the closer you get.

These are the kinds of stories that have been Cuomo all along and they're only now getting out.

And you have not just the very serious

sexual harassment claims, but how he's responded by leaking personnel files.

What's going to happen?

So what happens, I think, right now has to do with pressure on other lawmakers.

Most lawmakers have called on him to resign, which is a big deal.

But the next move is whether they move forward with an impeachment, whether they do it publicly, or whether they sort of call on him to resign and then just move on.

And then there's a big moment with Tish James.

What do you think of it?

So Tish James's report should come out probably in June,

maybe in July.

She's hired some really

amazing investigators who are looking into not just the sexual harassment, but also the retaliation in the nursing homes.

So

I think those are the, that's the big moment coming up.

And, you know, I just, I just think New York needs somebody who other lawmakers trust.

To me, one of the more damning moments is when the head of the budget committee, New York's budget committee, they're negotiating the budget right now.

She says, I can't work with the governor's office because he lies because of the lies around the nursing homes.

These aren't just public lies, which are problematic enough.

These aren't just like a politician puffing their military experience.

This is giving wrong numbers to committees that needed those numbers last summer and lying to them.

So, so she's like, how do I, who do I talk to?

So

are you, we got to go soon, but are you going to run?

I'm not planning on it.

No.

So no, that's a no.

I don't want to sound like

no.

I'm not ready for government.

Okay.

Who would you think would be running?

I mean, Tish James is the

New York Attorney General.

And I ran against her, and I got to say, she's done a great job.

So I've really been impressed.

She has shown her independence.

And she's got a hell of an antitrust team.

I mean, they have been amazing.

Yeah.

Speaking of which, getting back to that, that's another area of antitrust that's being looked at by state's attorney generals, which cannot be ignored either, who have been much more aggressive than the federal government in lots of ways.

Yeah.

No, I mean, look at the states.

There's a lot of state legislation that's happening, and you see the lobbying going on like crazy in the states just to not get the bills to go to the floor.

And then the state AGs.

And

they got to play off each other because the state AGs are doing amazing work.

But as you guys know, those cases can't be,

those individual cases can't be all that we do.

We need the legislation.

Well, Zephyr, thank you so much.

We recommend your book.

I will call you Professor 2,

law professor at Fordham and author of Break Them Up.

Please buy it.

Zephyr, thank you so much.

Thank you, Professor.

Oh, thanks for having me.

All right, Scott, she's a star.

Yeah, very smart.

Very smart.

Professor Teach Out.

One more quick break.

We'll be back for Wins and Fails.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs.

Trade all in one place.

Get started now on Robinhood.

Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.

Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FDIC insured or CIPIC protected.

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member SIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

Every day, millions of customers engage with AI agents like me.

We resolve queries fast.

We work 24-7 and we're helpful, knowledgeable, and empathetic.

We're built to be the voice of the brands we serve.

Sierra is the platform for building better, more human customer experiences with AI.

No hold music, no generic answers, no frustration.

Visit sierra.ai to learn more.

Okay, Scott, wins and fails.

I have a fail myself.

I'm going to go first.

Arkansas.

The laws against doctors not treating gay people.

They don't want to drink religious.

What do you mean, what?

Like, Asa Hutchinson is laying waves.

I'm horrified.

What is going on?

They're not, they passed a law.

Asa Hutchinson, who just did another terrible abortion one this week, decided that doctors, because of religious reasons, should not have to treat gays and lesbians.

They don't want to,

which is amazing.

So Arkansas, he signed the bill allowing medical workers to refuse treatment, all medical workers, not just doctors, to LGBTQ people.

So it's the same thing of the cake baking, the whole thing.

It's another version of that.

But in this case, you know, the physicians do no harm.

It's the opposite is doing harm.

The measure says healthcare workers and institutions have a right not to participate in non-emergency treatments that violate their conscience.

The new law won't take effect until later this summer.

So it allows doctors to refuse to treat someone because of religious or moral objections.

So just astonishing and astonishing.

And he's already Asa Hutchins, who pretends he's moderate, is in no way moderate.

And so

I will not be going to Arkansas anytime soon.

We can't go to Georgia any longer if we want to vote.

Yeah.

I don't know if you got all the winner or fail.

I guess it's a fail.

I love someone tweeted that I think it was Zach Bornstino, I think, is a genius from crooked media.

Anyways, he said that he was looking forward to no longer avoiding grocery stores because of COVID, but because of the fear of mass shootings.

And I think that

hopefully we not only see a light at the end of the tunnel, the end of COVID potentially.

And again, it's dangerous to say that because we have seen a bit of a spike, but it's nice to see that we're starting again to focus on other issues.

And gun violence, again, mass shootings rear their ugly head.

I also think that it's going to bring up, I just think everything comes back to income inequality and availability of guns, uh of weapons of war is obviously the the biggest problem here but i think you have a group of of young men i think the two cohorts we would be best uh served by investing in would be would be moms i do think marshall plan for moms would would would reap huge benefits for our society and then two i think young non-college-bound youth

And if you look at the profile of these shooters, they have an eerily similar profile.

Yeah, they do.

And it's disaffected young men who are having trouble attaching to work, having trouble attaching to school, and quite frankly, having trouble attaching to relationships.

And there's an uncomfortable truth that

men date and mate horizontally and down, and women date and mate horizontally and up.

And because women, young women relative to young men have done much better, seven out of 10 girls are valedictorians, more women going to college, vastly more women graduating from college.

There's just no getting around it.

A young, bored, lonely man is the most dangerous person in the world.

And that's, and I want to be clear, I don't think it's anyone's obligation to service young men in any way, but there was just a frightening statistic that came out.

I don't know if you saw this.

It was from Pew, and it said that in 2008, the number of men who had not had sex before the age of 30, in other words, hadn't been in a relationship,

was 8%.

Do you know what it is now?

Oh, don't tell me.

It's 27%.

And even when you look at places like Sudan, where they're really warlike, when you end up with incredible income inequality, you end up with essentially polygamy because the wealthy people get the most selection of mates.

And again, young, bored, men who aren't attaching to relationships become violent.

And that's not to say, I'm not saying that gun control isn't a central component here, but I do think income inequality and a lack of prospects for young people, and I'm just saying men, I'm saying women as well, but it just so happens when women don't have a lot of prospects, they tend to not pick up an AR-15.

They do not.

So I think there's something around investing in not only moms, but also, I think we need a much greater focus and more investment in young people who are not college-bound because we're creating an entire generation, and it's happened in China, of young men who aren't attaching to anything.

And unfortunately.

Unfortunately,

a young bored, unattached man is the most dangerous person in the world.

And if they're radicalized by, say, misinformation.

On social media.

Yeah.

Or they're fed information that it's a woman's fault that they're alone.

You know, it's so I think there's, we want to talk about guns, but I don't care if it's guns.

I don't care if it's systemic racism, gender inequality.

I think all of these have a bigger issue at the front, but the incendiary making all of these things worse underneath them.

is income inequality.

100%.

Scott, we're going to have to say something positive.

We've got to end on a positive note.

I went to the national arboretum which was free from the u.s government beautiful cherry blossoms daffodils that's nice everything it was lovely and it was lovely to take uh clara there who loved it uh so that was a positive that there are good things from our federal government thank you wonderful thanks national parks national parks that's nice cara what's your win you know i didn't i didn't have a win um yeah i um

i'm i'm feeling i don't know i don't have a win today no win no win i'm really i'm I'm really just, I'm, every time this, this mass shooting stuff comes up, I feel so

impotent as an American.

I just feel so like, Jesus Christ.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with us?

I know.

And I don't know how to, I don't.

We have 40% of the guns and like whatever, 4% of the population.

We have more guns than people.

We have 5% of the population, but 45% of the guns.

I mean, it's crazy.

Just absolutely

crazy town.

And then what I find just so discouraging is that gun people like to blame us on the mentally ill.

And the reality is a mentally ill person is more likely to be the subject of gun violence than the perpetrator.

And so that's

mentally ill people not only have enough to deal with, but

the NRA blaming them.

And we do not have a monopoly on mental illness.

We don't over or under-index on mental illness.

We over-index on people's access to weapons of war.

I just, I can't understand.

And again, I sort of blame Democrats.

The NRA is on the ropes.

They're financially mismanaged.

Wouldn't this be the time to go in and break their fucking backs?

Well, guess who's doing that?

Tish James in New York.

I hope so.

She's

trying.

But see, the thing is, New York is actually pretty good on guns and control and on gun violence.

She's going after their bankruptcy.

She's going after them in a way.

They're trying to escape

her attempts.

But yeah, I agree.

We got to get our government to intervene in a lot of these areas.

In any case,

it also does link with

governors like Asa Hutchinson or senators like Ted Cruz, who are appalling as people.

I'm sorry.

And by the way, Jeff Bezos, stop friggin' tweeting like that.

Act like a man.

Like man up and give your case.

Come on, get back to the dick pic, says the jungle cat.

Yeah, that's fine.

Do what you know.

You know all you want.

We don't want all you want about your pictures.

We want to see big head and the twins.

You're good with that.

But for fun, just stop.

Just stop.

You're the richest person in the world.

Stop.

Thank you.

That is my job application for the head.

make me head of the Washington Post and I'll tell you where to get off.

That's, that's how I say.

That is my job application.

Don't be an asshole.

This is getting ugly.

Let's go back to the Arboretum.

All right.

That's the show.

We'll be back Friday for more.

There's so much news, Scott.

It's crazy.

There's a lot of news.

Anyway, go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit your question for the Pivot podcast.

The link is also in our show notes.

Scott, read us out.

Today's show was produced by Camila Salazar, Ernie Indra Todd, engineered this episode.

Thanks also to Hannah Rose and Andrew Burroughs.

Make sure you subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts.

Or if you're an Android user, check us out on Spotify.

Wherever you listen to podcasts, if you liked our show, please recommend it to a friend.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media.

America isn't what it is, it's what we make of it.

Gun control can absolutely happen, Kara.

It's this is, for God's sakes, it was time, a long time ago, but now especially it's time

this month on Explain It to Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well: collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It to Me, presented by Pureleaf.

Support for the show comes from Mercury.

What if banking did more?

Because to you, it's more than an invoice.

It's your hard work becoming revenue.

It's more than a wire.

It's payroll for your team.

It's more than a deposit.

It's landing your fundraise.

The truth is, banking can do more.

Mercury brings all the ways you use money into a single product that feels extraordinary to use.

Visit mercury.com to join over 200,000 entrepreneurs who use Mercury to do more for their business.

Mercury, banking that does more.