December 25, 2024 • 34 mins
Richie Greenberg comes on the show to talk about the state of San Francisco politics after the election. Kevin Kiley wants to end the high-speed rail project in California. Kamala Harris cannot become the next Governor of California. Companies are starting to fire employees for working from home.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can't.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I am six forty.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
We are on every day from one until four, and oh,
you might be one of these people that has a
job and now you've been ordered into the office. That's
why we provide a public service John Cobelt Show on demand.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
It's the podcast version of the radio show.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
So if you're not in attendance between one and four,
a little bit after four o'clock, we post it and
you can listen to that for anytime the rest of
the day and forever.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
When I came to California, I've said this many times.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
San Francisco we visited years ago and it was the
most beautiful city I had ever seen. And the last
time I left San Francisco a few months back, it
had become one of the most disgusting cities I've ever seen,
probably the most disgusting in America. I've seen a few
others overseas, and who presided over the decline of San
(01:00):
Francisco over the past few years. It's the mayor London Breed,
who's now on her way out. She lost an election
to Daniel Lourie. Lourie is heir to the Levi Strauss fortune.
He's a nonprofit executive and he is going to try
to resuscitate really has become a tragic story. One of
(01:21):
the people who've helped chronicle what's gone on in San
Francisco the last few years is Richie Greenberg, the writer
and commentator, and we have him on again because Richie, welcome, Hello.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
From San Francisco, home of tsunami warnings and tornado warnings
and earthquakes. And I'm glad to be we're here mayday.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
And that's the that's all. That is the least your problems.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
So London Breed loses the election and on her way
out she's saying, no matter what the results said, I'm
still a winner.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Well, yes, she's a winner in her mind. And to
vote those people who benefited tremendously off of her being
the mayor over the last few years, of course she's
a winner. They're a winner. And I predict right now
it's going to be a little bit difficult for the
incoming mayor to try and pry these fingers, pry away
(02:20):
the nonprofits and others who have been drifting off the
San Francisco taxpayers that were established commissions and departments and
initiatives that were started by London Breed. That's going to
be a challenge for the incoming mayor.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
I guess those are the other winners you were referring to,
and this would be the homeless mental illness industrial complex
that has grown into a huge force.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Yeah, but they're also leaving out something that's very important
and I'm going to say pretty much unique to San
Francisco is that we are one of this cities that
they made a hard push for reparations. And so even
though the reparations plan itself, which I've written extensively about
(03:10):
and done a deep dive, even though they shelved the plan,
many aspects of the plan wound up being put into
operation anyway, but not package as reparations. So there is
a specific initiative that was established under London Breed called
(03:33):
the Dreamkeeper Initiative, which was funneling millions of dollars through
certain recipients Black African American in San Francisco. So that's
that is also they are winners per se as well.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Well, can can can How much can Daniel Lurie do?
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Can he turn off the money spigot to all these nonprofits,
whether it's over reparations or it's the mental illness and
homeless uh grift that's going on. I mean, I mean,
what what what can he do to end the drain
of taxpayers money to organizations that aren't doing anybody any good.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Well, yeah, there's going to need to be a very
serious sit down and concerted effort between him, the executive office,
the mayor, and our board of supervisors, our city council,
because they deal with not only these different programs, but
they deal with the funding as well. And one of
(04:31):
the things that is the major responsibility of a mayor
is to do the budgets. They do the budgeting, so
they say, okay, the doors are open, let's start talking
about next year and the year after. What will our
plan be for you know, giving out the money to
these different departments and different agencies. And you have people
(04:54):
coming in that are begging for money to different apartments.
We need, we need this amount, we need this number
millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions. And
that's what makes the mayor's job so complicated because they
have to look at how much the budget is and
look at what who is asking and see, you know,
the deficit. We're going to be approaching nearly a billion
(05:18):
dollar deficit coming up in the next year or so,
almost a billion dollars billion dollars one billion. Right now
it was eight hundred and sixty seven or eight seventy
six million, and next year is going to be even
worse because we have all of these organizations and agencies
(05:38):
and nonprofits that have been demanding money, and we have
a lower property value, so people are asking to have
their property taxes reevaluated. We have a decimated retail core.
We have a still our office, the downtown office segment
(05:59):
is there. They're mostly empty as well, so we've lost
a lot of revenue and will continue to lose a
lot of revenue.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
So the the office is emptied out and a lot
of workers are still not back, and that has really
ruined business for all the restaurants and bars and retail
shops in the area because people used to do all
their shopping and entertainment.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Domino effect.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Domino effect.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
So the tax you know, the tax money from those
establishments are gone. The tax money that came from these
these companies that worked in San Francisco, that's gone, and
and many blocks are just empty. There's no people and
there's no money anymore.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Correct, And I often go downtown to do certain work
and around where my office used to be because I
left earlier this year. I finally gave up in I
think it was in February I gave notice, and that
was that I had shared office space right in our
downtown financial district because people weren't going there anymore, and
clients said that they just didn't want to come into
(07:03):
the city anymore. But then there's also another challenge is
bringing in tourism, and San Francisco realies hugely, a very
high percent on tourist dollars, not only hotel rooms and
hotel taxes, but the small businesses that also cater to
(07:24):
visiting people to the city. And until we are able
to get or not wait, but the mayor is able
to get a handle on crime, homelessness, drug dealing, the
drug addicts, intents and graffiti and safety and all of
those very well known, very documented issues, we won't be
(07:47):
able to turn the city around. And that is why
we're hoping someone from the outside, Daniel Lurie, will be
able to make a difference. And right now we are
supporting him but we're watching his statements that he's made
over the last couple of weeks, the last couple of days,
and we're hope we're cautious.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yeah, let me ask you something, because I mean, I'm
getting the following statistics from the La Times, which I
don't trust at all, Hannah Wiley, she writes, and she
says various criminal categories. Robberies down twenty two percent, burglaries
down twelve percent, motor vehicle theft down twenty one percent,
homicides down. She's clearing homeless encampments. Breed is claiming sixty
(08:34):
percent fewer tents across the city.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Is that true?
Speaker 1 (08:38):
And if that were true, then why was Breed chased out?
Was it too little too late? Or these are just
a bunch of phony numbers I'm looking at.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Well, I believe it's both the phony numbers. Ways to
explain those numbers and too little too late. That she
bears responsibility for everything that happens, going back to when
she was first elected in the twenty eighteen in a
race that actually me yours truly happened to run in
against her as well in twenty eighteen. But you know,
(09:11):
I have been quoted numerous times recently that when you
empty out the businesses, when they have close up, boarded
up and left town, and you have blocks and blocks
of very little to no cafes, restaurants, retail, then there's
nothing to rob anymore. So the criminals leave. They've left town.
(09:37):
So at the beginning, back in twenty twenty or twenty
twenty one, when we had those massive looting events and
coordinated looting and the retail and the smash and grabs
of both cars and shops, when they're just not there.
They're not there. So what are you going to do?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
You don't have any.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Town you go with drops, you don't have potential targets
for crime.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Exactly exactly. Now, that's that's a realistic, logical explanation to
say crime went down. Well, that's because there's nothing to
rob anymore. Well, yeah, I believe that's totally.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
I hadn't thought of that.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Now you're you're you're probably right that that make that
makes perfect sense here.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Because so they moved over to Oakland. That's yet.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
And that's what happened to Oakland. So now they're still
they're just like a year behind us.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
I just have another minute, but don't you marvel at
how the people in San Francisco put up with all
this civil destruction for so many years. It's it's actually
frightening that they were willing to endure all this without
any serious pushback.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Well, they or we. I'm part of that. I moved
here in twenty twenty one, twenty twenty one, so I've
been here for twenty four years or so. Not every
square inch of this city is under siege by the
drug addicts. There are areas that are better. So there
are the core parts of the city that do have
(11:09):
the humanitarian disaster that are still ongoing today. And that
is one of the things that Daniel Lurie promised on
day one. He was going to be tackling that. It's
not just a tenderloin, but it's maybe half a mile
south of there, in an area Soma south of Market,
Soma sixth Street and Mission, Sixth and Mission is another
ground zero. He promised to go after that with the
(11:32):
drug dealers and dealing and homeless and all that. That
is what he promises from day one. He even tweeted
that yesterday or today is something, so we are hopeful.
I am hopeful. We're hoping that our hard work and
our tax dollars are to be used prudently from this
(11:53):
point going forward.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
All right, Richie Greenberg, thank you very much, my pleasure.
Thank you from San Francisco, London. Breed finally been kicked
out of office. You got a business executive. You're going to
be running things and try to put the place back together.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Okay, We've got more coming up on the John co
Belt Shows.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
You can follow us at John Cobelt Radio at John
Coblt Radio. This is good news. Kevin Kylie, We've hit
him on the show a number of times. He is
a former state legislator now a congressman from northern California.
Kevin Kylie, He's going to introduce a federal bill that
would cut off all the funding for the failed California
(12:40):
High Speed Rail project, and that's going to save the
United States of America at least eight billion dollars. California
High Speed Rail is nothing but a giant, corrupt money suck.
There is no other project like this in the world.
(13:02):
Trust me, I've looked, I have. I've gone to foreign
countries looking for a worse project.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
There is nothing.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
This is the most money spent on a project that's
produced nothing, absolutely nothing, and it's going to be many,
many years before they project any kind of rail service
will be available, and all they're looking at is Bakersfield.
(13:31):
Tom Or said. The construction estimates, which started sixteen plus
years ago, the original estimate was thirty three billion dollars.
May I remind you the thirty three billion dollars was
going to get us high speed rail that ran from
Sacramento to San Francisco to Los Angeles, through Anaheim and
(13:54):
down to San Diego. That was the original plan, Sacramento
to San Diego and everywhere in between for thirty three billion.
Right now the projection is one hundred and thirty five billion,
and you're only going to get Bakersfield to Merced one
(14:15):
hundred and thirty five billion. They're desperately trying to connect
Bakersfield and Merced because then they then they'll say, hey,
look what we did. And they've never heard of the
term don't throw good money after bad. This is such
an embarrassing disaster. And the thing is they keep spending
(14:38):
the money and nobody in government ever addresses all the
horrible waste. This is like living in East Germany or
the Soviet Union, where all kinds of terrible disasters happen.
It's like even when Chernobyl imploded back back in the
(14:58):
Soviet Union, all the officials just look the other way,
pretended nothing happened. And the high speed rail is our
financial version of Chernobyl.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
It is a complete disaster. Now.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
The vic Ramaswami confirmed last week that the DOGE Commission
is going to be looking at removing all the funding
from high speed rail. So Kevin Kyleie is going to
introduce a bill and see this will carry some weight
because you'll have a California Republican convincing the rest of
the California well convincing the rest of the Republican House
(15:39):
and Republican Senate that it's time to end this thing.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Now.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Trump has other ways to end it, but the most
permanent way would have Congress pass a bill that Trump signs.
He could end it by blocking the money through the
Federal Railroad administration. He could issue executive orders, he could
have the Department of Justice tie up the construction with
legal issues.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
But as.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
As one expert here says, Tylie's bill is the cleanest
way to do it. It would be simply passed legislation
that Trump would never veto. Trump can stop funding in
other ways if for some reason it didn't get through,
but this would be much more permanent. And this would
be a great way to stick it to Gavin Newsom
(16:28):
because Newsom has presided over almost the entire history of
high speed rail. Remember he was lieutenant governor for eight
years and six years as governor. That's fourteen out of
the sixteen years Gavin Newsom has held a high office
in California and watched all the billions of dollars go
(16:50):
into the toilet, and he tried, he'd wanted to stop it,
but he didn't have the guts because he's a he's
one of these pajama boys, and he couldn't stand up
to the construction unions which wanted to suck out the
money to give their members make work, fake work jobs,
(17:10):
which is what this is all. That's the only thing
that brager. What are all the jobs that created? You
created fake jobs? You have hundreds of workers working every
day producing nothing. There is no rail and there's not
going to be any rail. They haven't even bought up
all the land. Yet after sixteen plus years, the state
(17:31):
doesn't even own all the land that they need. So
hopefully Kevin Kylie's bill will be this will be the
final flush. That's what they ought to call the bill,
the final flush. Now when we return, this really ruined
my morning. Some people ought to get off the stage
and stay off the stage. And Kamala Harris is trying
(17:55):
to find a way to climb back on the stage
and maybe run for governor.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
This out horrifying.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
She's an absolute idiot, and she's got no business running California.
She had no business running for president. I'm seriously well,
I'll save it till we come back.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
There you go. What a genius. Okay, we've got more
coming up on the John Cobelt Show.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
You're listening to John cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
All right, onto something that this, this whole, this whole
issue should not really exist in a normal world, nobody
would consider Kamala Harris to become governor of California. Yet
not I read not one, but two articles today, one
in the La Times and one in one CNN. George
(18:50):
Skelton is this ancient columnist, He's somewhere in his mid eighties.
I think who still writes for the La Times and
the headline says Kamala Harris should run for governor if
she wants to solve California's problems? Well, how does why
(19:11):
does anyone think Kamala Harris can solve any political, any
public problem? What indication has there been? She helped create
some of the worst problems in the state when she
wrote the title in summary for Prop. Forty seven, the
Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, that unleashed so much crime,
(19:35):
so much public drug addiction, and so much homelessness. Much
of the problems over the last ten years goes back
to the day that she or someone on her staff
typed the words Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, thereby lying
to the public on what Prop forty seven was.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Going to do. The intention was.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
To further clear out the prisons and the jails and
not put anyone away for anything. George Gascone was the
co writer. So what do you think the intent was?
She teamed up with George Gascone to massively deceive the
public and create an intolerable situation of crime and homelessness
(20:20):
and public drug addiction, and she's the one considered a
favorite to be governor.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Why would you do that?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
And how come nobody in the media asks that, am
I insane? She really wrote that that really had an
effect on Prop forty seven passing, and it really was
this disgusting disaster which we just repealed. We just repealed
by a seventy to thirty margin most of Prop forty seven.
(20:52):
So why would you do this? We just got rid
of the guy who wrote Prop forty seven, George Gascon.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
He got kicked out of office in La County.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
I mean, the two most left wing disasters of a
city are La and San Francisco. The mayor's been kicked
out of San Francisco, the DA has been kicked out,
Several school board members were kicked out here in La
the DA was finally kicked out. Why would you go
back to Kamala Harris. She's a loser, she's a failure.
(21:25):
She never did anything, but oh, let's go to her
vice presidency. I'm sorry to keep beating this dead horse,
but really, she was in charge of the border and
ten million people crossed it. Total failure, and we saw
what she's like as a candidate she can't talk, she
can't think, She had no ideas, She made no sense
(21:49):
most of the time. I mean, I wonder if she's
got really some kind of brain disorder. And then she
though the only thing she's put out publicly since, uh,
since the law US was a video to her supporters
where it seemed like she was drunk. In fact, much
of the time when she spoke and we played all
the clips, she sounded like she was stoned. You can't
(22:12):
be serious. We already have a disaster of a governor.
Why would you follow up Gavin Newsom with Kamala Harris.
Ah Newsom comes across as Albert Einstein next to Kamala Harris,
And I am right on this, and you know you
(22:33):
feel the same way. Who wants her? Who the hell
would want Kamala Harris? She has been a failure and
we just watched her for one hundred days. You can't say, well,
you don't really know the real Kamala Harris. You know,
behind closed doors she was from very of fact, No.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
She wasn't.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
And now we've seen her out in the open. Then
I read these ridiculous stories in CNN, says top aids
and people close to Kamala Harris have are divided over
whether she should head home to run for California, and
it all comes down to whether they believe she could
win the Democratic nomination for president. Oh no, she can't
(23:17):
win that There are much more accomplished, smarter, and more
articulate Democrats. She is going to end up like she
did in twenty nineteen, dropping out before the primaries because
she makes no sense when she talks.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
And who are these advisors?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Are the people who told her, Hey, when you go
on television, tell everybody that you're going to do exactly
the same thing as Joe Biden. You're not going to
change a thing.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
I insane. Other aids worry that.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
In a longer campaign longer than one hundred days, Harris
might fizzle out and follow her loss to Trump with
the humiliation of being rejected by her own party. She
was rejected by her own party in twenty nineteen. She
was rejected by her own party in the state of
California when she ran for president. Of course, she's going
(24:21):
to be rejected because even Democratic see, because you know,
because of the vice presidency job. Biden said it. He
wanted he wanted to he wanted a black woman. That's
the only reason she got it. He made it clear
up front, who's going to be vice president. You've got
You've got hundreds of possibilities, plausible candidates for vice president.
(24:47):
He said, I want to have a black woman, and
he picked a terrible candidate. I'm sure there was a
better choice than Kamala even with those restrictions. Oh my god.
And everybody knows this, and they pretend otherwise. Why do
they pretend otherwise? Quit the Kamala campaign and go go
(25:13):
find another candidate who's intelligent, who speaks clearly, who has
original thoughts or copies other people's thoughts, as long as
there's something useful there.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
But stop it with this. This sounds sounds like just
got brain damage. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Half the time when we played her clips, I had
no idea what she was talking about. Nobody else did either.
Everybody was just faking it and playing pretend. There's nothing
in there. There's nothing.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Can't make her governor.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
But short Skeleton wrote, Kamala could make history as the
first woman in person of color to be elected California governor. No,
who cares? What is the obsession with skin color at
this late day? And this obsession with what gender you are.
You gotta have somebody competent. We had an incompetent white
man for the last six years. It's been horrible. Why
(26:15):
would you followed up with an incompetent black woman. Why
why do we only have incompetent people being elected? And
then everybody fixates on color and gender. No, it's it's
their intelligence, it's their judgment.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Of course, that's never discussed.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
You know, I wish they would stop stop describing candidates
by their race and their gender. Why don't you start
describing them by their intelligence level. Let's have public IQ
tests and we reveal the results. She doesn't make triple digits,
(26:56):
but George just Skelton says she'd have to be eager
to deal with homelessness. Deal with homelessness. She created all this,
the housing shortage, the housing shortage. You know, if we
weren't housing several million illegal aliens, there'd be a lot
of empty housing that we could use to put in
American citizens. We could increase the supply of housing tremendously
(27:21):
if we weren't a sanctuary for millions of illegal aliens.
Apparently that's another thing you can't discuss she'd have to
deal with street crime again see Prop forty seven over regulation.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
Well, that's all done by her party.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
It's a one party system, so she has to deal
with this and this and this and this.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Except it's her own party.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
And when she was in Congress, she voted as the
most liberal senator out of all of them, the most
liberal was Kamala Harris. So she's not going to fix homelessness.
Her party creates homelessness, create a housing shortage, they create
the street crime, they create the overregulation.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
What is she going to do?
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Come on, you know, you know, if you're in business
and you saw her walking in to run your company,
you'd be putting out new resumes in five minutes because
you know the place would be going into the ground.
Oh yeah, yey, Okay, We've got more coming up on
the John cobelt Show.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
One of our favorite topics is, well, this headline got
me in the Wall Street Journal. Meet the people who
refuse to go back to the office and lost their jobs. Finally,
now companies are getting rid of the deadbeats who don't
want to show up at work. Amazon is requiring employees
(28:58):
to report five days a week.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Five days.
Speaker 5 (29:02):
That's not fair.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
That would be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. No Fridays, Fridays,
Oh no ups. JP Morgan Boeing have also called their
workers back for five days. You know, that's really that's
that violates the Eighth Amendments.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
That is cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
Some people were not showing up for work and they
got fired. Publicist Media terminated several dozen employees who wouldn't
show up for the required days. Other companies, Roadblocks and
Grinder have offered several packages to employees who won't show up.
(29:50):
Snap the technology, the social media company laid off workers.
Now listen Listen to a couple of the people who
found themselves fired. Stephanie Pittman lost her remote job. She
worked at her home in Wichita, Kansas. The company was
based in California, and now she's upset because they wanted
(30:13):
to show up for work in California.
Speaker 6 (30:16):
Well, I could understand if she was told that she
could remote in permanently because she moved away, or that
I can that I can understand.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
You kind of have to know that day is coming though.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:28):
But if you're if you were told that you didn't
have to come to work ever, and you move away,
it is kind of unfair to say, oh, we've changed
her mind and you live, what two thousand miles away?
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You know what our parents taught us. I'm just life
is not fair.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
It isn't It really isn't fair, you know how. But
I cannot What I'm saying is I can understand in that.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Well, she had quit a job because the company was
forcing her to work in person, and so she took
this job in California and in which taught. He has
four kids, a husband who's a judge, and elderly parents
who live nearby, so she can't leave Wichita. But a
job in California isn't going to last forever. Here's another guy,
(31:14):
Nathan Vance. He was hired in April as a remote employee.
And this is a San Francisco company, Grinder, that's a
I think a gay dating app. And he bought a
house in Washington State, eight hundred miles away from Grinder's
nearest office. And he thought he could work from home permanently.
(31:39):
Why give up a property he owns? Mortgage rate three
percent to pay the high rents in the Bay area. Well,
they told him to come in and he doesn't want
to make the eight hundred mile commute, so they gave
him three months severance unemployment for six months. Now he's
spending his savings and retirement accounts and the guy is fifty.
(32:01):
You should be spending your retirement account when you're fifty.
In the end, he didn't, he didn't win the game.
He thought he was going to save on San Francisco
rents and now he might have to relocate. After all,
I'm applying for jobs anywhere and everywhere. I'm at the
point where I really don't know what's going to happen.
(32:21):
This guy committed self bankruptcy because he didn't want to
go into an office, or he didn't want to go
move to the town where the company was.
Speaker 6 (32:33):
There as still a lot of companies that say you
can work from home two days a week and come
into the office three days a week.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Yeah, but with him, he's eight hundred miles away.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
Well, I know he didn't screw he screwed. I'm not
talking about.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
I just you can never trust that companies are going
to continue the policy.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
A policy like that, that's.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
True so you have to be prepared to find another job.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Then, because, according to one consultant named Dan Kaplan, who
studies this issue behind closed doors, there's a view among
CEOs quote, I'm tired of this whining about coming back
to work. We've compromised enough, and if you're not meeting
the minimum, then we're going to move on without you.
(33:18):
Because some of the companies asked for three days and
the employee still said no, And so everybody said, well,
the hell with you, because there are jobs where you
can work from home within the structure of a company.
Really depends on your job, but there are a lot
of jobs. I mean, you know, I can see this
in my own eyes. When people don't see each other
(33:38):
every day, then the company loses something because there's a
lot there's a lot of good stuff that goes on
when people can see each other and talk spontaneously and
randomly to each other all day.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
John, did you want me to work from home?
Speaker 2 (33:54):
No? I need the company. I know, it's sure.
Speaker 5 (33:58):
Can you imagine this?
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Is it?
Speaker 1 (34:03):
I'm talking to myself. I'm close to talking to myself now.
Here's an update from the KFI twenty four hour newsroom. Hey,
you've been listening to The John Cobalt Show podcast. You
can always hear the show live on KFI AM six
forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Can't.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I am six forty.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the John Cobel Podcast on the iHeartRadio app.
We are on every day from one until four, and oh,
you might be one of these people that has a
job and now you've been ordered into the office. That's
why we provide a public service John Cobelt Show on demand.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
It's the podcast version of the radio show.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
So if you're not in attendance between one and four,
a little bit after four o'clock, we post it and
you can listen to that for anytime the rest of
the day and forever.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
When I came to California, I've said this many times.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
San Francisco we visited years ago and it was the
most beautiful city I had ever seen. And the last
time I left San Francisco a few months back, it
had become one of the most disgusting cities I've ever seen,
probably the most disgusting in America. I've seen a few
others overseas, and who presided over the decline of San
(01:00):
Francisco over the past few years. It's the mayor London Breed,
who's now on her way out. She lost an election
to Daniel Lourie. Lourie is heir to the Levi Strauss fortune.
He's a nonprofit executive and he is going to try
to resuscitate really has become a tragic story. One of
(01:21):
the people who've helped chronicle what's gone on in San
Francisco the last few years is Richie Greenberg, the writer
and commentator, and we have him on again because Richie, welcome, Hello.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
From San Francisco, home of tsunami warnings and tornado warnings
and earthquakes. And I'm glad to be we're here mayday.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
And that's the that's all. That is the least your problems.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
So London Breed loses the election and on her way
out she's saying, no matter what the results said, I'm
still a winner.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Well, yes, she's a winner in her mind. And to
vote those people who benefited tremendously off of her being
the mayor over the last few years, of course she's
a winner. They're a winner. And I predict right now
it's going to be a little bit difficult for the
incoming mayor to try and pry these fingers, pry away
(02:20):
the nonprofits and others who have been drifting off the
San Francisco taxpayers that were established commissions and departments and
initiatives that were started by London Breed. That's going to
be a challenge for the incoming mayor.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
I guess those are the other winners you were referring to,
and this would be the homeless mental illness industrial complex
that has grown into a huge force.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Yeah, but they're also leaving out something that's very important
and I'm going to say pretty much unique to San
Francisco is that we are one of this cities that
they made a hard push for reparations. And so even
though the reparations plan itself, which I've written extensively about
(03:10):
and done a deep dive, even though they shelved the plan,
many aspects of the plan wound up being put into
operation anyway, but not package as reparations. So there is
a specific initiative that was established under London Breed called
(03:33):
the Dreamkeeper Initiative, which was funneling millions of dollars through
certain recipients Black African American in San Francisco. So that's
that is also they are winners per se as well.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Well, can can can How much can Daniel Lurie do?
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Can he turn off the money spigot to all these nonprofits,
whether it's over reparations or it's the mental illness and
homeless uh grift that's going on. I mean, I mean,
what what what can he do to end the drain
of taxpayers money to organizations that aren't doing anybody any good.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Well, yeah, there's going to need to be a very
serious sit down and concerted effort between him, the executive office,
the mayor, and our board of supervisors, our city council,
because they deal with not only these different programs, but
they deal with the funding as well. And one of
(04:31):
the things that is the major responsibility of a mayor
is to do the budgets. They do the budgeting, so
they say, okay, the doors are open, let's start talking
about next year and the year after. What will our
plan be for you know, giving out the money to
these different departments and different agencies. And you have people
(04:54):
coming in that are begging for money to different apartments.
We need, we need this amount, we need this number
millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions. And
that's what makes the mayor's job so complicated because they
have to look at how much the budget is and
look at what who is asking and see, you know,
the deficit. We're going to be approaching nearly a billion
(05:18):
dollar deficit coming up in the next year or so,
almost a billion dollars billion dollars one billion. Right now
it was eight hundred and sixty seven or eight seventy
six million, and next year is going to be even
worse because we have all of these organizations and agencies
(05:38):
and nonprofits that have been demanding money, and we have
a lower property value, so people are asking to have
their property taxes reevaluated. We have a decimated retail core.
We have a still our office, the downtown office segment
(05:59):
is there. They're mostly empty as well, so we've lost
a lot of revenue and will continue to lose a
lot of revenue.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
So the the office is emptied out and a lot
of workers are still not back, and that has really
ruined business for all the restaurants and bars and retail
shops in the area because people used to do all
their shopping and entertainment.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Domino effect.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Domino effect.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
So the tax you know, the tax money from those
establishments are gone. The tax money that came from these
these companies that worked in San Francisco, that's gone, and
and many blocks are just empty. There's no people and
there's no money anymore.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Correct, And I often go downtown to do certain work
and around where my office used to be because I
left earlier this year. I finally gave up in I
think it was in February I gave notice, and that
was that I had shared office space right in our
downtown financial district because people weren't going there anymore, and
clients said that they just didn't want to come into
(07:03):
the city anymore. But then there's also another challenge is
bringing in tourism, and San Francisco realies hugely, a very
high percent on tourist dollars, not only hotel rooms and
hotel taxes, but the small businesses that also cater to
(07:24):
visiting people to the city. And until we are able
to get or not wait, but the mayor is able
to get a handle on crime, homelessness, drug dealing, the
drug addicts, intents and graffiti and safety and all of
those very well known, very documented issues, we won't be
(07:47):
able to turn the city around. And that is why
we're hoping someone from the outside, Daniel Lurie, will be
able to make a difference. And right now we are
supporting him but we're watching his statements that he's made
over the last couple of weeks, the last couple of days,
and we're hope we're cautious.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yeah, let me ask you something, because I mean, I'm
getting the following statistics from the La Times, which I
don't trust at all, Hannah Wiley, she writes, and she
says various criminal categories. Robberies down twenty two percent, burglaries
down twelve percent, motor vehicle theft down twenty one percent,
homicides down. She's clearing homeless encampments. Breed is claiming sixty
(08:34):
percent fewer tents across the city.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Is that true?
Speaker 1 (08:38):
And if that were true, then why was Breed chased out?
Was it too little too late? Or these are just
a bunch of phony numbers I'm looking at.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Well, I believe it's both the phony numbers. Ways to
explain those numbers and too little too late. That she
bears responsibility for everything that happens, going back to when
she was first elected in the twenty eighteen in a
race that actually me yours truly happened to run in
against her as well in twenty eighteen. But you know,
(09:11):
I have been quoted numerous times recently that when you
empty out the businesses, when they have close up, boarded
up and left town, and you have blocks and blocks
of very little to no cafes, restaurants, retail, then there's
nothing to rob anymore. So the criminals leave. They've left town.
(09:37):
So at the beginning, back in twenty twenty or twenty
twenty one, when we had those massive looting events and
coordinated looting and the retail and the smash and grabs
of both cars and shops, when they're just not there.
They're not there. So what are you going to do?
Speaker 2 (09:57):
You don't have any.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Town you go with drops, you don't have potential targets
for crime.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Exactly exactly. Now, that's that's a realistic, logical explanation to
say crime went down. Well, that's because there's nothing to
rob anymore. Well, yeah, I believe that's totally.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
I hadn't thought of that.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Now you're you're you're probably right that that make that
makes perfect sense here.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Because so they moved over to Oakland. That's yet.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
And that's what happened to Oakland. So now they're still
they're just like a year behind us.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
I just have another minute, but don't you marvel at
how the people in San Francisco put up with all
this civil destruction for so many years. It's it's actually
frightening that they were willing to endure all this without
any serious pushback.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Well, they or we. I'm part of that. I moved
here in twenty twenty one, twenty twenty one, so I've
been here for twenty four years or so. Not every
square inch of this city is under siege by the
drug addicts. There are areas that are better. So there
are the core parts of the city that do have
(11:09):
the humanitarian disaster that are still ongoing today. And that
is one of the things that Daniel Lurie promised on
day one. He was going to be tackling that. It's
not just a tenderloin, but it's maybe half a mile
south of there, in an area Soma south of Market,
Soma sixth Street and Mission, Sixth and Mission is another
ground zero. He promised to go after that with the
(11:32):
drug dealers and dealing and homeless and all that. That
is what he promises from day one. He even tweeted
that yesterday or today is something, so we are hopeful.
I am hopeful. We're hoping that our hard work and
our tax dollars are to be used prudently from this
(11:53):
point going forward.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
All right, Richie Greenberg, thank you very much, my pleasure.
Thank you from San Francisco, London. Breed finally been kicked
out of office. You got a business executive. You're going to
be running things and try to put the place back together.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Okay, We've got more coming up on the John co
Belt Shows.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
You can follow us at John Cobelt Radio at John
Coblt Radio. This is good news. Kevin Kylie, We've hit
him on the show a number of times. He is
a former state legislator now a congressman from northern California.
Kevin Kylie, He's going to introduce a federal bill that
would cut off all the funding for the failed California
(12:40):
High Speed Rail project, and that's going to save the
United States of America at least eight billion dollars. California
High Speed Rail is nothing but a giant, corrupt money suck.
There is no other project like this in the world.
(13:02):
Trust me, I've looked, I have. I've gone to foreign
countries looking for a worse project.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
There is nothing.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
This is the most money spent on a project that's
produced nothing, absolutely nothing, and it's going to be many,
many years before they project any kind of rail service
will be available, and all they're looking at is Bakersfield.
(13:31):
Tom Or said. The construction estimates, which started sixteen plus
years ago, the original estimate was thirty three billion dollars.
May I remind you the thirty three billion dollars was
going to get us high speed rail that ran from
Sacramento to San Francisco to Los Angeles, through Anaheim and
(13:54):
down to San Diego. That was the original plan, Sacramento
to San Diego and everywhere in between for thirty three billion.
Right now the projection is one hundred and thirty five billion,
and you're only going to get Bakersfield to Merced one
(14:15):
hundred and thirty five billion. They're desperately trying to connect
Bakersfield and Merced because then they then they'll say, hey,
look what we did. And they've never heard of the
term don't throw good money after bad. This is such
an embarrassing disaster. And the thing is they keep spending
(14:38):
the money and nobody in government ever addresses all the
horrible waste. This is like living in East Germany or
the Soviet Union, where all kinds of terrible disasters happen.
It's like even when Chernobyl imploded back back in the
(14:58):
Soviet Union, all the officials just look the other way,
pretended nothing happened. And the high speed rail is our
financial version of Chernobyl.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
It is a complete disaster. Now.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
The vic Ramaswami confirmed last week that the DOGE Commission
is going to be looking at removing all the funding
from high speed rail. So Kevin Kyleie is going to
introduce a bill and see this will carry some weight
because you'll have a California Republican convincing the rest of
the California well convincing the rest of the Republican House
(15:39):
and Republican Senate that it's time to end this thing.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Now.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Trump has other ways to end it, but the most
permanent way would have Congress pass a bill that Trump signs.
He could end it by blocking the money through the
Federal Railroad administration. He could issue executive orders, he could
have the Department of Justice tie up the construction with
legal issues.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
But as.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
As one expert here says, Tylie's bill is the cleanest
way to do it. It would be simply passed legislation
that Trump would never veto. Trump can stop funding in
other ways if for some reason it didn't get through,
but this would be much more permanent. And this would
be a great way to stick it to Gavin Newsom
(16:28):
because Newsom has presided over almost the entire history of
high speed rail. Remember he was lieutenant governor for eight
years and six years as governor. That's fourteen out of
the sixteen years Gavin Newsom has held a high office
in California and watched all the billions of dollars go
(16:50):
into the toilet, and he tried, he'd wanted to stop it,
but he didn't have the guts because he's a he's
one of these pajama boys, and he couldn't stand up
to the construction unions which wanted to suck out the
money to give their members make work, fake work jobs,
(17:10):
which is what this is all. That's the only thing
that brager. What are all the jobs that created? You
created fake jobs? You have hundreds of workers working every
day producing nothing. There is no rail and there's not
going to be any rail. They haven't even bought up
all the land. Yet after sixteen plus years, the state
(17:31):
doesn't even own all the land that they need. So
hopefully Kevin Kylie's bill will be this will be the
final flush. That's what they ought to call the bill,
the final flush. Now when we return, this really ruined
my morning. Some people ought to get off the stage
and stay off the stage. And Kamala Harris is trying
(17:55):
to find a way to climb back on the stage
and maybe run for governor.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
This out horrifying.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
She's an absolute idiot, and she's got no business running California.
She had no business running for president. I'm seriously well,
I'll save it till we come back.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
There you go. What a genius. Okay, we've got more
coming up on the John Cobelt Show.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
You're listening to John cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
All right, onto something that this, this whole, this whole
issue should not really exist in a normal world, nobody
would consider Kamala Harris to become governor of California. Yet
not I read not one, but two articles today, one
in the La Times and one in one CNN. George
(18:50):
Skelton is this ancient columnist, He's somewhere in his mid eighties.
I think who still writes for the La Times and
the headline says Kamala Harris should run for governor if
she wants to solve California's problems? Well, how does why
(19:11):
does anyone think Kamala Harris can solve any political, any
public problem? What indication has there been? She helped create
some of the worst problems in the state when she
wrote the title in summary for Prop. Forty seven, the
Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, that unleashed so much crime,
(19:35):
so much public drug addiction, and so much homelessness. Much
of the problems over the last ten years goes back
to the day that she or someone on her staff
typed the words Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, thereby lying
to the public on what Prop forty seven was.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Going to do. The intention was.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
To further clear out the prisons and the jails and
not put anyone away for anything. George Gascone was the
co writer. So what do you think the intent was?
She teamed up with George Gascone to massively deceive the
public and create an intolerable situation of crime and homelessness
(20:20):
and public drug addiction, and she's the one considered a
favorite to be governor.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Why would you do that?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
And how come nobody in the media asks that, am
I insane? She really wrote that that really had an
effect on Prop forty seven passing, and it really was
this disgusting disaster which we just repealed. We just repealed
by a seventy to thirty margin most of Prop forty seven.
(20:52):
So why would you do this? We just got rid
of the guy who wrote Prop forty seven, George Gascon.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
He got kicked out of office in La County.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
I mean, the two most left wing disasters of a
city are La and San Francisco. The mayor's been kicked
out of San Francisco, the DA has been kicked out,
Several school board members were kicked out here in La
the DA was finally kicked out. Why would you go
back to Kamala Harris. She's a loser, she's a failure.
(21:25):
She never did anything, but oh, let's go to her
vice presidency. I'm sorry to keep beating this dead horse,
but really, she was in charge of the border and
ten million people crossed it. Total failure, and we saw
what she's like as a candidate she can't talk, she
can't think, She had no ideas, She made no sense
(21:49):
most of the time. I mean, I wonder if she's
got really some kind of brain disorder. And then she
though the only thing she's put out publicly since, uh,
since the law US was a video to her supporters
where it seemed like she was drunk. In fact, much
of the time when she spoke and we played all
the clips, she sounded like she was stoned. You can't
(22:12):
be serious. We already have a disaster of a governor.
Why would you follow up Gavin Newsom with Kamala Harris.
Ah Newsom comes across as Albert Einstein next to Kamala Harris,
And I am right on this, and you know you
(22:33):
feel the same way. Who wants her? Who the hell
would want Kamala Harris? She has been a failure and
we just watched her for one hundred days. You can't say, well,
you don't really know the real Kamala Harris. You know,
behind closed doors she was from very of fact, No.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
She wasn't.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
And now we've seen her out in the open. Then
I read these ridiculous stories in CNN, says top aids
and people close to Kamala Harris have are divided over
whether she should head home to run for California, and
it all comes down to whether they believe she could
win the Democratic nomination for president. Oh no, she can't
(23:17):
win that There are much more accomplished, smarter, and more
articulate Democrats. She is going to end up like she
did in twenty nineteen, dropping out before the primaries because
she makes no sense when she talks.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
And who are these advisors?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Are the people who told her, Hey, when you go
on television, tell everybody that you're going to do exactly
the same thing as Joe Biden. You're not going to
change a thing.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
I insane. Other aids worry that.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
In a longer campaign longer than one hundred days, Harris
might fizzle out and follow her loss to Trump with
the humiliation of being rejected by her own party. She
was rejected by her own party in twenty nineteen. She
was rejected by her own party in the state of
California when she ran for president. Of course, she's going
(24:21):
to be rejected because even Democratic see, because you know,
because of the vice presidency job. Biden said it. He
wanted he wanted to he wanted a black woman. That's
the only reason she got it. He made it clear
up front, who's going to be vice president. You've got
You've got hundreds of possibilities, plausible candidates for vice president.
(24:47):
He said, I want to have a black woman, and
he picked a terrible candidate. I'm sure there was a
better choice than Kamala even with those restrictions. Oh my god.
And everybody knows this, and they pretend otherwise. Why do
they pretend otherwise? Quit the Kamala campaign and go go
(25:13):
find another candidate who's intelligent, who speaks clearly, who has
original thoughts or copies other people's thoughts, as long as
there's something useful there.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
But stop it with this. This sounds sounds like just
got brain damage. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Half the time when we played her clips, I had
no idea what she was talking about. Nobody else did either.
Everybody was just faking it and playing pretend. There's nothing
in there. There's nothing.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Can't make her governor.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
But short Skeleton wrote, Kamala could make history as the
first woman in person of color to be elected California governor. No,
who cares? What is the obsession with skin color at
this late day? And this obsession with what gender you are.
You gotta have somebody competent. We had an incompetent white
man for the last six years. It's been horrible. Why
(26:15):
would you followed up with an incompetent black woman. Why
why do we only have incompetent people being elected? And
then everybody fixates on color and gender. No, it's it's
their intelligence, it's their judgment.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Of course, that's never discussed.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
You know, I wish they would stop stop describing candidates
by their race and their gender. Why don't you start
describing them by their intelligence level. Let's have public IQ
tests and we reveal the results. She doesn't make triple digits,
(26:56):
but George just Skelton says she'd have to be eager
to deal with homelessness. Deal with homelessness. She created all this,
the housing shortage, the housing shortage. You know, if we
weren't housing several million illegal aliens, there'd be a lot
of empty housing that we could use to put in
American citizens. We could increase the supply of housing tremendously
(27:21):
if we weren't a sanctuary for millions of illegal aliens.
Apparently that's another thing you can't discuss she'd have to
deal with street crime again see Prop forty seven over regulation.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
Well, that's all done by her party.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
It's a one party system, so she has to deal
with this and this and this and this.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Except it's her own party.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
And when she was in Congress, she voted as the
most liberal senator out of all of them, the most
liberal was Kamala Harris. So she's not going to fix homelessness.
Her party creates homelessness, create a housing shortage, they create
the street crime, they create the overregulation.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
What is she going to do?
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Come on, you know, you know, if you're in business
and you saw her walking in to run your company,
you'd be putting out new resumes in five minutes because
you know the place would be going into the ground.
Oh yeah, yey, Okay, We've got more coming up on
the John cobelt Show.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
You're listening to John Cobelts on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
One of our favorite topics is, well, this headline got
me in the Wall Street Journal. Meet the people who
refuse to go back to the office and lost their jobs. Finally,
now companies are getting rid of the deadbeats who don't
want to show up at work. Amazon is requiring employees
(28:58):
to report five days a week.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Five days.
Speaker 5 (29:02):
That's not fair.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
That would be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. No Fridays, Fridays,
Oh no ups. JP Morgan Boeing have also called their
workers back for five days. You know, that's really that's
that violates the Eighth Amendments.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
That is cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
Some people were not showing up for work and they
got fired. Publicist Media terminated several dozen employees who wouldn't
show up for the required days. Other companies, Roadblocks and
Grinder have offered several packages to employees who won't show up.
(29:50):
Snap the technology, the social media company laid off workers.
Now listen Listen to a couple of the people who
found themselves fired. Stephanie Pittman lost her remote job. She
worked at her home in Wichita, Kansas. The company was
based in California, and now she's upset because they wanted
(30:13):
to show up for work in California.
Speaker 6 (30:16):
Well, I could understand if she was told that she
could remote in permanently because she moved away, or that
I can that I can understand.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
You kind of have to know that day is coming though.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:28):
But if you're if you were told that you didn't
have to come to work ever, and you move away,
it is kind of unfair to say, oh, we've changed
her mind and you live, what two thousand miles away?
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You know what our parents taught us. I'm just life
is not fair.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
It isn't It really isn't fair, you know how. But
I cannot What I'm saying is I can understand in that.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Well, she had quit a job because the company was
forcing her to work in person, and so she took
this job in California and in which taught. He has
four kids, a husband who's a judge, and elderly parents
who live nearby, so she can't leave Wichita. But a
job in California isn't going to last forever. Here's another guy,
(31:14):
Nathan Vance. He was hired in April as a remote employee.
And this is a San Francisco company, Grinder, that's a
I think a gay dating app. And he bought a
house in Washington State, eight hundred miles away from Grinder's
nearest office. And he thought he could work from home permanently.
(31:39):
Why give up a property he owns? Mortgage rate three
percent to pay the high rents in the Bay area. Well,
they told him to come in and he doesn't want
to make the eight hundred mile commute, so they gave
him three months severance unemployment for six months. Now he's
spending his savings and retirement accounts and the guy is fifty.
(32:01):
You should be spending your retirement account when you're fifty.
In the end, he didn't, he didn't win the game.
He thought he was going to save on San Francisco
rents and now he might have to relocate. After all,
I'm applying for jobs anywhere and everywhere. I'm at the
point where I really don't know what's going to happen.
(32:21):
This guy committed self bankruptcy because he didn't want to
go into an office, or he didn't want to go
move to the town where the company was.
Speaker 6 (32:33):
There as still a lot of companies that say you
can work from home two days a week and come
into the office three days a week.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Yeah, but with him, he's eight hundred miles away.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
Well, I know he didn't screw he screwed. I'm not
talking about.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
I just you can never trust that companies are going
to continue the policy.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
A policy like that, that's.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
True so you have to be prepared to find another job.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Then, because, according to one consultant named Dan Kaplan, who
studies this issue behind closed doors, there's a view among
CEOs quote, I'm tired of this whining about coming back
to work. We've compromised enough, and if you're not meeting
the minimum, then we're going to move on without you.
(33:18):
Because some of the companies asked for three days and
the employee still said no, And so everybody said, well,
the hell with you, because there are jobs where you
can work from home within the structure of a company.
Really depends on your job, but there are a lot
of jobs. I mean, you know, I can see this
in my own eyes. When people don't see each other
(33:38):
every day, then the company loses something because there's a
lot there's a lot of good stuff that goes on
when people can see each other and talk spontaneously and
randomly to each other all day.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
John, did you want me to work from home?
Speaker 2 (33:54):
No? I need the company. I know, it's sure.
Speaker 5 (33:58):
Can you imagine this?
Speaker 2 (34:02):
Is it?
Speaker 1 (34:03):
I'm talking to myself. I'm close to talking to myself now.
Here's an update from the KFI twenty four hour newsroom. Hey,
you've been listening to The John Cobalt Show podcast. You
can always hear the show live on KFI AM six
forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday,
and of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The John Kobylt Show News
Host
John Kobylt
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!