November 22, 2023 • 34 mins
We examine remote work and its impact on women, families, and office spaces, and also discuss the state of the Senate. Columnists Betsey Stevenson, Jonathan Bernstein, Beth Kowitt, and Justin Fox join. Amy Morris hosts.
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 (00:01):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
look at working from home for working moms. It looked
like a new way for working mothers to strike a
balance between a career and family, but now it may
be turning into a dead end, and one senator has
placed a whole non military promotions. We're going to look
at what this means for the Senate as a whole,
(00:36):
and we'll discuss the incredible shrinking office not just that
more people want to work from home, but office space
itself is dropping, a trend that actually started before the pandemic.
But we begin with the big disconnect of twenty twenty three,
at least where the economy is concerned, because many predicted
that the big economic story for this year would be
a recession. President Biden's top economic advisor, the Director of
(01:00):
the National Economic Council, Isle Brainerd, is a former vice
chair of the Federal Reserve. In last month, she discussed
the risk of recession in the near term.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
We are seeing strong ongoing growth with inflation coming down.
We're seeing unemployment staying below four percent twenty months in
a row now with inflation coming down, and so those
data which have been sustained now for a relatively long
period of time, suggests that there's ongoing resilience there.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So we haven't seen a recession. There is no expectation
of a recession, and the resilience of the economy has
economists and analysts believing that if there is a recession,
the recovery will be swift. So the story, the disconnect
is between the consumer sentiment and consumer behavior. Let's bring
in Betsy Stevenson, a Bloomberg opinion columnist and an associate
(01:55):
professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan.
She was also on the President's Council of Economic Advisors
and was the chief economist at the Department of Labor.
Tell us what is going on? What is this disconnect?
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Well, you know, when a lot of people hear this,
they're like, of course, people are mad. Prices are high,
They're higher than they were in twenty nineteen, and they
don't like that, And the fact that prices are high
and that makes people mad is not the puzzle. It's
that they are spending more than they were spending in
twenty nineteen, and not just more as in you know,
(02:32):
they have to spend more to make up for inflation,
but they're buying even more stuff. They're you know, treating
themselves a consumption spending adjusted for inflation is very very high.
So they're spending as if they think it's good economic times.
But then when we ask them, how do you feel
about the economy, they are in the dumps, you know,
(02:54):
as low in this period as they were in some
parts of the two thousand and eight recession.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Be more of a reflection of a political affiliation. If
you're complaining about the economy and at the same time
you're spending more money than you've ever spent before, not
because of inflation, but because you want more stuff.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
So economists tend to believe in what we call revealed preference.
So this is where this disconnect is very puzzling to economists,
because you're telling me you think things are bad, but
you're spending as if you think things are good. So
which is it? Is it? What you're saying out loud
or is it your behavior. One of the things that
(03:34):
could explain that kind of difference would be if actually
you think the economy's fine, that's why you're spending like
it's fine, but you're telling people who ask you what
you're telling the pollsters that you hate the economy because
you're a Republican and the Democrats in power, and that
(03:59):
you know, makes you hate the economy no matter what's happening.
And in fact, there's recent research that's come out that
shows that that can explain about forty percent of the disconnect.
So we do have a partisan veil that affects our perceptions. Luckily,
that partisan veil doesn't affect our behavior.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
So we have seen disconnect like this before. That's an
historical perspective that would go along with this.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Such a good question. You just ask, what we see
is not as big of a disconnect as we're seeing
right now. That's why it can only explain about forty
percent of the disconnect. But what we do typically see
is if I ask you how the economy is doing,
and then I look at your your spending on average,
(04:51):
those things have been pretty well lined up. But if
I then also had asked you, you know, what party
do you identify with. What you'll see is that the
Republicans are more optimistic about the economy when there's a
Republican in power, you know, even when the economy is
doing sort of poorly, and that Democrats would be less
(05:15):
optimistic about it, and the reverse would be true if
a Democrat was in power. So, you know, we don't
see is the kind of disconnect we're seeing right now
on average, but we do see that there is somewhat
of a disconnect. And so some people have argued that
it's the increase in partisanship that has caused this big disconnect.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
And we are talking with Bloomberg columnist Betsy Stevenson about
the big disconnect between consumer sentiment and consumer behavior. The
money illusion, which you mentioned in your column. What is that?
How does that apply here?
Speaker 4 (05:51):
You know, when you get a raise, everybody wants to
think that that raise is because of your hard work,
and so you want your income to go up. You
want to get that raise, but you don't want the
prices to go up. Now, sometimes we get a raised
because of our hard work, but a lot of the
times we get a raised just because of inflation, and
(06:13):
inflation is when all prices in the economy are going
up on average, and that usually includes the prices of workers.
So that that's one of the reasons why we can
never reverse inflation. And that's something I think people really hate.
But if we wanted to take all prices in the economy,
(06:34):
you know, down twenty percent on average, we'd all have
to take a twenty percent pay cut to do it,
as well as as cutting the prices of the things
we paid for, because it get you know, it's that
idea that you know, if I walk into a grocery
store and I hand over one hundred dollars for my groceries,
well that's one hundred dollars of revenue for the grocery store,
(06:57):
and the grocery store uses that money to pay its workers.
So think about a mom and pop store. You know,
they're they're paying themselves and they're paying for their they're
paying their suppliers. So if you're paying more, somebody's getting more.
Is it the supplier, is it the mom and pop?
What money illusion is the fact that we focus on
(07:19):
what are called nominal prices, that's the sticker price for
some things, and we tend to try to think about
real prices, meaning adjusted for inflation for other things. And
that means that we can we can be angry about
the prices while not being angry about what that has
(07:40):
meant for. Say, are our house prices right? And I
have yet to hear somebody in this economy say inflation
is out of control, my stock portfolio is up too much,
my house price is up too much. It's this ridiculous inflation.
That stuff needs to come down. My house price better
fall twenty percent. Right. Nobody's saying that. People who want
(08:03):
to buy a house who aren't in the market are
saying that, but not the people who who own a house.
So we tend to focus on the way inflation harms us,
and then we try to ignore the way it benefits us.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I'm wondering how long this disconnect can last, or does
it matter how long it lasts. Is it something that's sustainable?
Is it something that folks will eventually grow out of,
the pendulum will swing.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Even that's such a good question. I think there's a
there are two distinct things, which is how long does
it keep distorting people's behavior? And I think people would eventually,
you know, get used to too higher prices. You know,
I think my grandparents probably never stopped complaining about the
fact that, you know, they used to only have to
(08:52):
pay five cents for a coke. But I think that
they probably were buying as you know, they were making
buying decisions about coke at the in the late you know,
and at the end of their life, as if they
didn't have money illusion, But they certainly were still complaining
about it. So you know that money illusion can affect
(09:17):
our perception that things have gotten worse, I think, for
a long time. And it probably depends a lot on
sort of how old you are when these things happen
and whether to be To be clear, inflation hurts some
people while it benefits others. It tends to be very redistributed, redistributative,
(09:42):
and if we look in our economy over the last
couple of years, the people who change jobs got huge
wage increases, So those were some of the people who
who won, but not everybody wanted to or could change jobs,
and the people who stayed in their jobs ended up
really losing out. Their wages didn't keep up with inflation.
(10:04):
If you look at union members, their wages weren't keeping
up with inflation. That's why we've seen so many big
union battles like the UAW. Their wages had eroded really
substantially due to inflation because they didn't have a cost
of living adjustment in their contract. So people who are
hurt by inflation may feel angry about it, you know,
(10:27):
for the rest of their lives. The question will be
really around when people sort of adjust to the new
price level and go about making decisions without giving a
lot of thought to the fact that prices are higher
today than they were ten years ago.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Thank you, Betsy. Betsy Stevenson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist
and an associate professor of public policy and economics at
the University of Michigan. Coming up, we look at how
working from home has shifted from a new path for
working moms to possibly a dead end. You're listening to
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, and you
might have thought that remote work or work from home
would make things easier for working mothers, but more often
we're finding more workplaces retreating from remote work options and
now a push of course to get more people back
in the office. Let's talk about what this all means
with Beth coo At, a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering corporate America. Beth,
(11:50):
are there more flexibilities now for working moms?
Speaker 5 (11:53):
So this is a really interesting question because I think
we did see during the pandemic a lot of companies
started to offer more flexibility and remote work for everybody,
and that was a great, a huge perk, a huge
boon working moms all of a sudden could kind of
juggle their lives in a way that was a lot easier.
But I think the issue here is the way working
(12:15):
from home is perceived. So the perk might still be there,
but it's the perception I think that is really the issue.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
The perception being that if you're working from home, you're
not really working exactly exactly.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
So I think what everybody was working from home, it
was like, great, this, we can do this, this is fine.
Every It was kind of kind of leveled the playing field.
Now that companies have started to call people back to
the office, people who have sort of continued to take
advantage of working from home, are you know, outraging called
lazy by big corporate America CEOs. You know that they're
(12:47):
not working as hard, that they can't really be leaders.
So so even though the option for them still might
be there, it doesn't do them a whole lot of good.
If this is kind of the stereotype that's continuing to
be perpetuated, is.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
That the only stereotype that you might be encountering as
a working mom, specifically obviously working from home. There's that
stereotype that's always kind of been there. If you're working
from home or remote working, you're not in the office,
the manager doesn't have eyes on you, so there's some
question about your productivity. Is it worse if you are
a working mother?
Speaker 5 (13:21):
I well, it's sort of a double edged story for
working moms, which is often the case.
Speaker 6 (13:26):
Right.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
So on the one hand, if you're at the office
too much, people are like, well, where I wind you
with your children? Like, I think that is actually a
question that people ask, and you know, are they good?
Speaker 6 (13:37):
How can they possibly be a good mom? If they're
here all the time.
Speaker 5 (13:40):
And then on the flip side is if you're not there,
if you are trying to juggle and make it work
and work flexible hours, then the question is are you dedicated?
You know so, I think it's a really fine line
for a lot of women.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Didn't We learn during the pandemic that working from home
does work. A lot of places were able to transition
quite seamlessly.
Speaker 6 (14:01):
One would have thought that.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
You know, we saw record profits, but a lot of
companies during the pandemic. It seems though, that this really
was a perk that companies offered in a tight labor market,
right we saw you know, employment, unemployment was record low.
We just it was such a hot job market. And
now that things have pulled back a little, it seems
that this was really not some big structural change, that
(14:24):
it really was kind of a tool that companies used
to lure workers, and a lot of them have walked
it back.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Is this also a generational thing? As younger workers are
coming up through the corporate workplace and they become managers,
will they fall into that trap of believing that people
who are working from home aren't really or will that
be where we start to see more working from home
actually come to fruition and help those working moms.
Speaker 6 (14:52):
Yeah, I do think there is a generational shift here, right.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
A lot of the people who are at the top
kind of grew up this way, coming into the office.
This is how they learned to do their jobs, and
it's hard for them to see another way. So I
do think that a shift in leadership as a next
generation rises could really help this.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
You know, one thing I didn't notice.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Is that a lot of women are kind of cutting
their own paths right rather, they're leaving those jobs. They're
saying this isn't for me, and they're starting their own companies.
They're they're becoming independent contractors. And you know, in the
companies that these women start, maybe there's.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
An answer there too.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
Maybe they will kind of, you know, implement some of
these policies that we know really do help women.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Beth Kelat
about the push to return to the office and what
that means for working moms. Let's get a historical perspective here, Beth,
How is this different than it has always been for
working moms?
Speaker 5 (15:48):
So I think, you know, it's always been the juggle, right,
it's always but there was no flexibility, so you had
to you had to be at the office nine to
five and you kind of had to be available for
twenty four to seven. And this is I should be clear,
this isn't for women really climbing the corporate ladder, right,
And a lot of women then chose, you know, either
(16:08):
you opted out, it was too hard, you couldn't make
it work, or you know, you just kind of slugged
it out you thought through it.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
And I think, you know, we know, even even in.
Speaker 5 (16:20):
Households where both both you know, husband and wife are
really but you know, partners are both working and in
really competitive fields, very demanding fields, it's still women who
end up doing more of the household work.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
So I think that hasn't changed.
Speaker 5 (16:40):
We've seen that men have definitely taken on more household work,
but still women are doing more the majority of it or.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
More of it.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
So you know, I think here we people thought working
from home maybe could be a solution, and it really
has helped. Like we we know, this research shows us
that when women can choose how and when they do
their jobs, that is a huge tool in closing the
gender cap.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
When companies are able to accommodate working moms. How does
that help them?
Speaker 5 (17:12):
Well, First of all, turnover is a huge issue. Right,
If you can retain your employees, that's a big deal,
and I think it it also. I mean, just because
someone who's working from home doesn't mean they aren't as
dedicated and or working as hard as anybody else. So,
you know, I do think being able to keep these
incredibly hard working women in the workforce is.
Speaker 6 (17:38):
A boon for everybody.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
And figuring out a way to do it that works
for them, I think that also does go a long
way in terms of retaining employees. Right, It creates a
lot of loyalty if you can be flexible.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
What are some of the other responses that you have
seen from working moms? How are they handling this? How
do they manage?
Speaker 6 (17:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (17:57):
So I do think this is this is a big
thing where before I think a lot of women might
opt out, Right, we did see that. I think that's
not really what's happening. Rather than be opting out or
giving up or being mommy tracked or whatever you want
to call it, I do think that they're sort of saying, okay, fine,
if this, if you're not willing to redefine what the
(18:19):
ideal worker looks like. Then I'm going to make up
my own rules that fall outside the bounds of corporate America.
Speaker 6 (18:26):
So they are starting their own companies, they're becoming independent contractors.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
We've seen women who are become very senior say I
don't want the time jump, right, this isn't for me.
And I think, again, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
They're going to go on and start their own companies
and that's going to let them make up the rules
that really work for them.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Do you find more women are also disappointed because they
thought that this was going to be a path forward
so they can balance their careers and their families, and
now it looks like it's just being taken in a way.
It's very hard to give a benefit or to provide
a flexibility and then remove it.
Speaker 6 (19:06):
Yeah, and I would say this is not just for
working moms either.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
I think a lot of people feel like they were
I don't know that the companies have really kind of
turn the tables on them in the sense that this
was something that they were being told worked and kind
of plan their lives around it, and then it was
something that was withdrawn. So I don't think that's actually
just for working parents. I think that's a huge issue
(19:29):
for everybody that they kind of got used to working.
Speaker 6 (19:32):
This way, they did it well, and now.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
I think there is some some resentment that this is
something that's no longer an option for them.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Any chance it's going to come back. I know you
don't have a crystal ball, but.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
I do think to your point, I do think there
will be a generational shift at some point. No, and again,
I don't think this is like never in the office, right.
I think this is in the office when it makes sense,
not just to tick a box.
Speaker 7 (19:58):
Right.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
So I think there there's nuance here, and I'm hopeful
that as we see a new generation to take over
these roles, these top roles in corporate America, maybe they
can figure it out.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Bethco It is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporate America
and coming up how one senator's block on military promotions
may put a stain on the entire Senate. Don't forget
We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your
favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
(20:44):
I'm Abe Morris Republican Senator Tommy Tubberville has a block
on military promotions for eight months, in counting a protest
move on his part, pushing back against the Pentagon's policy
of paying travel expenses for military members seeking abortions. Even
as members of his own party are criticizing him for this,
Senator Tubberville says he won't budge.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
I'm still dug in, you know, I'm you know, I
ran on as a pro life candidate. My state's pro life.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
But while responsibility for this falls on the senator and
other Republicans, what about Democrats. Let's bring in Bloomberg opinion
columnist Jonathan Bernstein, who covers politics, and Jonathan as always
thank you for your time. What does this do to
the Senate?
Speaker 8 (21:30):
Well, you know the problem with the Senate is that
it has run for years on informal norms and procedures.
There are rules, but the rules depend on senators sort
of agreeing to do certain things that they don't have
to do. And what's happened is that that's falling apart
over the years. And so that you know the way
(21:53):
that military promotions generally are done is that they come
to this Senate has to confirm them for a general
to become a you know, one star general to become
a two star general. And what happens is they all
come over from the President and the Senate processes them
through committee, and then one day the Majority leader says,
(22:15):
or the chair of the committee says, you know, I
want sent to confirm the following eight items. And they
do twenty forty sixty of them at a time. It
takes two seconds. They're done. But if somebody objects and
forces them to do each one individually, they each take
(22:38):
hours of Senate floor a time. And there's no rule
that says you can't do it. It's within the Senate rules
to do what Taburvill is saying. But the Senate basically
can't work if everybody does it, you know, takes full
advantage of what they can do under the Senate rules.
And because of that, it means that the Senate doesn't
(22:58):
work the way that should for each individual senator.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Do appearances matter in a situation like this? Would this
move the needle on election day? Does it send a
message to foreign countries? How do appearances play out here?
Speaker 8 (23:17):
You know, I doubt if it makes much of a
difference for elections it does. You know, The thing is
it may not actually affect voters. However, politicians are paranoid.
The only question is what are they paranoid about? And
no politician likes to be in a situation where they're
not supporting the troops. So, you know what, it actually
(23:38):
cause somebody to vote against a Republican senator against a
senator because this is probably not would a senator feel
that they were in danger? Very possibly? Yes, So in
that sense it certainly could matter. I don't know. In
terms of foreign affairs, I would say that, you know,
(24:02):
the United States has enough trouble with convincing our allies
that were a serious country after four years of Trump
before this, and the possibility of Trump coming back that
anything that sort of adds to hey, wait, we can't
pass our appropriations bills, we are threatening a government default.
(24:24):
We can't promote military officers certainly can't help.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
There are also those who say that this doesn't matter
at all. Military convention just fine without all of these promotions.
Your point is the bigger picture of how the Senate operates.
Speaker 8 (24:42):
Yeah, you know, the Senate is not a simple majority
party rules institution. The way that the House is Senate
has evolved to protect individual senators. They call them the
rights of individual Senators, but that that it protects individual
(25:02):
states interests as well or the interests of people who
live in particular states, so that you know, if something's
it's a huge country, right, it's three hundred and thirty
some million people, and it's hard to represent the small
interests within that. And one of the advantages of the
Senate and having individual senators have so much influence is
(25:25):
that they can, you know, if the Department of Transportation
passes a rule, or if there's some the majority party
has a piece of legislation that would have an adverse
effect on maybe something that happens in a corner of
Arkansas or a corner of Alasco or a corner of Montana.
Their senators can stand up and say, I object, let's
(25:47):
work it out. And something that they have sort of
that their constituents have an intense interest in, they have
a champion there who has the ability to stop everything
and say, let's take into account the weird effect that
this good rule overall is going to have on my state.
And there's a lot of advantage to that. It's not
(26:09):
worth you know, the malaportionment in the Senate, but there's
still a good advantage of that. You can't do that
in the House. If one member of the House, because
it's a four hundred and thirty five member body, objects,
they can't. There's nothing in the rules to allow them
to do that. If senators use that power to shut
(26:29):
down something that they have no chance of bargaining for.
Tuberville's trying to get an abortion rule changed that he's
in the minority on, and it's not a minority because
he has something in particular people in Alabama. You know
this effects Alabama particularly. This is something that's a national debate,
and you know, the majority of the Senate supports the policy,
(26:50):
the president elected by the whole country supports the policy.
And Tabarilla says, no, I'm going to use my power,
which is really there. The justification for the power is
to do something to protect particular interests. I'm going to
use it so the minority will rule over majority, and
it can't work that way. So if they insist on this,
(27:12):
then the next step is for the majority of the
center say well, we're going to change the rules, We're
going to change procedures. We're not going to allow this
to happen, which would take away the ability of senators
to use this for a positive what I think a
lot of people would say would be a positive center.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Jonathan Bernstein
about the risky nature of Senator Tommy Tubberville's hold on
military promotions and its impact on how the Senate operates.
And you were just explaining about the domino effect that
this has as they try to move forward on other issues,
It tangles everything up. Why can't Republicans just do something
(27:48):
about this one issue.
Speaker 8 (27:50):
Yeah, the problem is that and Tuberville is the one
who's done this, He has a couple allies might leave Utah.
But for the most part, most Republicans think this is
a bad idea. Is that while he's doing it with
military promotions, the rest of the party is doing the
exact same thing on everything else other than military promotions.
Because there are hundreds of executive branch nominations and quite
(28:15):
a lot of judicial nominations which also go through pretty quickly,
usually district court nominations, judges, non cabinet, non controversial executive branch,
though those also go through usually by unions consent or
on a voice vote very quickly, no problem. But the
(28:37):
Republican Party is holding them up and forcing the Senate
to spend a lot of time on each one. Not
because they object to the particular nominations, although they do
in some cases, which in my view is fine they
should oppose those things, but on a lot of things
which eventually go through by one hundred to zero vote
(28:57):
or ninety to ten vote, they're forcing the Senate take
a lot of time for each one, basically just to
throw a wrench into how the government operates. And the
problem for Republicans is if they accept the principle that
people shouldn't do these blanket filibusters, then there's they perceive
(29:18):
a slippery slope to the Democrats then saying well, okay,
we're going to change procedures to get the military nomination
promotion through. Let's change the procedures to get all of
our judges through and the executive branch things through quickly
without using a lot of and that when Republicans lose
that way of using the rules, which they shouldn't be
(29:40):
doing in the first place in my field, so you know,
fifty six fifty seven, fifty eight senators from a party
that also has the presidency and majority of the House.
We're going to get rid of the filbuster and it's
going to wind up looking governing about the way the
House does. And you know, if you look over at
the House these days, that's not exactly a promising idea.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
All right, Jonathan, we're going to leave it. Thank you
for your time. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris.
In the decade before the pandemic, the before times, the
amount of office space per worker in the US was
already shrinking steadily. So fast forward to today, twenty twenty three,
offices are still standing empty all across the country, and
it looks like office space may actually still be shrinking.
(30:21):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Justin Fox covers business and economics, and
he joins us now to explain what is going on,
what is driving the shrinking office space at least before
the pandemic and then after two different things.
Speaker 7 (30:33):
Before the pandemic, a lot of it was just this
sort of mismatch between where the job growth was and
where the office space was. Now, though some of those
same places, like the San Francisco area, have a ton
of empty office space in New York as a fair
amount too. And yet, you know, it's a little hard
to tell because most of the measures we have of
office space per worker just based on sort of macro
(30:56):
measures of how many people work in the sectors that
are kind of the office, and when you compare that
to how many of those people are working from home
most of the time, it may be that you know,
per hour that you're in the office, there's more space,
but it also means, like on Wednesday, everybody's even more
crammed together than ever. So it's this fascinating phenomenon that
(31:17):
there's a bunch of empty space available out there and
lots of companies saying, oh, we want to lure people
back into the office, But there doesn't seem to be
much interest so far, at least in trying to lure
people back into the office by saying, welcome to this
luxurious new space where you have an office where you
can close the door or whatever.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
And so, even though employers want more workers in the
office in this post pandemic era, the square footage space
is going to wind up being smaller.
Speaker 7 (31:46):
It's a little hard to measure, but yes, that seems
to be the trend. Like I got this chart that's
in my article from Costar and talking to guy at Costar,
you know, basically saying that all new leases that are
being brought in, companies are taking about twenty percent space
than they had before. And again in some cases there
are twenty percent fewer workers coming in. But at the
same time there if these companies are trying to push
(32:08):
more people to come in, it's interesting that they're taking
smaller space. I mean, one of the things that's happening
is there's this belief that wow, if we have really
snazzy office space in the newest, shiniest building, that more
people will come in. It's not that they're paying a
lot less money for their office space. It's this sort
of weird thing going on in the market right now
(32:28):
where companies are paying top dollar to be in a
certain buildings, especially here in Midtown Manhattan, and then just
totally ignoring others. And I think that's it's just calculation.
They're like, well, maybe if we're in the nicest building,
that'll be good and it'll impress our customers and whatever else.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
I like, how you put it, it's a weird thing
going on in the market right now, and there is
this trend that it's going to continue at least for
a while. I'm just wondering if this is how it's
going to be.
Speaker 7 (32:56):
I talked to somebody from Leaseman, which is a company
that basically just surveys workers, ask them a whole bunch
of questions about their work experience and how they get
things done, and then calculates a couple of indexes based
on that. And then companies, you know, workplaces that have
high indexes can put a sticker on the door basically
and say we're a leastman plus workplace. And they I
(33:19):
had seen that they had done stuff in the past,
you know, because everybody complains about open plan offices, and
they just found if you looked at their ratings and
whether it's open plan or private offices, there's just no
correlation at all. It's like some people really like their
experiences in open plan, some people really hate their experiences
in mostly private offices. And it's the same way with
(33:41):
office space. It seems there's just no pattern at all
in how much office space you get versus how happy
you are with work and how productive you are. And
you know, and there are other there been, you know,
experiments done about whether being too crammed together makes it
harder to concentrate, and so there's some evidence that it
can get problematic. But I think for the perspective of
(34:02):
companies who are trying to figure out, oh, what's the
best situation, there's not any really clear signal telling them
to stop shrinking office space. And I think there are
other Like in Asia particularly, people already make do with
left space per worker than we're accustomed to in most
of the US.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
Justin Box is a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers business
and economics, and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion.
We're produced by Eric Mullow, and you can find all
of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines
are just ahead. I'm Amy Morris, and this is Bloomberg
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we
look at working from home for working moms. It looked
like a new way for working mothers to strike a
balance between a career and family, but now it may
be turning into a dead end, and one senator has
placed a whole non military promotions. We're going to look
at what this means for the Senate as a whole,
(00:36):
and we'll discuss the incredible shrinking office not just that
more people want to work from home, but office space
itself is dropping, a trend that actually started before the pandemic.
But we begin with the big disconnect of twenty twenty three,
at least where the economy is concerned, because many predicted
that the big economic story for this year would be
a recession. President Biden's top economic advisor, the Director of
(01:00):
the National Economic Council, Isle Brainerd, is a former vice
chair of the Federal Reserve. In last month, she discussed
the risk of recession in the near term.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
We are seeing strong ongoing growth with inflation coming down.
We're seeing unemployment staying below four percent twenty months in
a row now with inflation coming down, and so those
data which have been sustained now for a relatively long
period of time, suggests that there's ongoing resilience there.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So we haven't seen a recession. There is no expectation
of a recession, and the resilience of the economy has
economists and analysts believing that if there is a recession,
the recovery will be swift. So the story, the disconnect
is between the consumer sentiment and consumer behavior. Let's bring
in Betsy Stevenson, a Bloomberg opinion columnist and an associate
(01:55):
professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan.
She was also on the President's Council of Economic Advisors
and was the chief economist at the Department of Labor.
Tell us what is going on? What is this disconnect?
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Well, you know, when a lot of people hear this,
they're like, of course, people are mad. Prices are high,
They're higher than they were in twenty nineteen, and they
don't like that, And the fact that prices are high
and that makes people mad is not the puzzle. It's
that they are spending more than they were spending in
twenty nineteen, and not just more as in you know,
(02:32):
they have to spend more to make up for inflation,
but they're buying even more stuff. They're you know, treating
themselves a consumption spending adjusted for inflation is very very high.
So they're spending as if they think it's good economic times.
But then when we ask them, how do you feel
about the economy, they are in the dumps, you know,
(02:54):
as low in this period as they were in some
parts of the two thousand and eight recession.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Be more of a reflection of a political affiliation. If
you're complaining about the economy and at the same time
you're spending more money than you've ever spent before, not
because of inflation, but because you want more stuff.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
So economists tend to believe in what we call revealed preference.
So this is where this disconnect is very puzzling to economists,
because you're telling me you think things are bad, but
you're spending as if you think things are good. So
which is it? Is it? What you're saying out loud
or is it your behavior. One of the things that
(03:34):
could explain that kind of difference would be if actually
you think the economy's fine, that's why you're spending like
it's fine, but you're telling people who ask you what
you're telling the pollsters that you hate the economy because
you're a Republican and the Democrats in power, and that
(03:59):
you know, makes you hate the economy no matter what's happening.
And in fact, there's recent research that's come out that
shows that that can explain about forty percent of the disconnect.
So we do have a partisan veil that affects our perceptions. Luckily,
that partisan veil doesn't affect our behavior.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
So we have seen disconnect like this before. That's an
historical perspective that would go along with this.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Such a good question. You just ask, what we see
is not as big of a disconnect as we're seeing
right now. That's why it can only explain about forty
percent of the disconnect. But what we do typically see
is if I ask you how the economy is doing,
and then I look at your your spending on average,
(04:51):
those things have been pretty well lined up. But if
I then also had asked you, you know, what party
do you identify with. What you'll see is that the
Republicans are more optimistic about the economy when there's a
Republican in power, you know, even when the economy is
doing sort of poorly, and that Democrats would be less
(05:15):
optimistic about it, and the reverse would be true if
a Democrat was in power. So, you know, we don't
see is the kind of disconnect we're seeing right now
on average, but we do see that there is somewhat
of a disconnect. And so some people have argued that
it's the increase in partisanship that has caused this big disconnect.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
And we are talking with Bloomberg columnist Betsy Stevenson about
the big disconnect between consumer sentiment and consumer behavior. The
money illusion, which you mentioned in your column. What is that?
How does that apply here?
Speaker 4 (05:51):
You know, when you get a raise, everybody wants to
think that that raise is because of your hard work,
and so you want your income to go up. You
want to get that raise, but you don't want the
prices to go up. Now, sometimes we get a raised
because of our hard work, but a lot of the
times we get a raised just because of inflation, and
(06:13):
inflation is when all prices in the economy are going
up on average, and that usually includes the prices of workers.
So that that's one of the reasons why we can
never reverse inflation. And that's something I think people really hate.
But if we wanted to take all prices in the economy,
(06:34):
you know, down twenty percent on average, we'd all have
to take a twenty percent pay cut to do it,
as well as as cutting the prices of the things
we paid for, because it get you know, it's that
idea that you know, if I walk into a grocery
store and I hand over one hundred dollars for my groceries,
well that's one hundred dollars of revenue for the grocery store,
(06:57):
and the grocery store uses that money to pay its workers.
So think about a mom and pop store. You know,
they're they're paying themselves and they're paying for their they're
paying their suppliers. So if you're paying more, somebody's getting more.
Is it the supplier, is it the mom and pop?
What money illusion is the fact that we focus on
(07:19):
what are called nominal prices, that's the sticker price for
some things, and we tend to try to think about
real prices, meaning adjusted for inflation for other things. And
that means that we can we can be angry about
the prices while not being angry about what that has
(07:40):
meant for. Say, are our house prices right? And I
have yet to hear somebody in this economy say inflation
is out of control, my stock portfolio is up too much,
my house price is up too much. It's this ridiculous inflation.
That stuff needs to come down. My house price better
fall twenty percent. Right. Nobody's saying that. People who want
(08:03):
to buy a house who aren't in the market are
saying that, but not the people who who own a house.
So we tend to focus on the way inflation harms us,
and then we try to ignore the way it benefits us.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I'm wondering how long this disconnect can last, or does
it matter how long it lasts. Is it something that's sustainable?
Is it something that folks will eventually grow out of,
the pendulum will swing.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Even that's such a good question. I think there's a
there are two distinct things, which is how long does
it keep distorting people's behavior? And I think people would eventually,
you know, get used to too higher prices. You know,
I think my grandparents probably never stopped complaining about the
fact that, you know, they used to only have to
(08:52):
pay five cents for a coke. But I think that
they probably were buying as you know, they were making
buying decisions about coke at the in the late you know,
and at the end of their life, as if they
didn't have money illusion, But they certainly were still complaining
about it. So you know that money illusion can affect
(09:17):
our perception that things have gotten worse, I think, for
a long time. And it probably depends a lot on
sort of how old you are when these things happen
and whether to be To be clear, inflation hurts some
people while it benefits others. It tends to be very redistributed, redistributative,
(09:42):
and if we look in our economy over the last
couple of years, the people who change jobs got huge
wage increases, So those were some of the people who
who won, but not everybody wanted to or could change jobs,
and the people who stayed in their jobs ended up
really losing out. Their wages didn't keep up with inflation.
(10:04):
If you look at union members, their wages weren't keeping
up with inflation. That's why we've seen so many big
union battles like the UAW. Their wages had eroded really
substantially due to inflation because they didn't have a cost
of living adjustment in their contract. So people who are
hurt by inflation may feel angry about it, you know,
(10:27):
for the rest of their lives. The question will be
really around when people sort of adjust to the new
price level and go about making decisions without giving a
lot of thought to the fact that prices are higher
today than they were ten years ago.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Thank you, Betsy. Betsy Stevenson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist
and an associate professor of public policy and economics at
the University of Michigan. Coming up, we look at how
working from home has shifted from a new path for
working moms to possibly a dead end. You're listening to
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, and you
might have thought that remote work or work from home
would make things easier for working mothers, but more often
we're finding more workplaces retreating from remote work options and
now a push of course to get more people back
in the office. Let's talk about what this all means
with Beth coo At, a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering corporate America. Beth,
(11:50):
are there more flexibilities now for working moms?
Speaker 5 (11:53):
So this is a really interesting question because I think
we did see during the pandemic a lot of companies
started to offer more flexibility and remote work for everybody,
and that was a great, a huge perk, a huge
boon working moms all of a sudden could kind of
juggle their lives in a way that was a lot easier.
But I think the issue here is the way working
(12:15):
from home is perceived. So the perk might still be there,
but it's the perception I think that is really the issue.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
The perception being that if you're working from home, you're
not really working exactly exactly.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
So I think what everybody was working from home, it
was like, great, this, we can do this, this is fine.
Every It was kind of kind of leveled the playing field.
Now that companies have started to call people back to
the office, people who have sort of continued to take
advantage of working from home, are you know, outraging called
lazy by big corporate America CEOs. You know that they're
(12:47):
not working as hard, that they can't really be leaders.
So so even though the option for them still might
be there, it doesn't do them a whole lot of good.
If this is kind of the stereotype that's continuing to
be perpetuated, is.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
That the only stereotype that you might be encountering as
a working mom, specifically obviously working from home. There's that
stereotype that's always kind of been there. If you're working
from home or remote working, you're not in the office,
the manager doesn't have eyes on you, so there's some
question about your productivity. Is it worse if you are
a working mother?
Speaker 5 (13:21):
I well, it's sort of a double edged story for
working moms, which is often the case.
Speaker 6 (13:26):
Right.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
So on the one hand, if you're at the office
too much, people are like, well, where I wind you
with your children? Like, I think that is actually a
question that people ask, and you know, are they good?
Speaker 6 (13:37):
How can they possibly be a good mom? If they're
here all the time.
Speaker 5 (13:40):
And then on the flip side is if you're not there,
if you are trying to juggle and make it work
and work flexible hours, then the question is are you dedicated?
You know so, I think it's a really fine line
for a lot of women.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Didn't We learn during the pandemic that working from home
does work. A lot of places were able to transition
quite seamlessly.
Speaker 6 (14:01):
One would have thought that.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
You know, we saw record profits, but a lot of
companies during the pandemic. It seems though, that this really
was a perk that companies offered in a tight labor market,
right we saw you know, employment, unemployment was record low.
We just it was such a hot job market. And
now that things have pulled back a little, it seems
that this was really not some big structural change, that
(14:24):
it really was kind of a tool that companies used
to lure workers, and a lot of them have walked
it back.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Is this also a generational thing? As younger workers are
coming up through the corporate workplace and they become managers,
will they fall into that trap of believing that people
who are working from home aren't really or will that
be where we start to see more working from home
actually come to fruition and help those working moms.
Speaker 6 (14:52):
Yeah, I do think there is a generational shift here, right.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
A lot of the people who are at the top
kind of grew up this way, coming into the office.
This is how they learned to do their jobs, and
it's hard for them to see another way. So I
do think that a shift in leadership as a next
generation rises could really help this.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
You know, one thing I didn't notice.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Is that a lot of women are kind of cutting
their own paths right rather, they're leaving those jobs. They're
saying this isn't for me, and they're starting their own companies.
They're they're becoming independent contractors. And you know, in the
companies that these women start, maybe there's.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
An answer there too.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
Maybe they will kind of, you know, implement some of
these policies that we know really do help women.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Beth Kelat
about the push to return to the office and what
that means for working moms. Let's get a historical perspective here, Beth,
How is this different than it has always been for
working moms?
Speaker 5 (15:48):
So I think, you know, it's always been the juggle, right,
it's always but there was no flexibility, so you had
to you had to be at the office nine to
five and you kind of had to be available for
twenty four to seven. And this is I should be clear,
this isn't for women really climbing the corporate ladder, right,
And a lot of women then chose, you know, either
(16:08):
you opted out, it was too hard, you couldn't make
it work, or you know, you just kind of slugged
it out you thought through it.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
And I think, you know, we know, even even in.
Speaker 5 (16:20):
Households where both both you know, husband and wife are
really but you know, partners are both working and in
really competitive fields, very demanding fields, it's still women who
end up doing more of the household work.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
So I think that hasn't changed.
Speaker 5 (16:40):
We've seen that men have definitely taken on more household work,
but still women are doing more the majority of it or.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
More of it.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
So you know, I think here we people thought working
from home maybe could be a solution, and it really
has helped. Like we we know, this research shows us
that when women can choose how and when they do
their jobs, that is a huge tool in closing the
gender cap.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
When companies are able to accommodate working moms. How does
that help them?
Speaker 5 (17:12):
Well, First of all, turnover is a huge issue. Right,
If you can retain your employees, that's a big deal,
and I think it it also. I mean, just because
someone who's working from home doesn't mean they aren't as
dedicated and or working as hard as anybody else. So,
you know, I do think being able to keep these
incredibly hard working women in the workforce is.
Speaker 6 (17:38):
A boon for everybody.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
And figuring out a way to do it that works
for them, I think that also does go a long
way in terms of retaining employees. Right, It creates a
lot of loyalty if you can be flexible.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
What are some of the other responses that you have
seen from working moms? How are they handling this? How
do they manage?
Speaker 6 (17:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (17:57):
So I do think this is this is a big
thing where before I think a lot of women might
opt out, Right, we did see that. I think that's
not really what's happening. Rather than be opting out or
giving up or being mommy tracked or whatever you want
to call it, I do think that they're sort of saying, okay, fine,
if this, if you're not willing to redefine what the
(18:19):
ideal worker looks like. Then I'm going to make up
my own rules that fall outside the bounds of corporate America.
Speaker 6 (18:26):
So they are starting their own companies, they're becoming independent contractors.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
We've seen women who are become very senior say I
don't want the time jump, right, this isn't for me.
And I think, again, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
They're going to go on and start their own companies
and that's going to let them make up the rules
that really work for them.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Do you find more women are also disappointed because they
thought that this was going to be a path forward
so they can balance their careers and their families, and
now it looks like it's just being taken in a way.
It's very hard to give a benefit or to provide
a flexibility and then remove it.
Speaker 6 (19:06):
Yeah, and I would say this is not just for
working moms either.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
I think a lot of people feel like they were
I don't know that the companies have really kind of
turn the tables on them in the sense that this
was something that they were being told worked and kind
of plan their lives around it, and then it was
something that was withdrawn. So I don't think that's actually
just for working parents. I think that's a huge issue
(19:29):
for everybody that they kind of got used to working.
Speaker 6 (19:32):
This way, they did it well, and now.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
I think there is some some resentment that this is
something that's no longer an option for them.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Any chance it's going to come back. I know you
don't have a crystal ball, but.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
I do think to your point, I do think there
will be a generational shift at some point. No, and again,
I don't think this is like never in the office, right.
I think this is in the office when it makes sense,
not just to tick a box.
Speaker 7 (19:58):
Right.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
So I think there there's nuance here, and I'm hopeful
that as we see a new generation to take over
these roles, these top roles in corporate America, maybe they
can figure it out.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Bethco It is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporate America
and coming up how one senator's block on military promotions
may put a stain on the entire Senate. Don't forget
We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your
favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
(20:44):
I'm Abe Morris Republican Senator Tommy Tubberville has a block
on military promotions for eight months, in counting a protest
move on his part, pushing back against the Pentagon's policy
of paying travel expenses for military members seeking abortions. Even
as members of his own party are criticizing him for this,
Senator Tubberville says he won't budge.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
I'm still dug in, you know, I'm you know, I
ran on as a pro life candidate. My state's pro life.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
But while responsibility for this falls on the senator and
other Republicans, what about Democrats. Let's bring in Bloomberg opinion
columnist Jonathan Bernstein, who covers politics, and Jonathan as always
thank you for your time. What does this do to
the Senate?
Speaker 8 (21:30):
Well, you know the problem with the Senate is that
it has run for years on informal norms and procedures.
There are rules, but the rules depend on senators sort
of agreeing to do certain things that they don't have
to do. And what's happened is that that's falling apart
over the years. And so that you know the way
(21:53):
that military promotions generally are done is that they come
to this Senate has to confirm them for a general
to become a you know, one star general to become
a two star general. And what happens is they all
come over from the President and the Senate processes them
through committee, and then one day the Majority leader says,
(22:15):
or the chair of the committee says, you know, I
want sent to confirm the following eight items. And they
do twenty forty sixty of them at a time. It
takes two seconds. They're done. But if somebody objects and
forces them to do each one individually, they each take
(22:38):
hours of Senate floor a time. And there's no rule
that says you can't do it. It's within the Senate rules
to do what Taburvill is saying. But the Senate basically
can't work if everybody does it, you know, takes full
advantage of what they can do under the Senate rules.
And because of that, it means that the Senate doesn't
(22:58):
work the way that should for each individual senator.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Do appearances matter in a situation like this? Would this
move the needle on election day? Does it send a
message to foreign countries? How do appearances play out here?
Speaker 8 (23:17):
You know, I doubt if it makes much of a
difference for elections it does. You know, The thing is
it may not actually affect voters. However, politicians are paranoid.
The only question is what are they paranoid about? And
no politician likes to be in a situation where they're
not supporting the troops. So, you know what, it actually
(23:38):
cause somebody to vote against a Republican senator against a
senator because this is probably not would a senator feel
that they were in danger? Very possibly? Yes, So in
that sense it certainly could matter. I don't know. In
terms of foreign affairs, I would say that, you know,
(24:02):
the United States has enough trouble with convincing our allies
that were a serious country after four years of Trump
before this, and the possibility of Trump coming back that
anything that sort of adds to hey, wait, we can't
pass our appropriations bills, we are threatening a government default.
(24:24):
We can't promote military officers certainly can't help.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
There are also those who say that this doesn't matter
at all. Military convention just fine without all of these promotions.
Your point is the bigger picture of how the Senate operates.
Speaker 8 (24:42):
Yeah, you know, the Senate is not a simple majority
party rules institution. The way that the House is Senate
has evolved to protect individual senators. They call them the
rights of individual Senators, but that that it protects individual
(25:02):
states interests as well or the interests of people who
live in particular states, so that you know, if something's
it's a huge country, right, it's three hundred and thirty
some million people, and it's hard to represent the small
interests within that. And one of the advantages of the
Senate and having individual senators have so much influence is
(25:25):
that they can, you know, if the Department of Transportation
passes a rule, or if there's some the majority party
has a piece of legislation that would have an adverse
effect on maybe something that happens in a corner of
Arkansas or a corner of Alasco or a corner of Montana.
Their senators can stand up and say, I object, let's
(25:47):
work it out. And something that they have sort of
that their constituents have an intense interest in, they have
a champion there who has the ability to stop everything
and say, let's take into account the weird effect that
this good rule overall is going to have on my state.
And there's a lot of advantage to that. It's not
(26:09):
worth you know, the malaportionment in the Senate, but there's
still a good advantage of that. You can't do that
in the House. If one member of the House, because
it's a four hundred and thirty five member body, objects,
they can't. There's nothing in the rules to allow them
to do that. If senators use that power to shut
(26:29):
down something that they have no chance of bargaining for.
Tuberville's trying to get an abortion rule changed that he's
in the minority on, and it's not a minority because
he has something in particular people in Alabama. You know
this effects Alabama particularly. This is something that's a national debate,
and you know, the majority of the Senate supports the policy,
(26:50):
the president elected by the whole country supports the policy.
And Tabarilla says, no, I'm going to use my power,
which is really there. The justification for the power is
to do something to protect particular interests. I'm going to
use it so the minority will rule over majority, and
it can't work that way. So if they insist on this,
(27:12):
then the next step is for the majority of the
center say well, we're going to change the rules, We're
going to change procedures. We're not going to allow this
to happen, which would take away the ability of senators
to use this for a positive what I think a
lot of people would say would be a positive center.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
And we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Jonathan Bernstein
about the risky nature of Senator Tommy Tubberville's hold on
military promotions and its impact on how the Senate operates.
And you were just explaining about the domino effect that
this has as they try to move forward on other issues,
It tangles everything up. Why can't Republicans just do something
(27:48):
about this one issue.
Speaker 8 (27:50):
Yeah, the problem is that and Tuberville is the one
who's done this, He has a couple allies might leave Utah.
But for the most part, most Republicans think this is
a bad idea. Is that while he's doing it with
military promotions, the rest of the party is doing the
exact same thing on everything else other than military promotions.
Because there are hundreds of executive branch nominations and quite
(28:15):
a lot of judicial nominations which also go through pretty quickly,
usually district court nominations, judges, non cabinet, non controversial executive branch,
though those also go through usually by unions consent or
on a voice vote very quickly, no problem. But the
(28:37):
Republican Party is holding them up and forcing the Senate
to spend a lot of time on each one. Not
because they object to the particular nominations, although they do
in some cases, which in my view is fine they
should oppose those things, but on a lot of things
which eventually go through by one hundred to zero vote
(28:57):
or ninety to ten vote, they're forcing the Senate take
a lot of time for each one, basically just to
throw a wrench into how the government operates. And the
problem for Republicans is if they accept the principle that
people shouldn't do these blanket filibusters, then there's they perceive
(29:18):
a slippery slope to the Democrats then saying well, okay,
we're going to change procedures to get the military nomination
promotion through. Let's change the procedures to get all of
our judges through and the executive branch things through quickly
without using a lot of and that when Republicans lose
that way of using the rules, which they shouldn't be
(29:40):
doing in the first place in my field, so you know,
fifty six fifty seven, fifty eight senators from a party
that also has the presidency and majority of the House.
We're going to get rid of the filbuster and it's
going to wind up looking governing about the way the
House does. And you know, if you look over at
the House these days, that's not exactly a promising idea.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
All right, Jonathan, we're going to leave it. Thank you
for your time. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris.
In the decade before the pandemic, the before times, the
amount of office space per worker in the US was
already shrinking steadily. So fast forward to today, twenty twenty three,
offices are still standing empty all across the country, and
it looks like office space may actually still be shrinking.
(30:21):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Justin Fox covers business and economics, and
he joins us now to explain what is going on,
what is driving the shrinking office space at least before
the pandemic and then after two different things.
Speaker 7 (30:33):
Before the pandemic, a lot of it was just this
sort of mismatch between where the job growth was and
where the office space was. Now, though some of those
same places, like the San Francisco area, have a ton
of empty office space in New York as a fair
amount too. And yet, you know, it's a little hard
to tell because most of the measures we have of
office space per worker just based on sort of macro
(30:56):
measures of how many people work in the sectors that
are kind of the office, and when you compare that
to how many of those people are working from home
most of the time, it may be that you know,
per hour that you're in the office, there's more space,
but it also means, like on Wednesday, everybody's even more
crammed together than ever. So it's this fascinating phenomenon that
(31:17):
there's a bunch of empty space available out there and
lots of companies saying, oh, we want to lure people
back into the office, But there doesn't seem to be
much interest so far, at least in trying to lure
people back into the office by saying, welcome to this
luxurious new space where you have an office where you
can close the door or whatever.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
And so, even though employers want more workers in the
office in this post pandemic era, the square footage space
is going to wind up being smaller.
Speaker 7 (31:46):
It's a little hard to measure, but yes, that seems
to be the trend. Like I got this chart that's
in my article from Costar and talking to guy at Costar,
you know, basically saying that all new leases that are
being brought in, companies are taking about twenty percent space
than they had before. And again in some cases there
are twenty percent fewer workers coming in. But at the
same time there if these companies are trying to push
(32:08):
more people to come in, it's interesting that they're taking
smaller space. I mean, one of the things that's happening
is there's this belief that wow, if we have really
snazzy office space in the newest, shiniest building, that more
people will come in. It's not that they're paying a
lot less money for their office space. It's this sort
of weird thing going on in the market right now
(32:28):
where companies are paying top dollar to be in a
certain buildings, especially here in Midtown Manhattan, and then just
totally ignoring others. And I think that's it's just calculation.
They're like, well, maybe if we're in the nicest building,
that'll be good and it'll impress our customers and whatever else.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
I like, how you put it, it's a weird thing
going on in the market right now, and there is
this trend that it's going to continue at least for
a while. I'm just wondering if this is how it's
going to be.
Speaker 7 (32:56):
I talked to somebody from Leaseman, which is a company
that basically just surveys workers, ask them a whole bunch
of questions about their work experience and how they get
things done, and then calculates a couple of indexes based
on that. And then companies, you know, workplaces that have
high indexes can put a sticker on the door basically
and say we're a leastman plus workplace. And they I
(33:19):
had seen that they had done stuff in the past,
you know, because everybody complains about open plan offices, and
they just found if you looked at their ratings and
whether it's open plan or private offices, there's just no
correlation at all. It's like some people really like their
experiences in open plan, some people really hate their experiences
in mostly private offices. And it's the same way with
(33:41):
office space. It seems there's just no pattern at all
in how much office space you get versus how happy
you are with work and how productive you are. And
you know, and there are other there been, you know,
experiments done about whether being too crammed together makes it
harder to concentrate, and so there's some evidence that it
can get problematic. But I think for the perspective of
(34:02):
companies who are trying to figure out, oh, what's the
best situation, there's not any really clear signal telling them
to stop shrinking office space. And I think there are
other Like in Asia particularly, people already make do with
left space per worker than we're accustomed to in most
of the US.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
Justin Box is a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers business
and economics, and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion.
We're produced by Eric Mullow, and you can find all
of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're available as
a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform.
Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines
are just ahead. I'm Amy Morris, and this is Bloomberg
Host
Vonnie Quinn
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com