0:00

President Trump said on truth

0:02

social today that he had a great

0:04

call with South Korea's leader aimed at

0:06

making a deal on the tariffs that

0:08

have set the global economy on edge.

0:10

In that same post, Trump said he's

0:13

waiting for China to call. The administration

0:15

says these liberation day tariffs will

0:17

bring manufacturing jobs back to America.

0:19

Why is that so important? There

0:21

are some really dumb ways to

0:24

answer that question. When you sit

0:26

behind the screen all day, it makes

0:28

you a woman. Studies have shown this. Studies

0:30

have shown this. And some much smarter

0:32

ones. This is a policy at the

0:34

end of the day that's oriented toward

0:37

helping some of the folks who have

0:39

really been the losers in the economy

0:41

and have been left behind for a

0:43

long time. Coming up on today explained

0:45

the best minds. The White House

0:47

advisor who's gone ham on tariffs,

0:49

defends his position. Spring

0:52

Fest and ego days

0:54

are here at lows. Right

0:57

now, get a free

0:59

select ego 56-volt battery

1:02

Spring Fest and Ego days are

1:04

here at Lowe's. Right now, get

1:06

a free select Ego 56 volt

1:08

battery with purchase of a select

1:10

trimmer, blower, or a mower kit.

1:12

Plus, shop today for new and

1:14

exclusive items you need for your

1:16

lawn. So get ready for spring

1:18

with the latest and innovation from

1:20

Ego, the number one rated brand

1:22

and cordless outdoor power. Only at

1:24

Lowe's. We help. You save. Offer

1:26

valet through Fort's who selection varies

1:28

by location while supplies last. last. This

1:32

This episode is brought to you

1:34

by Lifelock. It's tax season, and

1:36

we're all a bit tired of

1:38

numbers. But here's one you need

1:40

to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how

1:42

much the IRS flagged for possible

1:45

identity fraud last year. Now here's

1:47

a good number. 100 million. That's

1:49

how many data points Lifelock monitors

1:51

every second. If your identity is

1:53

stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed. Save

1:56

up to 40% your first year

1:58

at Lifelcom slash podcast. Terms apply.

2:00

Terms apply. I always say

2:02

tariffs is the most beautiful word

2:04

to me in the dictionary. It's

2:06

today explained, I'm no well king,

2:08

senior correspondent Eric Levitz recently wrote

2:11

for Vaux about the nostalgia that

2:13

the Trump administration feels for a

2:15

time when American manufacturing was at

2:17

its peak. Manufacturing things in the

2:20

US makes a lot of sense

2:22

if we're talking about stuff that

2:24

we want to get ahead on,

2:27

cutting-edge technologies like semiconductor chips, for

2:29

example. It's arguably a pretty good

2:31

idea to put tariffs on chips

2:33

that are coming in from elsewhere.

2:35

But that's not what Trump is

2:38

doing. He's putting tariffs on absolutely

2:40

everything, you know, clothing from Vietnam

2:42

and Bangladesh, coffee, which we can't

2:44

even grow at scale in

2:47

the United States. from South

2:49

America. He's putting them on

2:51

everything, and especially industrial goods,

2:54

including low-value industrial goods, like

2:56

t-shirts, kitchen mitts, etc. That

2:58

is not a policy vision aimed

3:00

at America thriving in the

3:02

industries of the future. It's

3:04

a policy vision aimed at

3:06

bringing America decades backwards

3:09

in our economic development. The explanation

3:11

for this can't be a

3:13

rational... economic one, but more

3:16

of an emotional one, a

3:18

nostalgic longing for an America

3:20

that no longer exists. What

3:23

is the America that did exist?

3:25

What's the thing that the

3:27

Trump administration is nostalgic

3:30

for? The nationalist right has

3:32

this narrative in which we

3:34

used to have these really

3:36

tight-knit communities anchored by stable

3:39

families in which the male

3:41

breadwinner worked in a factory.

3:43

And this not only allowed

3:45

for working class wage

3:47

growth and upward mobility

3:50

and the achievement of

3:52

the American dream, but

3:54

also for these really

3:56

healthy family arrangements, stable

3:58

two-parent homes. and generally

4:00

a form of communitarian

4:02

life that the religious

4:05

right really values. And

4:07

then there also is

4:09

this gender element to

4:11

it where a manufacturing

4:13

economy puts a premium

4:15

on brute physical strength,

4:17

or at least the

4:19

manufacturing economy of the

4:21

mid-20th century. These were

4:23

predominantly male jobs. And

4:25

you know this connection

4:27

between... The nostalgia for

4:29

manufacturing and the nostalgia for

4:32

a kind of different set

4:34

of gender relations was made

4:36

really explicit by a speech

4:38

from Republican Senator Josh Holly

4:41

in 2021 where he said

4:43

domestic manufacturing Once supported millions

4:45

of American men with good

4:48

wages who in turn started

4:50

and supported families Now that

4:52

industry lies all but dead

4:54

on what the altar of

4:57

globalism And so they tell

4:59

the story that you

5:01

hear in a lot

5:03

of Trump's speeches, in

5:05

the speeches of other

5:07

right-wing nationalists, in which

5:09

de-industrialization, the closing of

5:11

factories, is synonymous with

5:13

both economic devastation and

5:15

decline, and moral rot.

5:17

Rusted-out factories scattered like

5:19

tombstones across the landscape

5:21

of our nation. Are

5:25

the two linked? I mean,

5:27

yes, it's true that once upon

5:29

a time more Americans worked

5:31

in factories, and it's true

5:33

that once upon a time

5:36

more Americans got married and

5:38

stayed married. Are those two

5:40

things linked to each other, though?

5:42

Yeah, so I think that there

5:45

actually is some evidence that there

5:47

is something to be nostalgic about

5:50

in the economics here, because, you

5:52

know, during the time... in the

5:54

1950s when America had kind of

5:57

its peak of manufacturing

5:59

as a share. of the labor force,

6:01

you also did really see high

6:03

rates of wage growth, high rates

6:06

of social mobility people born into

6:08

the bottom of the American class

6:10

hierarchy were more likely to move

6:13

up than they are today. And

6:15

you also saw just a lot of

6:18

opportunity for blue collar workers.

6:20

You know, in absolute terms,

6:22

Americans are much better off

6:24

materially today than they are

6:26

in the 1950s. But in

6:28

terms of the level of

6:30

progress, the pace of moving

6:32

up, this was better back

6:34

in that era. There is

6:36

some research from the economist

6:38

David Ator, David Dorn, and

6:40

Gordon Hansen, who looked at

6:42

localities that suffered trade shocks

6:45

that resulted in massive manufacturing

6:47

job losses, and they found

6:49

that those trade shocks do

6:51

reduce the earnings of young

6:53

men relative to young women.

6:56

those places then see a drop

6:58

in marriage and fertility rates

7:00

that similar places without those

7:02

shocks did not see. So

7:04

there's some evidence that there

7:06

is some true to this,

7:08

you know, which doesn't mean

7:10

that we should value high marriage

7:12

and birth rates over women's

7:14

autonomy, but it is

7:16

just reinforces why the right

7:18

is so fixated about this.

7:21

So the idea is slap

7:23

tariffs on everybody, that'll bring

7:25

manufacturing back to the United

7:27

States, that'll make our gender

7:29

relations and our cultural relations

7:31

in addition to our economy

7:33

more like it was in

7:35

the 1950s when from the

7:37

perspective of these guys America was a

7:39

more stable country. Could this

7:41

plan actually work? No, and there's

7:43

two levels on which it's not

7:45

going to work. First... Trump's tariffs

7:47

are unlikely to even increase at

7:50

the margin manufacturing in

7:52

the United States, at least in

7:54

the near term. The immediate response

7:56

to Trump's tariffs among businesses and

7:59

investors has than panic and a

8:01

slowing down of investment.

8:04

We begin tonight with a major

8:06

blow to the local economy.

8:08

International Recycling Group, otherwise known

8:10

as IRG, has canceled its

8:12

plans to develop a 300

8:14

million dollar plastics recycling plant

8:17

in Erie. Salantas says it

8:19

is temporarily laying off 900

8:21

workers in the Midwest. Now

8:23

that's the company behind G.

8:25

Chrysler, Dodge, and RAM vehicles.

8:27

Our CEOs are split on it. They

8:29

are expecting to need job cuts from

8:32

the tariff impact with more than a

8:34

third saying, yeah, we will need to

8:36

cut jobs at about half saying no,

8:38

or it's simply too early to know.

8:40

It's generated massive uncertainty. You don't know

8:42

what the tariffs are going to be

8:45

a few weeks from now, let alone

8:47

a few years. This is not a

8:49

situation in which you are going to

8:51

put in the money and time to

8:53

put up a new factory in the United

8:56

States that only makes economic

8:58

sense if the tariffs stay

9:00

in place for another five

9:02

years. So... One, it's just

9:04

not working on its own

9:06

terms. But two, even if

9:08

Trump had the most perfectly

9:10

designed tariffs, was the most

9:12

trustworthy steward of the American economy,

9:14

so everyone knew that he was

9:17

going to stick by whatever he

9:19

said, you would not be able

9:21

to return the United States

9:23

to an economy in which

9:25

30% of the workforce is

9:28

working in manufacturing instead of closer

9:30

to 10% as it is today. The

9:32

reason for that is that

9:35

as countries get richer, people

9:37

spend a larger share of

9:39

their money on manufactured goods.

9:42

The human appetite for appliances

9:44

and cars is more limited

9:47

than the human appetite for

9:49

better health and higher investment

9:51

returns. You know, you only

9:54

need so many dishwashers. And

9:56

so fundamentally, we need an

9:59

economic model. that is able

10:01

to get us some of the

10:03

good parts of the mid-century economy,

10:05

the economic mobility, the wage growth

10:07

for people who are not, you

10:09

know, at the top of the

10:11

class hierarchy. But we need to

10:13

find a way to do that

10:16

in a world where we have

10:18

a services-dominated economy. And nostalgia is

10:20

just not a good guide for

10:22

getting us to that place. Vox's

10:37

Eric Leavitts. Coming up, the gentleman

10:40

begs to differ. An economist

10:42

explains why he's been telling

10:44

the Trump administration that tariffs

10:46

are the right move. Support

11:11

for today explained comes from Found. What

11:14

is Found? Found is a business banking

11:16

platform and they say that they make

11:18

staying on top of invoices and payments

11:20

incredibly easy. Found says they can automate

11:23

activities such as expense tracking and you

11:25

can even set aside money for different

11:27

business goals and control spending with different

11:29

virtual cards. Found says that when you

11:31

add it all up, it doesn't just

11:34

help you save money. It can help

11:36

you save time. And other small businesses

11:38

are loving Found too, according to Found.

11:40

One user said, quote, Found is

11:42

going to save me so much

11:45

headache. It makes everything so much

11:47

easier. Expenses, income profits, taxes, invoices

11:49

even, exclamation point, and Found says

11:51

they have 30,000 five-star reviews, just

11:54

like this. You can open a

11:56

found account for free at found.com/explained.

11:58

Found is a financial technical. Technology

12:01

Company, it is not a

12:03

bank. Banking services are provided

12:05

by Piermont Bank, member of

12:07

the FDIC. You can join

12:10

thousands of small business owners

12:12

who have streamlined their

12:14

finances with Found. Support for

12:17

the Support for the show comes

12:19

from Robin Hood. With Robin Hood Gold,

12:21

you can now enjoy the VIP treatment,

12:23

receiving a 3% IRA match on retirement

12:25

contributions. The privileges of the very privileged

12:27

are no longer exclusive. With Robin Hood

12:29

Gold, your annual IRA contributions are boosted

12:32

by 3%. Plus, you also get 4%

12:34

APY on your cash and non-retirement accounts.

12:36

That's over eight times the national savings

12:38

average. The perks of the high net

12:40

worth are now available for any net

12:42

worth. The new gold standard is here

12:44

with Robin Hood Gold. To receive your

12:46

3% boost on annual IRA contributions, sign

12:49

up at Robin hood.com/gold. Investing involves risk

12:51

rate subject to change. 3% match requires

12:53

Robin Hood Gold at $5 per month

12:55

for one year from first match. Must

12:57

keep funds in IRA for five years

13:00

and IRA for five years. Go to

13:02

Robin hood.com/Boost. Over eight times the national

13:04

average savings account interest account interest rate

13:06

claim is based on data from the

13:09

data from the FDIC. as of November

13:11

18th, 2024. Robin Hood Financial LLC member

13:13

SIPC. Gold membership is offered by Robin

13:15

Hood, LLC. Support for today

13:18

explained comes from Vanta. Vanta says that

13:20

trust isn't just earned, it's demanded. That's

13:22

none of my business, but whether you're

13:24

a startup founder navigating your first

13:26

audit or a seasoned security professional

13:28

scaling your GRC program, governance, risk,

13:31

and compliance. for those in the

13:33

know, proving you and your business's

13:35

commitment to security can be critical,

13:37

but it can also be complex.

13:40

That's where Vanta comes in. Vanta

13:42

says that businesses establish trust by

13:44

automating compliance needs across over 35

13:46

frameworks, like such as SOC 2

13:48

and ISO 2701. They can also

13:51

help centralized security workflows, complete questionnaires

13:53

up to five times faster, and

13:55

proactively manage vendor risk. And that could

13:57

save you time and money. A new

13:59

IDC white. found that Vanta customers

14:01

achieve $535,000 per year in

14:04

benefits and that the platform

14:06

pays for itself in just

14:08

three months. You can join

14:11

over 9,000 global companies like

14:13

Atlaci and Cora and Factory

14:15

who use Vanta to manage

14:18

risk and prove security in

14:20

real time. For a limited

14:22

time our audience gets $1,000

14:25

off Vanta at vanta.com/explain. This

14:32

is today explained. My name is

14:34

Orin Cass. I am the founder and

14:36

chief economist at American Compass.

14:38

We work closely with a lot

14:40

of policy makers both on Capitol

14:42

Hill and folks who are in

14:45

the administration trying to share our

14:47

views on what the key problems

14:49

are for America and what the

14:51

best policy solutions would be. Orin Cass

14:53

and I talked on Monday afternoon. It

14:55

was another day of big swings in

14:58

the markets, a sign of global anxiety

15:00

about the tariff plan. Orin is somewhat

15:02

unusual for an economist. He's a supporter

15:04

of tariffs, and he has the administration's

15:06

ear. He knew that liberation day would

15:09

shock the economic system, so I asked

15:11

him, did you know the shock would

15:13

be this big? Well, I think the

15:15

shock is proportional to the size of

15:18

the announcement, you know, on what President

15:20

Trump was calling Liberation Day. He first

15:22

of all sort of went with an

15:25

all-of-the-above approach. You know, he did a

15:27

global tariff plus very large tariffs on

15:29

China, plus across the board, what they're

15:32

calling reciprocal tariffs on most other countries.

15:34

And then the level of those reciprocal

15:36

tariffs in particular was very high. And

15:39

so I think that that has pushed...

15:41

the shock to the high side. The

15:43

other factor that I think is very

15:46

important in doing tariffs is that ideally

15:48

they are phased in because, you know,

15:50

people need time to adapt. If you

15:53

want more domestic production, you need time

15:55

to build more factories. And so I

15:57

think having everything snap in and meet.

16:00

rather than announce what they would be as

16:02

they phased in has been a major factor

16:04

in the shock. So do you think the

16:06

Trump administration rolled this out

16:08

wrong? I think phase-ins would be

16:10

better. I think the reality is

16:13

that there are absolutely going to

16:15

be costs associated with tariffs. I

16:17

think it is worth incurring those

16:19

costs in the short run for

16:21

the long-term benefits to the American

16:23

economy, but you don't want to

16:25

bear costs unnecessarily. Give me the

16:27

argument for tariffs as you see it.

16:30

The fundamental argument for tariffs is that

16:32

making things matters, that we care

16:34

what we can make in the

16:36

United States, we care whether we're

16:38

making anything in the United States,

16:40

and economists had rejected that idea.

16:42

Economists said it didn't matter what

16:45

we make. We will have other

16:47

jobs instead, and those will be

16:49

better jobs. And that turned out

16:51

just... just not to be true,

16:53

particularly for the sort of folks,

16:55

you know, people who are not

16:57

in big coastal cities, people who

16:59

might have less education, you know,

17:01

the kind of industry in raw

17:04

materials, in manufacturing, in logistics and

17:06

infrastructure, things that can be done

17:08

productively and create a lot of

17:10

value all over the country with

17:12

all different kinds of skills, are

17:15

really important. opportunities to offer. And

17:17

I think, likewise, having a strong

17:19

industrial base is just really important

17:21

to the kind of innovation we

17:23

do, the kind of growth we

17:26

get. And we forsook all of

17:28

that. And so tariffs work from

17:30

the opposite assumption. Tariffs say, yes,

17:32

making things does matter. We do

17:35

have a preference, certainly at the

17:37

margin for something made here versus

17:39

something made overseas. And so we're

17:42

going to make it relatively more

17:44

attractive to produce things here and

17:47

to buy things that are made

17:49

here. Critics of the tariffs will

17:51

concede that there are very good

17:53

arguments for reshoring production of things

17:55

like semiconductors or electric vehicles.

17:57

Those things are the economy of the...

18:00

future we should make them here.

18:02

But across the board tariffs don't

18:04

aim to do that. The way

18:06

the Trump administration talks we want

18:08

to bring everything back to the

18:10

United States and that's why we're

18:12

putting tariffs on t-shirts and screws

18:14

and picture frames and bicycles and

18:16

not focusing. Once again I'm just going

18:18

to ask do you think the

18:21

Trump administration is doing it wrong? On

18:23

this front, we support very much the

18:25

Trump administration's approach. I think a global

18:28

tariff is the right way to do

18:30

things. And the reason is that it

18:32

might sound nice to say, you know,

18:34

we're just going to focus on the

18:37

sexy or politically popular products like the

18:39

advanced semiconductor or the electric vehicle. But

18:41

there are two problems with that. First

18:43

of all, the things that are going

18:46

to be most politically popular are not

18:48

necessarily going to be the things that

18:50

are actually most important. I mean, we're

18:52

already seeing this even just in the

18:54

electric vehicle space, where it turns out

18:57

if you don't do the critical mineral

18:59

mining and processing, you're going to have

19:01

an awfully hard time making the batteries

19:03

and the electric vehicles and leading there.

19:05

So you really have to do, you

19:07

really have to think all the way

19:09

up and down the supply chain. and

19:11

not just think that, well, maybe we'll

19:13

bring in all the parts and just

19:15

pick and choose certain things to do

19:17

ourselves. You know, the really nice thing

19:19

about having a broad global tariff is,

19:22

you know, maybe it sounds like a

19:24

big intervention in the market, in one

19:26

way it is. But in another way,

19:28

it's really the much more free market

19:30

approach. It's a very simple, broad policy

19:32

that conveys a value that we see

19:34

in domestic production. And then within that

19:36

constraint, it really does leave it up

19:38

to the market, figure out which things

19:40

it makes sense to bring back, figure

19:43

out there are still going to be

19:45

plenty of things that we trade with

19:47

the rest of the world, and that's

19:49

good too. But ideally, we start to

19:51

bring that trade back toward balance.

19:53

Who in your mind is financing

19:55

re-industrialization? At the moment, every time

19:57

you turn on CNBCBC, there's a

19:59

CEO. cursing or crying. Confidence is

20:02

not high. Who's paying for

20:04

the t-shirt factory? Like if

20:06

I'm a CEO, I say,

20:08

oh, semiconductor factory. That's interesting

20:10

to me. You know, am I going to

20:12

take a risk building a factory that

20:14

makes shoes or shoelaces? No, probably

20:17

not. But who's paying for this?

20:19

Well, I think there are two questions

20:21

there. I think it's a real misunderstanding

20:23

to think that... you know, something like

20:26

advanced semiconductors is saying that a CEO

20:28

is excited to build that factory, whereas,

20:30

you know, the shoe factory, I guess,

20:32

I don't know, because the shoes are

20:35

more basic, that that's not something a

20:37

CEO is excited to build? No, because

20:39

the shoes are going to cost a

20:41

lot of money, and Americans probably won't

20:43

buy the $600 shoes, and therefore to

20:46

build the shoe factory to make shoes

20:48

that people probably won't buy because they're

20:50

super expensive, doesn't seem... Like a good way

20:52

to spend money. I mean I could be

20:54

wrong. I'm a journalist. I'm not I'm not

20:57

an economist It's a great question. I

20:59

was just I'm glad we sort of

21:01

dug one one layer deeper because the

21:03

question of what can be made here

21:06

productively It has nothing to do with

21:08

sort of necessarily how high-tech the final

21:10

product is it comes down much more

21:13

to how high-tech the production process is

21:15

I mean one of the things that

21:17

you know the US does still have

21:20

a significant manufacturing presence in is something

21:22

like, you know, basic chemicals, because a

21:24

chemical plant obviously isn't about, you know,

21:27

people doing things with their fingers, it

21:29

is a set of very advanced processes.

21:31

And so I think the way that

21:33

we have to think about it, with

21:35

something like a global tariff in particular,

21:37

we are putting a finger on the

21:39

scale. We're saying those things that maybe

21:41

you're choosing to make elsewhere today, but

21:43

there's the closest case that it could

21:45

also make sense to make it here.

21:47

Well, now we've flipped that equation. Now

21:49

those things do make sense to make

21:52

here. And so the answer to the

21:54

question of who's going to invest here

21:56

is the people who can make a lot

21:58

of money producing things here under. that different

22:00

set of conditions. Do you think

22:02

Americans are willing to pay more

22:04

for stuff because it's made here?

22:06

So I think when we're thinking

22:09

about the trade issue, the question

22:11

is a very fundamental tradeoff between

22:13

globalization and offshoring in pursuit of

22:15

just cheap efficient production, as opposed

22:17

to a re-industrialization that takes seriously

22:19

the value of having a strong

22:21

industrial economy domestically. And we saw

22:23

we've made that tradeoff in one

22:25

direction. after the year 2000 in

22:27

particular. And insofar as that's what

22:29

we want, it worked, right? We

22:32

did in fact de-industrialize and get

22:34

a lot more cheap stuff. And

22:36

it seems to me that people

22:38

quite reasonably and rationally are not

22:40

happy with having made that trade-off.

22:42

And so I think offering them

22:44

the converse of it, saying, you

22:46

know, would you prefer an economy

22:48

and a nation at the end

22:50

of the day that has a

22:53

stronger industrial base, that provides more

22:55

of these kinds of opportunities, you

22:57

know, that gets all the other

22:59

benefits in terms of innovation and

23:01

national security and so forth. But

23:03

it also means that, you know,

23:05

maybe there are some things that

23:07

are more expensive, maybe the TVs

23:09

aren't quite as big as they

23:11

otherwise would be. Is that a

23:13

trade-off that you wish we had

23:16

made instead? I think most Americans

23:18

absolutely say the answer to that

23:20

question is yes. Why do you

23:22

think that? Is there data that

23:24

suggests that's the case? Donald Trump

23:26

was elected because people were concerned

23:28

about people were furious about inflation,

23:30

about high prices. Sorry. I think

23:32

it's really important to distinguish between

23:34

the kinds of price effects we're

23:37

talking about here and what was

23:39

going on with the inflation during

23:41

the Biden administration. I mean, oh

23:43

no, I totally get you. In

23:45

fact, I don't want to step

23:47

on your answer. I thought your

23:49

answer was compelling, but it does

23:51

seem like we're both going on

23:53

vibes. Is there data suggesting that

23:55

Americans, if given the opportunity to

23:58

pay... more for a TV that

24:00

was made in Michigan, for example,

24:02

would do so? Like surely somebody's

24:04

done the studies on this. Well,

24:06

there are a few studies that

24:08

try to get at it, but

24:10

again, I think you're asking the

24:12

wrong question. The question is not,

24:14

would you pay more for a

24:16

TV that was made in Michigan?

24:18

The question is, would you rebalance

24:21

the economy in a direction that

24:23

doesn't place quite such a high

24:25

priority on cheap consumer goods and

24:27

places a higher priority on some

24:29

of these other factors that are

24:31

incredibly important people? And it seems

24:33

pretty clear to me that there

24:35

is... a widespread understanding today that

24:37

people are frustrated with the direction

24:39

that we've moved on this and

24:42

that they do want to see

24:44

something change. You know, in American

24:46

Compass, we've tried to ask the

24:48

question a couple of different ways.

24:50

And what we find whenever we

24:52

do this is people say, yes,

24:54

this is a tradeoff they want

24:56

to make. Yes, they really like

24:58

that message. And so to the

25:00

extent that you can pull those

25:03

things, I think that is what

25:05

the answer indicates. In the first

25:07

half of our show today, Vox

25:09

reporter Eric Levitz talked about how

25:11

some in your camp hope and

25:13

believe that the return of manufacturing

25:15

to the US will lead to

25:17

higher marriage rates, maybe even higher

25:19

birth rates, more social stability. Is

25:21

that your hope as well that

25:23

this is not just an economic

25:26

revolution but a social one? Well,

25:28

I guess I'd start by saying

25:30

I don't think it's nostalgic to

25:32

wish that, you know, we had

25:34

a society where an economy where

25:36

the typical man without a college

25:38

degree can find a good stable

25:40

job that would allow him to

25:42

support a family. And I don't

25:44

think it's nostalgic to say that

25:47

we would like more people to

25:49

be getting married and, you know,

25:51

building stable families and raising... kids.

25:53

I think those are quite noble

25:55

and worthy aspirations that that should

25:57

be at the center of our

25:59

politics. and across so

26:01

many dimensions, whether it's other

26:04

measures of social well-being, whether

26:06

it's life expectancy, various problems

26:08

with addiction and so forth,

26:11

what we are seeing is

26:13

a divergence that is very

26:15

closely tied to people's economic

26:18

fortunes and economic opportunities. And

26:20

if you have a model

26:22

of economic growth where, you

26:24

know, young men ages 25

26:27

to 29 are earning the

26:29

same wages after adjusting for

26:31

inflation that they earned 50

26:34

years ago, I think it's

26:36

fair to say we need

26:38

to take things in another

26:41

direction. Miles Bryan produced today's

26:43

episode, Jolie Myers edited, Amanda

26:45

Luel and fact-checked, and our

26:48

engineers are Patrick Boyd and

26:50

Andrea Christian's daughter. And a

26:52

quick clarification before we let

26:54

you go. On yesterday's show,

26:57

our guest overstated the relationship

26:59

between the combat anti-Semitism movement

27:01

and Project Esther. The combat

27:04

anti-Semitism movement supports some ideas

27:06

outlined in Project Esther, but

27:08

has not endorsed the document

27:11

itself. I'm Noel King. This

27:13

has been today explained.