November 20, 2025 • 35 mins
In this episode of A Numbers Game, Ryan sits down with Rep. Ro Khanna of California’s tech-driven 17th District for a data-focused look at the forces reshaping America’s economy. They examine the mounting financial pressures on millennials and Gen Z—from soaring housing costs to the accelerating impact of AI on traditional career paths. Khanna advocates for progressive solutions like a “New Deal for AI” and expanded apprenticeship programs, while Ryan presses concerns about immigration policy, failing education systems, and the widening inequality threatening upward mobility. The conversation explores how the U.S. can harness innovation while ensuring workers aren’t left behind in a rapidly changing technological era.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:02):
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gardowski. Thank
you guys for being here. We have an amazing show
up for you guys today, a big guest coming up,
and a lot of data to break, so let's really
get into it. On Monday's episode, I talked a lot
about affordability. It's the buzzword right now, especially since Mandani
won the New York City's mayoral election. I received a
lot of feedback about young people, especially how they fill
the economy, the worries of their ability to live and
(00:24):
buy a home, and the worry that AI is going
to wreck have it on their opportunities going forward. And
I have data on it, but I think that's a
really good thing going to hone into and think about
right now. And I want to use a pop culture
reference to really a misunderstanding of how young people are
doing financially in this moment. Let's go all the way
back to January twenty twenty five. Right the world was
(00:46):
shaken and it wasn't about the upcoming midterms or about
the Iraq War. No, it was an announcement that came
out that America's sweethearts, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anison were
breaking up because he had cheated on her with Angelina
jo Lee then up entered the American Zeitchist afterwards, known
as Sad Jennifer. Right, Jennifer Anison has been two decades
(01:06):
since she broke up with her then husband Brad Pitt,
but that she's sad and it lingers in the air
to the state follows her, that Jennifer Aniston is sad
because her marriage is gonna work and she didn't get
to have children. And whether it's true or not true,
I don't know, Jennifer Aniston, but it doesn't make a
difference because the narrative prevails. Jennifer Aniston is sad and
she'll never really find happiness. That same prevailing narrative was
(01:29):
created just a few years later, around the global financial
crisis about millennials, the poor millennial like sad Jennifer, poor millennial.
The words just kind of always fit together. Millennials enter
the workforce at a really bad time, there's kind of
no way to shake it. They'll never be able to
get ahead, is what the pervasive idea was after that happened.
That they're always going to spend their money on like
(01:50):
avocado toast, that they're just going to live in dead
and in their mom's basement, and it's just gonna linger
with them forever. That prevailing narrative somehow harry though into
Generation Z, the generation afterwards who were just children when
the global financial crisis happened, that didn't have to look
for a job when unemployment was heading into the double digits.
I don't know how they got lumped into it, but
(02:12):
they've been lumped into it. And while I think it's
true that millennials like myself definitely got a rough hand
as when they were going to sit there and join
the economy and become adults, millennial men actually earn the
most amount of money of any generation adjusted for inflation
at this point in their lives. In their late thirties.
(02:32):
Millennial women lag behind men, but they still make more
money on average than most other generation's women, right, not
Gen X they're the one exception, but Baby Boomer women
for sure, though there were less of them working. I'll
put that caveat in there. But anyways, besides just that
point that millennial men make all this money, there has
been massive rebounds in general and wealth creation since the
(02:56):
Since the COVID pandemic. According to the Federal Reserve, Generation
Z is set to outpace millennials, so you actually make
more money than them. This is even true when you
compare across different economic distributions. Right, So poor millennials make
more money at this point in life than poor baby boomers.
Wealthy millennials make more money than wealthy baby boomers at
(03:18):
this point in their life on average. Now, I'm not
trying to paint an incredibly rosy picture. I'm not saying
we haven't had high inflation. We definitely have had We've
had some rough years, right, But things aren't as bad
for millennials and Gen Z as some people in the
media suggest. We're not in the same situation that young
people were, let's say, one hundred years ago, growing up
(03:40):
during the Great Depression. The one key area of wealth
generation that hasn't kept up for millennials and Gen Z, though,
is housing. Data from the Federal Reserve of Saint Louis
is the national median sales price on a house in
the US reached four hundred and ten thousand dollars in
Q two, twenty twenty five. Additionally, Zillo, the website Zillo
(04:02):
of draw that I'm up at four o'clock in the
morning searching for houses that I can't afford. That website
put that home values have increased by forty five percent
since twenty twenty, obviously unsustainable people trying to buy their
first house. Zoning laws are often blamed for this right
you can't build in a number of places like San Francisco,
which is one hundred percent true. But a big driver
(04:24):
for that population growth is also a mass immigration. We
are increasing the population at an unnaturally faster rate. If
you just had births versus deaths, our population would be increasing,
but bringing in more than one point one million legal
immigrants per year is making the situation much harder. It's
not just a supply issue when it comes to housing,
(04:45):
is also a demand issue. The demand grows as the
population grows, and it grows primarily by immigration, not to
mention corporations and foreigners buying up housing. So young people
long and short of it, have made big advances in
the last twenty years. And when I say young people,
people under forty or around forty from millennials, we are
(05:06):
middle aged guys. Sorry to break it to you, it's
hard for me to deal with sometimes too. I've actually
been saying I'm in middle age for a while now,
so that way, when I'm like real thick in the
middle Agian, noess, it won't affect me because I've been
saying something like thirty three. Anyway, we have made big
gains as a generation since the Great Recession, which is good.
There are growing concerns though, that those gains are going
(05:26):
to slide because of AI. We're gonna be in an
error soon where AI, you know, may take millions or
tens of millions of jobs and bring unemployment too much higher.
Big corporations are investing heavily into into AI. Research shows
that research into AI and generative AI spending, the amount
of spending is spent into those initiatives is probably the
(05:49):
one thing keeping the US out of a recession. They spend.
Three companies spent three hundred and seventy five billion dollars
on AI research in twenty twenty five, and it's expected
to hit half a trick billion dollars in twenty twenty six.
Here's how Dan Iver's managing director of web Bush Securities
put it, quote, it's the start of trillions being spent
(06:09):
in this in this build out for a fourth industrial revolution.
Big tech right now is doing the equivalent of building
up Vegas in the nineteen fifties when there was just
sand or Dubai thirty years ago. That's what's happening. With
the AI infrastructure built out, from chips to the data
centers to the grid, you're really building out the future
economy for consumers and enterprises. He added, Well, that's great
(06:32):
for the GDP overall, right, But is it great for workers?
Is it great for employees? Is it great for the
person trying to make a life for themselves and either
build just you know, enough capital to buy a house
and a car and sustain a family, or is it
you know, or people trying to build generational wealth, something
that you know a lot of Americans aspire to. Proponents
(06:54):
of AI say that whenever new technology comes around, some
old jobs are wiped out, but there's new opportunities that
we have yet to foresee, things we can't possibly imagine.
A study from Stanford University researchers back in August concluded
there's been a substantial decline and employment for early career
workers in occupations most exposed to AI, such as software
development and customer service, but job growth has continued. Entry
(07:17):
level employment has declined and applications of AI and automated work,
but those effects are kind of muted. When they're augmented
form and people learn how to work with AI, the
job losses aren't as severe as people who are not
trained at all.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
AI.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Studies from MIT and the Rand Organization found that the
most of the investments in AI that companies have had
have shown very little to no returns, and they're slow
to integrate AI into their businesses. So maybe the fears
of the sky is falling aren't as founded as possible
because corporations are being very slow to implement this that
(07:52):
they haven't worked out. Ninety five percent of this investment
hasn't worked out, and there is the fear of the
economic bubble of AI will that take things back a
few more years. While AI is slower than some people
had expected, it's clearly going in one direction though, right
It's like the Internet. The Internet had a bubble, but
the Internet continued, and we're going to affect the way
(08:13):
we work in our economy. But it's also going to
affect our politics, which is where my brain always goes
in what happens when there's a permanent unemployment of let's
say ten to twenty percent of the workforce, and what
happens when millions of people can't find especially young people,
cannot find work and thus can't afford to have a life.
(08:34):
They can't afford a family, they can't afford a house,
they can't afford a car, they can't afford that avocado
toast that millennials has been eating for thirty years. According
to some baby boomers, their politics will shift to become
more progressive or more radical in any kind of direction.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
That's not to say that money can't be created because
it's AI revolution. It just may be too concentrated among
the very wealthy, and those left behind who can't get
jobs will not be angry by it. The Trump administration
is really having an accelerationist view on AI.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Right, go all in.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
We have to be China in this race against China,
and a lot of voters, including in private polling that
I've seen at or asking really, why why does it matter?
I don't understand there's more fear out of AI than
I think there is optimism, whether that is good founded
or unfounded or bad or whatnot. I'm just telling you
the data as it is, and I think that progressives
(09:28):
are starting to look at the temperature in the room
and saying we need to have an answer to that
call to the AI revolution, to what's happening to jobs,
and I think that they're really already testing the waters
on it. With me on today's episode is Democratic Congressman
Roe Kanna, and he has a progressive message on AI.
His conversation, I hope will bring insight to how Democrats,
(09:50):
especially left wing Democrats, progressive Democrats, will approach this policy
going forward, and what it could mean for our politics
in general, and who is really answering people's anxiety. That's
coming up next congress and ro Kana has represented a
California seventeen districts since twenty seventeen. It's known as the
(10:11):
trillion Dollar District as it's home to so many tech companies. Congressman,
thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Well, thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Well, first, I want to ask you about how you
think AI is currently affecting the economy, especially when it
comes to wages and job growth, because there's a big
difference between GDP as a whole and jobs and wages specifically.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well, I think it's had a bifurcated effect. On the
one hand, you've had obviously a data center build out,
a huge CAPEX expenditure. That's created some jobs for electricians,
for unions, for people who are building these centers, and
there's also been huge wealth generation for those who have
invested in AI, who are developing AI, and who're in
(10:54):
the capitol class. On the other hand, it is already
starting to have an automation impact, making it harder for
entry level jobs, particularly for kids graduating from school, making
it harder for people who are being displaced, and.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
It is creating anxiety for many.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
People about whether they'll have good paying jobs in the future.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Yeah, you've tweeted this something called the new deal for AI,
and what you said was this, you call for an
AI jobs new deal, future workforce, administration hires for young
graduates and displaced workers in care jobs, government services, national
security laws, protect drivers from automation, provoking immunity for algorithmic content,
and emphasizing humanities in schools. Can you go into a
(11:42):
little detail what that actually means and how be executed.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Sure, if you're a college graduate or you're a graduate.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Of and you're not getting a job, then the federal
government would say, Okay, we're either going to help create
an apprenticeship and subsidizing it at a private company, or
we're going to help you in your local community do
some care job, whether it's healthcare, childcare, eldercare, or in
your local community, work on some project for that community,
whether it's an infrastructure project or whether it's a project
of delivering services. Or we could come into the federal
(12:11):
government to help make government more efficient, either in cybersecurity
or digital services, or on some national security projects.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
And this way you're going to get experienced, and then
you can.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
Go back out into the private sector, because the private
sector may not be hiring those entry level jobs. It
can be for people also right out of high school
and trade schools, though I think the trade schools ironically
will be less automated and there may be less of
a need that for them. The unemployment rate is lower
for them actually initially than those out of college. And
I also would say that it should include people then
(12:42):
who are being displaced based on automation, and the people
who should be paying for that, or the companies that
are automating should be having some kind of a tax
on that so that they can help pay for this
workforce administration in many ways. We should do this in
a way that's correct, as opposed to globalization, where we
basically allowed wealth to accumulate and hollowed out communities and
(13:05):
de industrialized and promised training programs that never came.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
So, and what is revoke algorithmic community mean?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
So?
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Right now, if you are Facebook or X and you
amplifies things that are libelists or slander or provoking violence,
you don't have any immunity under section two thirty, I
mean you don't have any liability.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Intersection two thirty, you should have liability. What would that mean?
Speaker 3 (13:34):
It would mean that these these companies may move more
to a subscription model than an algorithmic model, more to
presenting content chronologically, and I just think it would be
less of an outrage driven democracy.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Now, do you know have any estimate that sounds like
it sounds very it sounds very promising. But do you
know what an effort like that would cost by any chance?
Speaker 3 (13:58):
It's hard to say because we don't know what the
display effect of AI it will be. So it would
be certainly in the billions of dollars a year, but
it depends on how much the displacement is, but it
needs to be coupled, in my view, with a comprehensive
economic development strategy, what I call a Marshall Plan for America,
build a thousand new trade schools, have a National Industrial
Development Bank that's actually funding new factories or preventing providing
(14:21):
financing for a factory not to close if there was
a market failure the lack of financing, or making sure
that we are investing in care jobs in communities, making
sure that we're investing in AI tech institute so people
can actually develop an AI literacy for these new jobs.
So I think that what I'm calling game about with
the future workforce administration is sort of defensive. If you're
(14:41):
not finding a job or if you're unemployed, what do
you do? But we also need an offensive strategy, which is,
how do we have an economic development strategy for job
creation across this country so that we mitigate the need
for people being displaced.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Your career, you've been a very vocal support order of
people's personal rights and people's person protection. You've been a
civil libertarian and many facets, especially when the War on
Terror was really ramping up. Are you afraid of what's
going on people's civil liberties and AI about people's data
being really tracked and sold.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I am, I'm very concerned about it.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
The first rule should be you own your data, and
we should have a data dividend in this country. It
wouldn't be life changing, but you would probably get about
five hundred bucks a year just for the exploitation or
the use of your data by these companies. And five
hundred bucks is a fair amount for folks. I mean
we're paying grossery, billy, I mean, I'll take it. So
that there should be a data dividend. There also should
(15:43):
be a right that you have to your own data.
That they don't have a federal government building a social
media profile on you.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Can you imagine how scary that is.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
There shouldn't be companies that are able to feed you
information by building profiles on you. So I think we'd
need I called for this in twenty seventeen, an Internet
Bill of Wrights, and.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
We still haven't had it past. You know.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
One of the problems is, just bluntly, we've had three
eighty year old presidents in a row, and we need
leadership in this country that understands technology and understands how
to respond to that technology.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
So whenever you have any criticisms towards tech, one of
the bigger things that people say is we need this
race against China. We need to be China, right, any
criticisms to our sectas you can't have anything any restrictions whatsoever.
What do you make of this race against China when
it comes to AI, and would restrictions actually promote the
Chinese Communist Party and promote like have their ability to
(16:38):
beat us in Ai whatever that really needs?
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Right? Well, sometimes people make this have not even been
to China.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I just was in China and met with Premier Chiang,
met with the Foreign Minister Wangi, with the mayors of
Beijing and Shanghai, and had extensive conversations. A lot of
people saying this don't know that there's twenty percent youth
unemployment in China, twenty percent because they have over capacity
in their factories and they have undercapacity in software development.
They don't know the lack of economic diversification in China.
(17:07):
They don't know how much local governments are suffering from
debt in China. The concern on the AI races, we
should have talent here. I'm considered that we're banning foreign
students from coming here and pursuing their education. But we
can develop as long as we are open to smart
immigration policy like we were with allowing Einstein to come
(17:28):
and so many of the German scientists to come and
Russian scientists to come. If we continue to do that,
I am fully comforted that our model is better to
lead and we can do that while having sensible regulations
so that you aren't compromising people's jobs, having massive inequality,
or violating people's CIMIL liberties.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Well, you mentioned immigration, so you've tweeted about corporate layoffs
when it comes to AI, and that's a big part
of your new deal. AI think is that corporations have
laid off tens of thousands of American workers. Do you
have and does it give you any pause that they've
also brought in H one B workers at the same
time they're laying off Americans.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Yes, I think the H one B program should be reformed.
I've said this and today I got into Congress. It's
been abused by a lot of companies that are paying
undermarket wages for jobs that aren't really high skilled, and
there's no doubt that it needs to be reformed. Now,
I don't agree, just put on one hundred thousand dollars
fee is the reform. What I would say is you
do need people who have real skills. The best is
(18:25):
by the way, give them a green card, don't have
them in underwage positions like H one where they're locked
into an employer, but make sure that you're getting market
wages and make sure they're really high skilled jobs, not
just jobs to undercut American workers. But if the question
is that has the H one BVS a program led
to American layoffs that you'd have to be in a
cocoon to say to say anything, but yes it has.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Well.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
One last question of the AI and how it's affecting things,
I think you mentioned section two thirty. There hasn't been
any real big reforms. There's been a few on child protections,
but not massive reforms around internet since since Section two
thirty was created when the Internet was in its infancy.
There's a lot of losses going on around OPENINGI and
chat GPT about how these programs have promoted, you know,
(19:13):
people ending their own lives and basically said go do
it when when people have been very depressed. Could companies
be culpable for their programs being anti human Do you
know what I'm saying? So what I'm saying, well, I.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Think they could be culpable for the liability of someone
committing suicide, or someone going into depression, or someone having
suicidal thoughts. And I do think that there should be
liability for causing mental health at harm or causing a
harm to children.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Do you has the Democratic Party embraced what you're saying?
Because I think that the AI is clearly the future,
and it's lacking in the overall national conversation that we're having.
We're getting lost in a lot of things that aren't
the big picture, and you're one of the few politicians
really talking about this in a very forward looking way.
Have other Democratic politicians really jumped onto your messaging?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
I think people are still figuring it out. Look.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
I believe that that we need political leaders who understand AI,
who understand technology, understand what the future wealth generation is
going to be, what the future jobs are going to be,
and have a concrete vision of making sure that AI
is for all of us and not for them. If
we just continue down the current path, what you will
have is tech billionaires, tech trillionaires, and everyone else will
sort of be left to fortunes whims, and I don't
(20:29):
believe in that. I believe that we need as a
democratic society to direct the development of AI so that
it increases jobs in communities, increases wealth in communities, and
doesn't degrade our democracy. The problem is we have a
lot of people who don't understand the technology, who don't
have the confidence to go back and forth as I
recently did in a Twitter thread with some of my
(20:51):
tech friends who didn't like what I said, and have
the confidence to stick up for their views. And I
think this country needs to elect people who understand technology,
understand AI, and have the moral courage to stand up
to some of the corporate leaders who saying, no, we
need you to make sure that this is in America's interest,
in communities interest.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Their job is to maximize well for the shareholders. I'm
not imputing them.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
But politicians' job is to look out for the interests
of the country.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
And now you represent a district, I think I think
your district's worth I think are twelve or thirteen trillion dollars,
which is like insant.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
That's what I say.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
It was up to eighteen, I don't know, maybe it
was over billion dollars at Apple, Google, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tesla.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
So what do those CEOs say to you when you
bring this up?
Speaker 2 (21:35):
They say, you.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Know, representive Connor, You're going to destroy our industry. Or
do they understand that reforms have to be made.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
They understand that performers have permitted They don't. They may
not agree with all of mine, but I say to them,
you can't have an island.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Of prosperity and a sea of despair.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
America can't survive half prosperous and half in decline. I
say call it the anti revolution tax, you know the
when I bring up some of these policies. But the
reality is I am not a luddite. I'm a technology optimist.
I believe AI will help us with medicine. I believe
AI will help us in times of education. A I
(22:10):
should be, like Steve Jobs said about computers, a bicycle
for the mind. It should be about enhancing human capability,
not about excessive elimination of jobs and excessive accumulation of
profits in the hands of a few. And yeah, that's
the balance we need to strike.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
And my last question to you is do you have
a fear then that if let's say we do have this.
I mean, we already have a massive consentration of wealth,
but it is exacerbated one hundredfold one thousandfold and a
massive job losses where you have a permanent underclass of
ten to twenty percent of the population who can't get
fine work because their work has all been automated and
they weren't trained for jobs. Do you fear of a
(22:49):
real technological backlash by the voters to sit there and say, no,
we need something pretty strong against tech companies and in
the most excessive ways.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Yeah, I fear not only a backlash technology. I fair
backlash potential against multi racial democracy. I fear backlash against
America being a leader in the world, A fair backlash
against any engagement.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
With the world.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
I fear that you would have an ugly nationalism that
could emerge. I call for an economic patriotism, that's an
inclusive patriotism that has a role for immigrants and has
a role for innovation. But I think you would have
a very ugly movement. I mean Andy Grove, who was
an Intel CEO and a great founders and escaped from
both Nazi Germany and a Soviet Communism, said well, the
(23:32):
biggest danger is.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Long unemployment lines. You haven't seen them.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I have, and so I think that's why he was
so forwardlooking in America, needing an economic development policy outside
Silicon Valley. I have one question for you, Ryan, because
I see some of your Twitter posts and things in
your always engaged.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I don't even know your politics. Are you more left right?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
So I'm a pretty right wing person.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
I just.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
My belief is this is that I came from a
working class family. I underst and working class people, and
I always want what's best for them. That doesn't have
clear ideological lines. So you have to sit there and
be willing, and if they are upset, they will move
to policies that are extreme, and I don't. And I
believe everyone has the everyone with the ability should have
(24:16):
the right to at least pursue an American dream that's,
you know, one of not just comfortable living, but respectable livings.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
So when I say a.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
New deal hypothetically as I define it, and you can
be blind, that doesn't scare you. No.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
I mean, you say a new deal because it's easy
branding FDR new deal. Everyone understands it, right, I get that.
So I work in politics.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
I understand.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
I'm like, Okay, that's clear when you talk about redistributive wealth.
It's not something I am naturally in opposition to because
I believe we should tax data. I don't know why
data is in tax considering it's clearly more valuable than
oil and gold is everyone's data. What I and I'm
not opposed to, and I do think that the tech
companies have gone very long without any regular at all.
(25:00):
What I get a little anxiety written about is how
do you in a country that is in continuation of
maximizing wealth for very few while importing one point one
million legal immgreds per year who are overwhelmingly part of
the population that would be underserved by this tech revolution.
How do you keep that prosperity going. That's my big
(25:22):
fear is that we're importing future poverty unless we're all
bringing in brilliant tech workers and that has a process
of running out. There will not be unless you're unless
you're going to exhaust that or people or capital belief.
But as far as nearly capitalistic, no, I'm not opposed
to taxes. I lived in New York City my almost
my entire life. I'm not opposed to taxes. I am
(25:45):
opposed to story the immigration issue.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Well what did you make a President Trump's point with
Laura Ingram and then where he said, look, you need
you know, for z has.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
A shortage of five thousand workers. Yes, we need a
market workers. We need to be investigating market workers. I
disagreed with President Trump that American workers aren't talented. I
think they're incredibly talented.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
But he said we also need immigrants to help. But
I guess were you more on Laura ingram side than
his side on that?
Speaker 1 (26:08):
I think that President Trump is very easily influenced them
as by the last person who spoke to him, And
I want to know. I want to know who the
last person who spoke to him was and if it
was our commerce secretary who's been giving him tons of
bad advice. I believe that there are listen, there's an
issue where people I think have the assumption of what
they what they have a right to. And I also
think there's a big education problem. Right we have millions
(26:31):
of people who are not equipped for jobs that I agree,
and the graduation rates are a complete smoke screen because
they're graduating schools with no ability to read or write
and it's just graduation numbers are there to promote ways
of getting funding for the schools. You know, Mississippi, Louisiana's
done amazing jobs of jumping out that. But we need
to really look at education and how to sit there
(26:54):
and get these get school great would you before?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And absolutely?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
And I think that the German model which worked for
a long time, it's not really working right now, but
it did work for a long time of getting these
employers into the high schools and satying this person's brilliant,
just skips college and let's have a method where you
work for a corporation again for twenty years or thirty years.
If Ford were to find a kid from Mississippi who's
not brilliant at I don't know, some I don't know writing,
(27:22):
can't write a novel, but he can fix the car,
why shouldn't he pick him up at seventeen years old.
I do think that those things should be working better
than they are. And I think that a lot of
the backlash the Republicans both in the last election are
mostly around the economy, affordability, and fear of the economy.
I think those are the number one drivers. I think
people thought that Trump had a magic wand and we
can go to twenty nineteen again. But I don't think
(27:44):
we're ever going to be back to twenty nineteen. So
I'm not anti AI on its face. I'm not anti
tax on tech comp corporations on its face. But I
think we really need to have intelligent conversations over policies
and less conversations over personalities than flamethrowing to get Internet clicks.
I find that that's why I try to I hope
you like this podcast interview. I hope I was bringing
(28:04):
very very awful.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
In fact, I to the point that I didn't know
your politics.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
I appreciate that very much, and I've liked a lot
of what you've done on civil liberties for a long time,
so I've always thought of you as a very thoughtful
leader in the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
I appreciate it well. To be continued. I look forward
to coming back, and I wish we could have more
of this. I think we desperately need more of this
in the country. And while you were kind of I'm
not to ask me or restrained, and I'm not to
ask me a single question about e Fstein, which is
what I've been probably.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
About you know, you know what, there's only so much.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
I mean, the email, I will say, the one thing
about it is that it showed sort of the value
of stability and conversation with people who you may not
you may think of as caricatures. And I just think
that that kind of dialogue and seeing the humanity of
people and seeing where there may be common granted where
there's disagreement. We've got to get back to that in
(28:54):
our politics. Not out of a polyannishness, but if you
listened to like the Nixon Kennedy debates and the substance
behind them, we've lost a lot of the just the
robustness of an exchange of ideas. I mean, it's hurting
our democracy.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Right, even radical quote unquote radicals back then, who like
you know, they talk a lot about pap Uchanan, who
I was lucky enough to know throughout my life, but
he was very smart and very thoughtful. A lot of
things he talked about in policy ideas, And I think
that in this platform that I have, I tried to
just raise the conversation where it's not all tell me
who you hate the most. I mean, that's fun. But
I left high school and I don't I'm not trying
(29:29):
to return to it so but Tokersman, thank you for
coming this podcast. I genuinely appreciate it. Now it's time
for the Ask Me Anything segment. If you want a
part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me ryanant
Numbers Gamepodcast dot Com. That's Ryan at Numbers Plural Numbers
Gamepodcast dot Com. Love your questions, guys. This one comes
from and you email me last week and I haven't
(29:51):
learned how to pronounce your name yet her Dwall. I
believe it is from Florida. Thank you for emailing me again.
Thank you for listening, She writes, Hey, Ryan, huge fan.
I'm an immigrant and currently a permanent residence, so I've
been around legal immigrants that right to talk about. I
am from the twenty sixteen Batchel's students here, and anecdotally
I can speak for my group. Not one single of
the people in my batch are right wing, are going
(30:13):
to vote for Republicans in their lifetime. They are probably
a couple who are probably moderate and agree on social
conservative stances here and there, but none of them would
ever actually vote for quote unquote racist Republicans. Would you
say economics would change it? Immigration policy would change it
or would I say, nothing will make them vote right,
because everyone cares about how to get your wife her
(30:34):
parents here, how to get easy money, and nobody gives
a damn about their host country and improving it. Given this,
why why even support any immigration, legal or not. I
can go on how legal visas are abused and gained,
but that would be your whole show. Thank you, Pardol,
Thank you if that's how you pronounce your name, Pardol.
Thank you for listening to this show. Amazing question. So
(30:57):
would changing immigration change if people are willing to vote
for Republicans. The answer is no, and it's been proven
no because we've ran this experiment. Ronald Reagan received lost
one everything except for the immigrant vote.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Right.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
He lost immigrant, immigrant, and black vote, But he lost
immigrant vote pretty substantially back in nineteen eighty four when
everyone voted for Republicans. In nineteen eighty eight, when his
vice president, George H. W. Bush was running for president,
and remember HV was super liberal immigration. He invented many
of the forms of immigration that we have today that
are plaguing our country to all the different visa categories.
(31:34):
And Reagan had the amnesty between eighty four and eighty eight,
HW Bush received a smaller share of the immigrant vote
than Ronald Reagan did. Then in nineteen ninety two, we
had Bob Dole, sorry run nineteen to two was HW's reelection.
In HW's reelection, after he had done another several smaller
amnesties and created brand new visa categories to bring in
(31:57):
millions of more immigrants. During his presidency, he got an
even smaller share of the immigrant vote than there was
Bob Dole. Bob Dole very I mean, not super left
wing on immigration, but much more left wing immigration than
Pap Buchanan and his chief Republican rival. And he got
a smaller share of the imigrant vote than George H. W.
Bush did. George W. Bush got the I think he
(32:19):
got in the UND thirty nine percent. There are some
numbers to say forty four, but I think they've been,
you know, taken it down. It's really thirty nine percent,
thirty nine percent of the immigrant voat, which was considered
the high watermark until Donald Trump in twenty twenty four.
And Trump did not run left wing on immigration. He
said mass deportations that were signs at his rally. It
wasn't a hidden agenda point, and people didn't care. I
(32:42):
think in part because of the economy, they were willing
to give Trump, you know, a chance. And I think
that a lot of immigrants legal immigrants fell at the
border was unfair. Fairness is a American trait that people
talk about rugged individualism and all the rest of it,
limited government, but fairness is a component of being an American.
They don't like the idea that they have to work
(33:04):
for something and then foreigners get to sit there and
abuse the system and take advantage. It's a really intricate
part of who we are as a people. So I
think that that is definitely something that is to cheer
one right. Looser immigration laws supporting amnesties will not make
immigrants want to vote for you. And I think that
there's also an issue where immigrants come from and what
their beliefs are. Right immigrants, whether they have different opinions
(33:26):
over Christianity. A lot of countries from Eastern Asia don't have,
and then at least rather don't also have high opinions
of Christianity, on gun ownership, on free speech, on welfare,
on the size of government. Some of these immigrant views
are incompatible if we want to continue a country that
has been going on for over two hundred and fifty
years or two hundred few years as.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Of next year.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
That's the thing to rationalize and say, Okay, when we
talk about immigrants, it's not like a bag of oranges.
We don't have to bring in every single person that
just categorize as an immigrant. Do they share our values?
Do they provide benefits to our economy? Are they going
to commick crime these are are they going to belong
to gangs? Are they going to assimilate? And assimilation is
really an interesting category as well, because a lot of
(34:09):
immigrants and their children who do assimilate kind of assimilate
to shit lib culture. There was I'm gonna guess because
your name is Perdual, you're Indian or Southeast Asian of
some type. There was a show on Netflix a couple
of years ago called Never Have I Ever, which I
really liked. It was a very funny show and it
was about an Indian girl and she was very clearly
(34:31):
assimilated into American culture.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
She ate meat, she wanted a white boyfriend. She was
but she was she was a leftist. She talked about
Ruth Biter Ginsberg and and and idealizing liberal values and abortion.
And obviously it was just like it was a TV show.
It wasn't a reality show. It was it was it
was it was written, it was a narra, it was
a scripted show. But I think that that's true for
a lot of immigrant second generation immigrants, especially immigrants I
(34:56):
find from Asia who do assimilate rather quickly to America culture,
but assimilate to the leftist American culture, the predominant culture
on college campuses, and I think that's something really to
chew on. So should we take in immigrants, Yeah, there's
immigrants worthy of taking in the world that are going
to be great Americans, but one point one million legal
(35:16):
immigrants per year and any of their family members that
they can bring over and endless birthright citizenship or illegal aliens,
we probably should clamp down on that. But Pirdaal, I'm
happy you're here and I'm happy you're a listener. So
thank you so much for your question. I really appreciate it.
If you like this podcast, please press like and subscribe
on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts,
(35:36):
and on YouTube now can't forget about YouTube. Thank you guys.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
So much.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
I will see you guys on Monday,
Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Gardowski. Thank
you guys for being here. We have an amazing show
up for you guys today, a big guest coming up,
and a lot of data to break, so let's really
get into it. On Monday's episode, I talked a lot
about affordability. It's the buzzword right now, especially since Mandani
won the New York City's mayoral election. I received a
lot of feedback about young people, especially how they fill
the economy, the worries of their ability to live and
(00:24):
buy a home, and the worry that AI is going
to wreck have it on their opportunities going forward. And
I have data on it, but I think that's a
really good thing going to hone into and think about
right now. And I want to use a pop culture
reference to really a misunderstanding of how young people are
doing financially in this moment. Let's go all the way
back to January twenty twenty five. Right the world was
(00:46):
shaken and it wasn't about the upcoming midterms or about
the Iraq War. No, it was an announcement that came
out that America's sweethearts, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anison were
breaking up because he had cheated on her with Angelina
jo Lee then up entered the American Zeitchist afterwards, known
as Sad Jennifer. Right, Jennifer Anison has been two decades
(01:06):
since she broke up with her then husband Brad Pitt,
but that she's sad and it lingers in the air
to the state follows her, that Jennifer Aniston is sad
because her marriage is gonna work and she didn't get
to have children. And whether it's true or not true,
I don't know, Jennifer Aniston, but it doesn't make a
difference because the narrative prevails. Jennifer Aniston is sad and
she'll never really find happiness. That same prevailing narrative was
(01:29):
created just a few years later, around the global financial
crisis about millennials, the poor millennial like sad Jennifer, poor millennial.
The words just kind of always fit together. Millennials enter
the workforce at a really bad time, there's kind of
no way to shake it. They'll never be able to
get ahead, is what the pervasive idea was after that happened.
That they're always going to spend their money on like
(01:50):
avocado toast, that they're just going to live in dead
and in their mom's basement, and it's just gonna linger
with them forever. That prevailing narrative somehow harry though into
Generation Z, the generation afterwards who were just children when
the global financial crisis happened, that didn't have to look
for a job when unemployment was heading into the double digits.
I don't know how they got lumped into it, but
(02:12):
they've been lumped into it. And while I think it's
true that millennials like myself definitely got a rough hand
as when they were going to sit there and join
the economy and become adults, millennial men actually earn the
most amount of money of any generation adjusted for inflation
at this point in their lives. In their late thirties.
(02:32):
Millennial women lag behind men, but they still make more
money on average than most other generation's women, right, not
Gen X they're the one exception, but Baby Boomer women
for sure, though there were less of them working. I'll
put that caveat in there. But anyways, besides just that
point that millennial men make all this money, there has
been massive rebounds in general and wealth creation since the
(02:56):
Since the COVID pandemic. According to the Federal Reserve, Generation
Z is set to outpace millennials, so you actually make
more money than them. This is even true when you
compare across different economic distributions. Right, So poor millennials make
more money at this point in life than poor baby boomers.
Wealthy millennials make more money than wealthy baby boomers at
(03:18):
this point in their life on average. Now, I'm not
trying to paint an incredibly rosy picture. I'm not saying
we haven't had high inflation. We definitely have had We've
had some rough years, right, But things aren't as bad
for millennials and Gen Z as some people in the
media suggest. We're not in the same situation that young
people were, let's say, one hundred years ago, growing up
(03:40):
during the Great Depression. The one key area of wealth
generation that hasn't kept up for millennials and Gen Z, though,
is housing. Data from the Federal Reserve of Saint Louis
is the national median sales price on a house in
the US reached four hundred and ten thousand dollars in
Q two, twenty twenty five. Additionally, Zillo, the website Zillo
(04:02):
of draw that I'm up at four o'clock in the
morning searching for houses that I can't afford. That website
put that home values have increased by forty five percent
since twenty twenty, obviously unsustainable people trying to buy their
first house. Zoning laws are often blamed for this right
you can't build in a number of places like San Francisco,
which is one hundred percent true. But a big driver
(04:24):
for that population growth is also a mass immigration. We
are increasing the population at an unnaturally faster rate. If
you just had births versus deaths, our population would be increasing,
but bringing in more than one point one million legal
immigrants per year is making the situation much harder. It's
not just a supply issue when it comes to housing,
(04:45):
is also a demand issue. The demand grows as the
population grows, and it grows primarily by immigration, not to
mention corporations and foreigners buying up housing. So young people
long and short of it, have made big advances in
the last twenty years. And when I say young people,
people under forty or around forty from millennials, we are
(05:06):
middle aged guys. Sorry to break it to you, it's
hard for me to deal with sometimes too. I've actually
been saying I'm in middle age for a while now,
so that way, when I'm like real thick in the
middle Agian, noess, it won't affect me because I've been
saying something like thirty three. Anyway, we have made big
gains as a generation since the Great Recession, which is good.
There are growing concerns though, that those gains are going
(05:26):
to slide because of AI. We're gonna be in an
error soon where AI, you know, may take millions or
tens of millions of jobs and bring unemployment too much higher.
Big corporations are investing heavily into into AI. Research shows
that research into AI and generative AI spending, the amount
of spending is spent into those initiatives is probably the
(05:49):
one thing keeping the US out of a recession. They spend.
Three companies spent three hundred and seventy five billion dollars
on AI research in twenty twenty five, and it's expected
to hit half a trick billion dollars in twenty twenty six.
Here's how Dan Iver's managing director of web Bush Securities
put it, quote, it's the start of trillions being spent
(06:09):
in this in this build out for a fourth industrial revolution.
Big tech right now is doing the equivalent of building
up Vegas in the nineteen fifties when there was just
sand or Dubai thirty years ago. That's what's happening. With
the AI infrastructure built out, from chips to the data
centers to the grid, you're really building out the future
economy for consumers and enterprises. He added, Well, that's great
(06:32):
for the GDP overall, right, But is it great for workers?
Is it great for employees? Is it great for the
person trying to make a life for themselves and either
build just you know, enough capital to buy a house
and a car and sustain a family, or is it
you know, or people trying to build generational wealth, something
that you know a lot of Americans aspire to. Proponents
(06:54):
of AI say that whenever new technology comes around, some
old jobs are wiped out, but there's new opportunities that
we have yet to foresee, things we can't possibly imagine.
A study from Stanford University researchers back in August concluded
there's been a substantial decline and employment for early career
workers in occupations most exposed to AI, such as software
development and customer service, but job growth has continued. Entry
(07:17):
level employment has declined and applications of AI and automated work,
but those effects are kind of muted. When they're augmented
form and people learn how to work with AI, the
job losses aren't as severe as people who are not
trained at all.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
AI.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Studies from MIT and the Rand Organization found that the
most of the investments in AI that companies have had
have shown very little to no returns, and they're slow
to integrate AI into their businesses. So maybe the fears
of the sky is falling aren't as founded as possible
because corporations are being very slow to implement this that
(07:52):
they haven't worked out. Ninety five percent of this investment
hasn't worked out, and there is the fear of the
economic bubble of AI will that take things back a
few more years. While AI is slower than some people
had expected, it's clearly going in one direction though, right
It's like the Internet. The Internet had a bubble, but
the Internet continued, and we're going to affect the way
(08:13):
we work in our economy. But it's also going to
affect our politics, which is where my brain always goes
in what happens when there's a permanent unemployment of let's
say ten to twenty percent of the workforce, and what
happens when millions of people can't find especially young people,
cannot find work and thus can't afford to have a life.
(08:34):
They can't afford a family, they can't afford a house,
they can't afford a car, they can't afford that avocado
toast that millennials has been eating for thirty years. According
to some baby boomers, their politics will shift to become
more progressive or more radical in any kind of direction.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
That's not to say that money can't be created because
it's AI revolution. It just may be too concentrated among
the very wealthy, and those left behind who can't get
jobs will not be angry by it. The Trump administration
is really having an accelerationist view on AI.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Right, go all in.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
We have to be China in this race against China,
and a lot of voters, including in private polling that
I've seen at or asking really, why why does it matter?
I don't understand there's more fear out of AI than
I think there is optimism, whether that is good founded
or unfounded or bad or whatnot. I'm just telling you
the data as it is, and I think that progressives
(09:28):
are starting to look at the temperature in the room
and saying we need to have an answer to that
call to the AI revolution, to what's happening to jobs,
and I think that they're really already testing the waters
on it. With me on today's episode is Democratic Congressman
Roe Kanna, and he has a progressive message on AI.
His conversation, I hope will bring insight to how Democrats,
(09:50):
especially left wing Democrats, progressive Democrats, will approach this policy
going forward, and what it could mean for our politics
in general, and who is really answering people's anxiety. That's
coming up next congress and ro Kana has represented a
California seventeen districts since twenty seventeen. It's known as the
(10:11):
trillion Dollar District as it's home to so many tech companies. Congressman,
thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Well, thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Well, first, I want to ask you about how you
think AI is currently affecting the economy, especially when it
comes to wages and job growth, because there's a big
difference between GDP as a whole and jobs and wages specifically.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well, I think it's had a bifurcated effect. On the
one hand, you've had obviously a data center build out,
a huge CAPEX expenditure. That's created some jobs for electricians,
for unions, for people who are building these centers, and
there's also been huge wealth generation for those who have
invested in AI, who are developing AI, and who're in
(10:54):
the capitol class. On the other hand, it is already
starting to have an automation impact, making it harder for
entry level jobs, particularly for kids graduating from school, making
it harder for people who are being displaced, and.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
It is creating anxiety for many.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
People about whether they'll have good paying jobs in the future.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Yeah, you've tweeted this something called the new deal for AI,
and what you said was this, you call for an
AI jobs new deal, future workforce, administration hires for young
graduates and displaced workers in care jobs, government services, national
security laws, protect drivers from automation, provoking immunity for algorithmic content,
and emphasizing humanities in schools. Can you go into a
(11:42):
little detail what that actually means and how be executed.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Sure, if you're a college graduate or you're a graduate.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Of and you're not getting a job, then the federal
government would say, Okay, we're either going to help create
an apprenticeship and subsidizing it at a private company, or
we're going to help you in your local community do
some care job, whether it's healthcare, childcare, eldercare, or in
your local community, work on some project for that community,
whether it's an infrastructure project or whether it's a project
of delivering services. Or we could come into the federal
(12:11):
government to help make government more efficient, either in cybersecurity
or digital services, or on some national security projects.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
And this way you're going to get experienced, and then
you can.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
Go back out into the private sector, because the private
sector may not be hiring those entry level jobs. It
can be for people also right out of high school
and trade schools, though I think the trade schools ironically
will be less automated and there may be less of
a need that for them. The unemployment rate is lower
for them actually initially than those out of college. And
I also would say that it should include people then
(12:42):
who are being displaced based on automation, and the people
who should be paying for that, or the companies that
are automating should be having some kind of a tax
on that so that they can help pay for this
workforce administration in many ways. We should do this in
a way that's correct, as opposed to globalization, where we
basically allowed wealth to accumulate and hollowed out communities and
(13:05):
de industrialized and promised training programs that never came.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
So, and what is revoke algorithmic community mean?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
So?
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Right now, if you are Facebook or X and you
amplifies things that are libelists or slander or provoking violence,
you don't have any immunity under section two thirty, I
mean you don't have any liability.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Intersection two thirty, you should have liability. What would that mean?
Speaker 3 (13:34):
It would mean that these these companies may move more
to a subscription model than an algorithmic model, more to
presenting content chronologically, and I just think it would be
less of an outrage driven democracy.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Now, do you know have any estimate that sounds like
it sounds very it sounds very promising. But do you
know what an effort like that would cost by any chance?
Speaker 3 (13:58):
It's hard to say because we don't know what the
display effect of AI it will be. So it would
be certainly in the billions of dollars a year, but
it depends on how much the displacement is, but it
needs to be coupled, in my view, with a comprehensive
economic development strategy, what I call a Marshall Plan for America,
build a thousand new trade schools, have a National Industrial
Development Bank that's actually funding new factories or preventing providing
(14:21):
financing for a factory not to close if there was
a market failure the lack of financing, or making sure
that we are investing in care jobs in communities, making
sure that we're investing in AI tech institute so people
can actually develop an AI literacy for these new jobs.
So I think that what I'm calling game about with
the future workforce administration is sort of defensive. If you're
(14:41):
not finding a job or if you're unemployed, what do
you do? But we also need an offensive strategy, which is,
how do we have an economic development strategy for job
creation across this country so that we mitigate the need
for people being displaced.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Your career, you've been a very vocal support order of
people's personal rights and people's person protection. You've been a
civil libertarian and many facets, especially when the War on
Terror was really ramping up. Are you afraid of what's
going on people's civil liberties and AI about people's data
being really tracked and sold.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I am, I'm very concerned about it.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
The first rule should be you own your data, and
we should have a data dividend in this country. It
wouldn't be life changing, but you would probably get about
five hundred bucks a year just for the exploitation or
the use of your data by these companies. And five
hundred bucks is a fair amount for folks. I mean
we're paying grossery, billy, I mean, I'll take it. So
that there should be a data dividend. There also should
(15:43):
be a right that you have to your own data.
That they don't have a federal government building a social
media profile on you.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
Can you imagine how scary that is.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
There shouldn't be companies that are able to feed you
information by building profiles on you. So I think we'd
need I called for this in twenty seventeen, an Internet
Bill of Wrights, and.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
We still haven't had it past. You know.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
One of the problems is, just bluntly, we've had three
eighty year old presidents in a row, and we need
leadership in this country that understands technology and understands how
to respond to that technology.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
So whenever you have any criticisms towards tech, one of
the bigger things that people say is we need this
race against China. We need to be China, right, any
criticisms to our sectas you can't have anything any restrictions whatsoever.
What do you make of this race against China when
it comes to AI, and would restrictions actually promote the
Chinese Communist Party and promote like have their ability to
(16:38):
beat us in Ai whatever that really needs?
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Right? Well, sometimes people make this have not even been
to China.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I just was in China and met with Premier Chiang,
met with the Foreign Minister Wangi, with the mayors of
Beijing and Shanghai, and had extensive conversations. A lot of
people saying this don't know that there's twenty percent youth
unemployment in China, twenty percent because they have over capacity
in their factories and they have undercapacity in software development.
They don't know the lack of economic diversification in China.
(17:07):
They don't know how much local governments are suffering from
debt in China. The concern on the AI races, we
should have talent here. I'm considered that we're banning foreign
students from coming here and pursuing their education. But we
can develop as long as we are open to smart
immigration policy like we were with allowing Einstein to come
(17:28):
and so many of the German scientists to come and
Russian scientists to come. If we continue to do that,
I am fully comforted that our model is better to
lead and we can do that while having sensible regulations
so that you aren't compromising people's jobs, having massive inequality,
or violating people's CIMIL liberties.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Well, you mentioned immigration, so you've tweeted about corporate layoffs
when it comes to AI, and that's a big part
of your new deal. AI think is that corporations have
laid off tens of thousands of American workers. Do you
have and does it give you any pause that they've
also brought in H one B workers at the same
time they're laying off Americans.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Yes, I think the H one B program should be reformed.
I've said this and today I got into Congress. It's
been abused by a lot of companies that are paying
undermarket wages for jobs that aren't really high skilled, and
there's no doubt that it needs to be reformed. Now,
I don't agree, just put on one hundred thousand dollars
fee is the reform. What I would say is you
do need people who have real skills. The best is
(18:25):
by the way, give them a green card, don't have
them in underwage positions like H one where they're locked
into an employer, but make sure that you're getting market
wages and make sure they're really high skilled jobs, not
just jobs to undercut American workers. But if the question
is that has the H one BVS a program led
to American layoffs that you'd have to be in a
cocoon to say to say anything, but yes it has.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Well.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
One last question of the AI and how it's affecting things,
I think you mentioned section two thirty. There hasn't been
any real big reforms. There's been a few on child protections,
but not massive reforms around internet since since Section two
thirty was created when the Internet was in its infancy.
There's a lot of losses going on around OPENINGI and
chat GPT about how these programs have promoted, you know,
(19:13):
people ending their own lives and basically said go do
it when when people have been very depressed. Could companies
be culpable for their programs being anti human Do you
know what I'm saying? So what I'm saying, well, I.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Think they could be culpable for the liability of someone
committing suicide, or someone going into depression, or someone having
suicidal thoughts. And I do think that there should be
liability for causing mental health at harm or causing a
harm to children.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Do you has the Democratic Party embraced what you're saying?
Because I think that the AI is clearly the future,
and it's lacking in the overall national conversation that we're having.
We're getting lost in a lot of things that aren't
the big picture, and you're one of the few politicians
really talking about this in a very forward looking way.
Have other Democratic politicians really jumped onto your messaging?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
I think people are still figuring it out. Look.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
I believe that that we need political leaders who understand AI,
who understand technology, understand what the future wealth generation is
going to be, what the future jobs are going to be,
and have a concrete vision of making sure that AI
is for all of us and not for them. If
we just continue down the current path, what you will
have is tech billionaires, tech trillionaires, and everyone else will
sort of be left to fortunes whims, and I don't
(20:29):
believe in that. I believe that we need as a
democratic society to direct the development of AI so that
it increases jobs in communities, increases wealth in communities, and
doesn't degrade our democracy. The problem is we have a
lot of people who don't understand the technology, who don't
have the confidence to go back and forth as I
recently did in a Twitter thread with some of my
(20:51):
tech friends who didn't like what I said, and have
the confidence to stick up for their views. And I
think this country needs to elect people who understand technology,
understand AI, and have the moral courage to stand up
to some of the corporate leaders who saying, no, we
need you to make sure that this is in America's interest,
in communities interest.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Their job is to maximize well for the shareholders. I'm
not imputing them.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
But politicians' job is to look out for the interests
of the country.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
And now you represent a district, I think I think
your district's worth I think are twelve or thirteen trillion dollars,
which is like insant.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
That's what I say.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
It was up to eighteen, I don't know, maybe it
was over billion dollars at Apple, Google, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tesla.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
So what do those CEOs say to you when you
bring this up?
Speaker 2 (21:35):
They say, you.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Know, representive Connor, You're going to destroy our industry. Or
do they understand that reforms have to be made.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
They understand that performers have permitted They don't. They may
not agree with all of mine, but I say to them,
you can't have an island.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Of prosperity and a sea of despair.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
America can't survive half prosperous and half in decline. I
say call it the anti revolution tax, you know the
when I bring up some of these policies. But the
reality is I am not a luddite. I'm a technology optimist.
I believe AI will help us with medicine. I believe
AI will help us in times of education. A I
(22:10):
should be, like Steve Jobs said about computers, a bicycle
for the mind. It should be about enhancing human capability,
not about excessive elimination of jobs and excessive accumulation of
profits in the hands of a few. And yeah, that's
the balance we need to strike.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
And my last question to you is do you have
a fear then that if let's say we do have this.
I mean, we already have a massive consentration of wealth,
but it is exacerbated one hundredfold one thousandfold and a
massive job losses where you have a permanent underclass of
ten to twenty percent of the population who can't get
fine work because their work has all been automated and
they weren't trained for jobs. Do you fear of a
(22:49):
real technological backlash by the voters to sit there and say, no,
we need something pretty strong against tech companies and in
the most excessive ways.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Yeah, I fear not only a backlash technology. I fair
backlash potential against multi racial democracy. I fear backlash against
America being a leader in the world, A fair backlash
against any engagement.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
With the world.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
I fear that you would have an ugly nationalism that
could emerge. I call for an economic patriotism, that's an
inclusive patriotism that has a role for immigrants and has
a role for innovation. But I think you would have
a very ugly movement. I mean Andy Grove, who was
an Intel CEO and a great founders and escaped from
both Nazi Germany and a Soviet Communism, said well, the
(23:32):
biggest danger is.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Long unemployment lines. You haven't seen them.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I have, and so I think that's why he was
so forwardlooking in America, needing an economic development policy outside
Silicon Valley. I have one question for you, Ryan, because
I see some of your Twitter posts and things in
your always engaged.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I don't even know your politics. Are you more left right?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
So I'm a pretty right wing person.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
I just.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
My belief is this is that I came from a
working class family. I underst and working class people, and
I always want what's best for them. That doesn't have
clear ideological lines. So you have to sit there and
be willing, and if they are upset, they will move
to policies that are extreme, and I don't. And I
believe everyone has the everyone with the ability should have
(24:16):
the right to at least pursue an American dream that's,
you know, one of not just comfortable living, but respectable livings.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
So when I say a.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
New deal hypothetically as I define it, and you can
be blind, that doesn't scare you. No.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
I mean, you say a new deal because it's easy
branding FDR new deal. Everyone understands it, right, I get that.
So I work in politics.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
I understand.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
I'm like, Okay, that's clear when you talk about redistributive wealth.
It's not something I am naturally in opposition to because
I believe we should tax data. I don't know why
data is in tax considering it's clearly more valuable than
oil and gold is everyone's data. What I and I'm
not opposed to, and I do think that the tech
companies have gone very long without any regular at all.
(25:00):
What I get a little anxiety written about is how
do you in a country that is in continuation of
maximizing wealth for very few while importing one point one
million legal immgreds per year who are overwhelmingly part of
the population that would be underserved by this tech revolution.
How do you keep that prosperity going. That's my big
(25:22):
fear is that we're importing future poverty unless we're all
bringing in brilliant tech workers and that has a process
of running out. There will not be unless you're unless
you're going to exhaust that or people or capital belief.
But as far as nearly capitalistic, no, I'm not opposed
to taxes. I lived in New York City my almost
my entire life. I'm not opposed to taxes. I am
(25:45):
opposed to story the immigration issue.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Well what did you make a President Trump's point with
Laura Ingram and then where he said, look, you need
you know, for z has.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
A shortage of five thousand workers. Yes, we need a
market workers. We need to be investigating market workers. I
disagreed with President Trump that American workers aren't talented. I
think they're incredibly talented.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
But he said we also need immigrants to help. But
I guess were you more on Laura ingram side than
his side on that?
Speaker 1 (26:08):
I think that President Trump is very easily influenced them
as by the last person who spoke to him, And
I want to know. I want to know who the
last person who spoke to him was and if it
was our commerce secretary who's been giving him tons of
bad advice. I believe that there are listen, there's an
issue where people I think have the assumption of what
they what they have a right to. And I also
think there's a big education problem. Right we have millions
(26:31):
of people who are not equipped for jobs that I agree,
and the graduation rates are a complete smoke screen because
they're graduating schools with no ability to read or write
and it's just graduation numbers are there to promote ways
of getting funding for the schools. You know, Mississippi, Louisiana's
done amazing jobs of jumping out that. But we need
to really look at education and how to sit there
(26:54):
and get these get school great would you before?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
And absolutely?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
And I think that the German model which worked for
a long time, it's not really working right now, but
it did work for a long time of getting these
employers into the high schools and satying this person's brilliant,
just skips college and let's have a method where you
work for a corporation again for twenty years or thirty years.
If Ford were to find a kid from Mississippi who's
not brilliant at I don't know, some I don't know writing,
(27:22):
can't write a novel, but he can fix the car,
why shouldn't he pick him up at seventeen years old.
I do think that those things should be working better
than they are. And I think that a lot of
the backlash the Republicans both in the last election are
mostly around the economy, affordability, and fear of the economy.
I think those are the number one drivers. I think
people thought that Trump had a magic wand and we
can go to twenty nineteen again. But I don't think
(27:44):
we're ever going to be back to twenty nineteen. So
I'm not anti AI on its face. I'm not anti
tax on tech comp corporations on its face. But I
think we really need to have intelligent conversations over policies
and less conversations over personalities than flamethrowing to get Internet clicks.
I find that that's why I try to I hope
you like this podcast interview. I hope I was bringing
(28:04):
very very awful.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
In fact, I to the point that I didn't know
your politics.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
I appreciate that very much, and I've liked a lot
of what you've done on civil liberties for a long time,
so I've always thought of you as a very thoughtful
leader in the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
I appreciate it well. To be continued. I look forward
to coming back, and I wish we could have more
of this. I think we desperately need more of this
in the country. And while you were kind of I'm
not to ask me or restrained, and I'm not to
ask me a single question about e Fstein, which is
what I've been probably.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
About you know, you know what, there's only so much.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
I mean, the email, I will say, the one thing
about it is that it showed sort of the value
of stability and conversation with people who you may not
you may think of as caricatures. And I just think
that that kind of dialogue and seeing the humanity of
people and seeing where there may be common granted where
there's disagreement. We've got to get back to that in
(28:54):
our politics. Not out of a polyannishness, but if you
listened to like the Nixon Kennedy debates and the substance
behind them, we've lost a lot of the just the
robustness of an exchange of ideas. I mean, it's hurting
our democracy.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Right, even radical quote unquote radicals back then, who like
you know, they talk a lot about pap Uchanan, who
I was lucky enough to know throughout my life, but
he was very smart and very thoughtful. A lot of
things he talked about in policy ideas, And I think
that in this platform that I have, I tried to
just raise the conversation where it's not all tell me
who you hate the most. I mean, that's fun. But
I left high school and I don't I'm not trying
(29:29):
to return to it so but Tokersman, thank you for
coming this podcast. I genuinely appreciate it. Now it's time
for the Ask Me Anything segment. If you want a
part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me ryanant
Numbers Gamepodcast dot Com. That's Ryan at Numbers Plural Numbers
Gamepodcast dot Com. Love your questions, guys. This one comes
from and you email me last week and I haven't
(29:51):
learned how to pronounce your name yet her Dwall. I
believe it is from Florida. Thank you for emailing me again.
Thank you for listening, She writes, Hey, Ryan, huge fan.
I'm an immigrant and currently a permanent residence, so I've
been around legal immigrants that right to talk about. I
am from the twenty sixteen Batchel's students here, and anecdotally
I can speak for my group. Not one single of
the people in my batch are right wing, are going
(30:13):
to vote for Republicans in their lifetime. They are probably
a couple who are probably moderate and agree on social
conservative stances here and there, but none of them would
ever actually vote for quote unquote racist Republicans. Would you
say economics would change it? Immigration policy would change it
or would I say, nothing will make them vote right,
because everyone cares about how to get your wife her
(30:34):
parents here, how to get easy money, and nobody gives
a damn about their host country and improving it. Given this,
why why even support any immigration, legal or not. I
can go on how legal visas are abused and gained,
but that would be your whole show. Thank you, Pardol,
Thank you if that's how you pronounce your name, Pardol.
Thank you for listening to this show. Amazing question. So
(30:57):
would changing immigration change if people are willing to vote
for Republicans. The answer is no, and it's been proven
no because we've ran this experiment. Ronald Reagan received lost
one everything except for the immigrant vote.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Right.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
He lost immigrant, immigrant, and black vote, But he lost
immigrant vote pretty substantially back in nineteen eighty four when
everyone voted for Republicans. In nineteen eighty eight, when his
vice president, George H. W. Bush was running for president,
and remember HV was super liberal immigration. He invented many
of the forms of immigration that we have today that
are plaguing our country to all the different visa categories.
(31:34):
And Reagan had the amnesty between eighty four and eighty eight,
HW Bush received a smaller share of the immigrant vote
than Ronald Reagan did. Then in nineteen ninety two, we
had Bob Dole, sorry run nineteen to two was HW's reelection.
In HW's reelection, after he had done another several smaller
amnesties and created brand new visa categories to bring in
(31:57):
millions of more immigrants. During his presidency, he got an
even smaller share of the immigrant vote than there was
Bob Dole. Bob Dole very I mean, not super left
wing on immigration, but much more left wing immigration than
Pap Buchanan and his chief Republican rival. And he got
a smaller share of the imigrant vote than George H. W.
Bush did. George W. Bush got the I think he
(32:19):
got in the UND thirty nine percent. There are some
numbers to say forty four, but I think they've been,
you know, taken it down. It's really thirty nine percent,
thirty nine percent of the immigrant voat, which was considered
the high watermark until Donald Trump in twenty twenty four.
And Trump did not run left wing on immigration. He
said mass deportations that were signs at his rally. It
wasn't a hidden agenda point, and people didn't care. I
(32:42):
think in part because of the economy, they were willing
to give Trump, you know, a chance. And I think
that a lot of immigrants legal immigrants fell at the
border was unfair. Fairness is a American trait that people
talk about rugged individualism and all the rest of it,
limited government, but fairness is a component of being an American.
They don't like the idea that they have to work
(33:04):
for something and then foreigners get to sit there and
abuse the system and take advantage. It's a really intricate
part of who we are as a people. So I
think that that is definitely something that is to cheer
one right. Looser immigration laws supporting amnesties will not make
immigrants want to vote for you. And I think that
there's also an issue where immigrants come from and what
their beliefs are. Right immigrants, whether they have different opinions
(33:26):
over Christianity. A lot of countries from Eastern Asia don't have,
and then at least rather don't also have high opinions
of Christianity, on gun ownership, on free speech, on welfare,
on the size of government. Some of these immigrant views
are incompatible if we want to continue a country that
has been going on for over two hundred and fifty
years or two hundred few years as.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
Of next year.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
That's the thing to rationalize and say, Okay, when we
talk about immigrants, it's not like a bag of oranges.
We don't have to bring in every single person that
just categorize as an immigrant. Do they share our values?
Do they provide benefits to our economy? Are they going
to commick crime these are are they going to belong
to gangs? Are they going to assimilate? And assimilation is
really an interesting category as well, because a lot of
(34:09):
immigrants and their children who do assimilate kind of assimilate
to shit lib culture. There was I'm gonna guess because
your name is Perdual, you're Indian or Southeast Asian of
some type. There was a show on Netflix a couple
of years ago called Never Have I Ever, which I
really liked. It was a very funny show and it
was about an Indian girl and she was very clearly
(34:31):
assimilated into American culture.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
She ate meat, she wanted a white boyfriend. She was
but she was she was a leftist. She talked about
Ruth Biter Ginsberg and and and idealizing liberal values and abortion.
And obviously it was just like it was a TV show.
It wasn't a reality show. It was it was it
was it was written, it was a narra, it was
a scripted show. But I think that that's true for
a lot of immigrant second generation immigrants, especially immigrants I
(34:56):
find from Asia who do assimilate rather quickly to America culture,
but assimilate to the leftist American culture, the predominant culture
on college campuses, and I think that's something really to
chew on. So should we take in immigrants, Yeah, there's
immigrants worthy of taking in the world that are going
to be great Americans, but one point one million legal
(35:16):
immigrants per year and any of their family members that
they can bring over and endless birthright citizenship or illegal aliens,
we probably should clamp down on that. But Pirdaal, I'm
happy you're here and I'm happy you're a listener. So
thank you so much for your question. I really appreciate it.
If you like this podcast, please press like and subscribe
on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts,
(35:36):
and on YouTube now can't forget about YouTube. Thank you guys.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
So much.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
I will see you guys on Monday,
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.
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.