Paid Sick Days for Lady Gaga (and Everyone Else Too)

Summary

Optimist Economy Podcast Summary
Episode: Paid Sick Days for Lady Gaga (and Everyone Else Too)
Release Date: April 29, 2025
Hosts: Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi

---

Introduction: Challenging Fear-Based Economic Narratives (00:00 – 05:19)

In this episode of Optimist Economy, hosts Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi delve into the pervasive theme of fear within economic discourse. Kathryn initiates the conversation by reflecting on previous discussions about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on jobs. She critiques the tendency of economic narratives to foster fear rather than optimism, questioning, “Who benefits from fear versus optimism?” (01:43). Robin echoes this sentiment, highlighting how journalistic trends towards fear-mongering and clickbait exacerbate public anxiety about economic issues.

The Decline of Nuanced Journalism (05:19 – 11:16)

Kathryn and Robin explore the evolution of headlines from the artistry of print journalism to the fragmented, often misleading nature of online headlines. Kathryn references Gene Weingarten's column on Lady Gaga to illustrate the loss of clever, meaningful headlines in favor of search engine optimization. Robin discusses the shift from unified newspaper narratives to varied, competing headlines that dilute the conversation, noting, “People react to headlines without reading the articles” (04:30). This fragmentation leads to a misinformed public unable to engage deeply with economic issues.

The Central Issue: Paid Sick Days in the United States (11:16 – 24:48)

Current Landscape of Paid Sick Days (11:16 – 16:17)

The conversation pivots to the core topic: paid sick days. Kathryn outlines the absence of a federal mandate for paid sick leave in the U.S., emphasizing that it remains a voluntary provision by employers. She states, “There is no guarantee that you get it, that you're not fired if you get sick” (11:59). Robin supports this by mentioning that while some states like California have implemented laws, millions of workers still lack access. Kathryn provides statistics, noting that only 79% of private sector workers have paid sick days, dropping to 55% for part-time workers and 58% for those in the lowest wage quartile. This leaves approximately 28 to 30 million workers without paid sick leave (15:36).

Benefits of Implementing Paid Sick Days (16:17 – 19:57)

Kathryn emphasizes the multifaceted benefits of paid sick days, both for employees and the broader community. She cites evidence from Seattle's paid sick leave law, which resulted in a 1.2 percentage point increase in women’s employment and an average earnings boost of $2,000 per year for women (19:57). Robin adds that these policies not only support individual workers but also enhance public health by reducing the spread of illnesses like the flu when sick employees stay home.

Opposition and Misrepresentation by Business Interests (19:57 – 24:48)

A significant portion of the discussion addresses the opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Kathryn reveals a leaked internal poll showing that over 70% of Chamber members actually support higher minimum wages and paid sick leave, despite publicly opposing such measures (14:25). She critiques the Chamber’s strategy of "close ranks" against any labor regulation, questioning their public stance versus their members' private opinions. Kathryn argues that opposing paid sick days is counterintuitive, stating, “If we are such an amazing business market-based economy, we would take sick days at face value and be like, ain’t got nothing on me, bro” (30:22). She underscores the policy’s potential as an economic win-win: healthier communities and more stable employment for millions.

Policy Proposal: Integrating Paid Sick Days into the Fair Labor Standards Act (24:48 – 26:43)

Kathryn proposes amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to include paid sick leave as a standard labor regulation. She suggests a flexible accrual system based on tenure, ensuring that workers don't have to start with a fixed number of sick days but can earn them over time (23:55). This integration would standardize paid sick leave across the private sector, making it a fundamental right rather than a perk. Robin relates this proposal to their broader agenda of updating labor standards, hinting at future discussions on policies like a higher minimum wage.

Broader Economic Implications and Optimism for the Future (26:43 – 35:08)

Kathryn connects the discussion of paid sick days to larger economic policies and the need for evidence-based legislation. She criticizes work requirements for welfare programs, arguing that policies should focus on increasing incomes through better job stability and benefits rather than imposing punitive measures on low-income workers (25:05). Both hosts express optimism that simple, effective policies like paid sick days can pave the way for a better economy, one policy at a time. Kathryn asserts, “This is the biggest source of optimism and why I think the future will be so much better” (23:03).

Listener Engagement and Light-Hearted Segments (35:08 – 41:53)

Transitioning from policy discussions, Kathryn and Robin introduce a segment inviting listeners to submit executive orders, showcasing imaginative and humorous proposals like standardizing gas tank placements on cars. This playful interaction adds a lighter tone to the episode, balancing the serious policy debate with community engagement.

Conclusion: Building a Better Economy Through Incremental Policies (41:53 – End)

In wrapping up, the hosts reiterate their commitment to advocating for practical economic policies that offer clear benefits. Kathryn emphasizes that paid sick days are a foundational step towards economic improvement, likening it to a "grand slam" policy that facilitates numerous other positive changes (30:29). They encourage listeners to support the podcast through subscriptions and donations, highlighting the importance of community backing in driving forward their optimistic economic vision.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Kathryn: “Who benefits from fear versus optimism?” (01:43)
• Robin: “People react to headlines without reading the articles.” (04:30)
• Kathryn: “There is no guarantee that you get it, that you're not fired if you get sick.” (11:59)
• Kathryn: “If we are such an amazing business market-based economy, we would take sick days at face value and be like, ain’t got nothing on me, bro.” (30:22)
• Kathryn: “This is the biggest source of optimism and why I think the future will be so much better.” (23:03)
• Robin: “People have felt economically more afraid than newspaper journalists in the last 20 years.” (05:30)

Key Takeaways:

1. Fear vs. Optimism in Economic Narratives: Economic discussions often lean towards fear-mongering, which can be counterproductive.
2. Lack of Federal Paid Sick Leave: The U.S. does not mandate paid sick days at the national level, leaving millions of workers without this essential benefit.
3. Benefits of Paid Sick Leave: Implementing paid sick days can enhance public health, increase employment stability, and boost earnings, particularly for low-wage workers and parents.
4. Misalignment of Business Interests: Despite internal support among Chamber of Commerce members, public opposition to paid sick leave persists, driven by ideological stances against labor regulation.
5. Policy Integration: Incorporating paid sick leave into the Fair Labor Standards Act could standardize this benefit across the private sector, promoting a healthier and more stable workforce.
6. Optimistic Path Forward: Practical, incremental policies like paid sick leave can significantly improve the economy and pave the way for further positive changes.

---

This episode underscores the critical role of paid sick days in fostering a healthier, more equitable economy. By challenging fear-based narratives and advocating for evidence-based policies, Optimist Economy presents a compelling case for why paid sick leave should be a fundamental economic right in the United States.

Transcript

[Kathryn]

When you're talking and you hear that crackle on the line, it's me opening up the cookies and eating them in front of you as you tell me you have low blood sugar. So thanks. On that note. On that note, co host and friend, hello and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm Kathryn.

[Robin]

I'm Robin.

[Kathryn]

On this show, we believe the US Economy can be better and we talk about how to get there one problem and solution at a time. Foreign.

[Robin]

So it's time for retcon. Katherine, do you have anything that you have been thinking about about AI and jobs since we spoke on that topic at some point in the past?

[Kathryn]

I was thinking back on the AI episode and I couldn't help but think that so much of what we end up talking about on the show is just this myth making in boogeyman that gets created in economic narratives that often are meant to instill fear. Like, you should be afraid AI, you know, and if, and if someone told you, like if you went back in time and dropped yourself into 1960 and someone said, listen, right now computers take up an entire gym, but one day they'll just be on your desk and you need to be afraid of what they're going to do, it really just makes you wonder, like, who benefits from fear versus optimism? And I'm not saying there aren't negative consequences to progress or evolution, but it's an instinct we have to lead with fear. And I don't love it. I have obviously no idea what's going to happen in the future, but I know it's not great when you're afraid of it.

[Robin]

Yeah, yeah. I was reminded about the conversation that we had because shortly after that, a piece ran by Heather Long in the Washington Post, again with one of these fairly alarmist headlines saying essentially AI is going to kill all these jobs. It's kind of an interesting read, but it also, speaking of fear, just also reminds me that as journalists, we also, we sort of traffic in fear and in clickbait. And I think that that's become a tendency that's worse as competition in the Internet world grows for news outlets.

[Kathryn]

I don't know if you. Did you ever read Gene Weingarten from the Washington Post? He was a columnist and I think he would describe himself as cantankerous. But one of my favorite columns of his is Gene Weingarten column mentions Lady Gaga. And it was from like when she was everywhere. I mean, it was from like, just like the height of like Lady Gaga's entry into the world and she the column is about how headlines used to have their own artistry behind them. And it was, you know, all about wordplay and being quite, you know, clever and appealing and how they were being corrupted by search engine optimization. And so he's like, yeah, because Lady Gaga is so important. All I have to do is mention Lady Gaga and it's the last word of the piece is Lady Gaga. And I just remember this piece is.

[Robin]

Not about Lady Gaga at all.

[Kathryn]

None of the, none of the is about headlines and how people are directed to things and like, what is being lost. And then it says Lady Gaga. It's a cantankerous. I mean, I don't know many people who I would describe as, like, delightfully cantankerous in today's landscape.

[Robin]

Yeah, I know it. Is it also something that we lost in the evolution of away from newspapers to whatever we have now? I think sometimes that people, if you didn't come out of print journalism, that you don't realize that print newspapers, they had evolved into a visual language that meant things and the size of headlines meant things. Where they were on the front page meant things. There were people, and this was. Their specialization was figuring out how to present that information. And you had one shot at it, maybe two, maybe there was a reprint. But now the New York Times will do. One article could have three, four or five different headlines. And they may be testing them out. They're testing them in their newsletters or testing them on the website. They'll be different from what will be in the print newspaper. It's a different art form, but it's more fractured. And I think people react, people react to headlines without reading the articles. And then the headlines are different in different places. It talk about like you're not even having the same conversation.

[Kathryn]

It's interesting. Like, I, I even on social media, you know, I'll post a video on, you know, as Keds on TikTok, and it'll be very obvious to me that, like, the first 50 people who responded absolutely did not watch the video but felt like they should comment on it. And I, and I'm always like, whoa, did you. Were you like the person who didn't do the reading but also didn't shut up in class? Like, is that, is that who you are?

[Robin]

Or are you a bottle or are you a bot?

[Kathryn]

I do wonder, I mean, do we always have this instinct to think about the future with fear or has something about our media environment made us more predisposed to that? I mean, I don't, I don't know or is. Or if it's like the media environment with economic insecurity that we get more afraid and just see the worst in.

[Robin]

I think they feed off each other for sure. Right. And there aren't many people who probably have felt economically more afraid than newspaper journalists in the last 20 years.

[Kathryn]

It's just the tendency to lead with fear and negativity. It's worth questioning, like, why is someone benefiting? My dad always said, cui bono? Like, who benefits when you're afraid?

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

And you said it actually in our first episode. You said, despair is paralysis. And so I think sometimes when it's like, here's AI coming down the pike and people are, you know, freaked out about what it means, that keeping them freaked out is very different than keeping them, like, poised and ready.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

So staying informed and staying optimistic all the way back to what we're trying to do.

[Robin]

Yeah. And I know that for a lot of people, they're trying to stay optimistic by. By tapping out of the news, you know, and it. I think it is. It's hard to find the balance where you are feeling informed and like you're still thinking critically about what's happening, but not overwhelmed. Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Well, sometimes when the news progresses quickly, I'm just like, I'm going to miss this one.

[Robin]

Yeah, me too. Me too.

[Kathryn]

Okay, terms and conditions. Did you. Did you look up anything this week? Did you?

[Robin]

Yeah, so I. I looked this up. I actually looked this up a few weeks ago when we were talking about. I think it was in the DEI episode about DEI as a sort of a straw man argument. And I. I didn't feel like strawman was quite the right word is. And anyway, I wound up on scapegoat and then looking up where that came from. But then I wound up on whipping boy. And I didn't want to use whipping boy, but I was. Does that even mean. I mean, I know what it means. I know it's how it's used, but, like, why. And so there's this backstory that supposedly royal children.

[Kathryn]

Oh, God.

[Robin]

Could not themselves be physically punished by their teachers or tutors because they were divine. And so that there was supposedly this other child who would take the beating from. For the royal child. And this was to keep the tutor on the right side of God, I guess, but also so that the. The royal child would understand, you know, that this was a serious punishment. Anyway, this article in the. In the Times of London that I will put in the show notes basically says that entire story is bullshit and they trace a lot of it back to Mark Twain's Prince and the Pauper. And anyway, so there's a. Apparently this, this was a film a few years ago, but some debate about the veracity of the whipping boy concept.

[Kathryn]

Well, I.

[Robin]

It is used to mean the person who gets punished no matter what the problem is.

[Kathryn]

Okay, that's. So the person who gets punished no matter what the problem is kind of like dei. He's kind of like dei. I do think maybe let's find a new phrase for that. When you were describing the whole thing about the royal children, all I kept thinking was like, listen, I know democracies can seem pretty fucked sometimes, but. But nothing is as messed up as, like, blood hereditary, like, rulers leading a country. And I, I, this is like, I know I love going to other countries and I love exploring, but, like, I have never walked in a palace and been like, man, I wish we had this in America.

[Robin]

Do you know who Kitty Kelly is?

[Kathryn]

Yes.

[Robin]

Okay. She wrote a column for us at one point, and with the last line or one of the lines of which I just think about all the time, which was, being an American means never having to say your highness.

[Kathryn]

It's so true, though. I mean, sure, there's a lot about democracy today where I'm like, whoa, that's rough. That is rough. But at least on some level, I'm like, honestly, I'd rather be brought down by a man of low birth.

[Robin]

Than.

[Kathryn]

An aristocrat who for a long time thought he was God. I'll take the people's mistakes any day. It's funny. You looked up whipping boy. I looked up strawman, and I still don't know what it means. I went through, like, the etymology. I went through. I mean, maybe I've just been using it wrong for so long that I don't know what it means anymore.

[Robin]

I feel like that about begs the question which is misused 99% of the time.

[Kathryn]

Well, I have to add that to my, like, words I've blacked out for my usage.

[Robin]

Just don't use it.

[Kathryn]

I'll never say the word comprise. I just won't. I just mean. I just won't say it because I don't know if I'm saying it right. And I have no way of checking. I just like, I'm not gonna say, you call me. You call me Katherine, call the editor. So strawman is, I think, based on what?

[Robin]

It's a fake argument.

[Kathryn]

It's a fake argument. And then I was like, but then when is that actually used? I don't know if I've ever heard strawman and thought the fake. It's a fake argument a la little straw doll that you attack as opposed to the real argument. But, like, I'm not quite sure what this accomplishes. I think I maybe was just struggling of, like. But then why would. Why wouldn't you attack the actual argument?

[Robin]

A straw band argument would be like, we have to roll back everything about gender equality because we can't have trans athletes in swimming competitions. Like, that's a man argument to me, anyway. Usually it's used to accuse somebody of making a argument in bad faith.

[Kathryn]

Okay. So I, I, Yeah, it seems like it comes up a lot in politics, actually, of, like, most politicians debating policy are in fact, just debating strawman. And so I think I kind of got, like, incepted by the examples they gave where I'm like, well, now I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. So, honestly, I think we just talked a lot about DEI in the abstract.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Okay.

[Robin]

Okay.

[Kathryn]

Okay. Pitch meeting.

[Robin]

Pitch meeting.

[Kathryn]

I'm pitching you today.

[Robin]

You sure are.

[Kathryn]

I sure am. And I'm coming in strong with paid sick days.

[Robin]

The question to me here is, are you going to just convince me that we need paid sick days because. No kidding. Or are you going to convince me that there's something interesting to be said slash, written about paid sick days?

[Kathryn]

All right, well, I'm just gonna say shots fired. Robin, is there something. I'm pretty sure I could come up with something interesting to say. Just keep this mic running for four hours and we'll pay Sophie double and I'll get there.

[Robin]

I might have to have a snack break if we do that, but. Okay.

[Kathryn]

No breaks. So paid sick days are voluntarily provided by employers in the US and there is no law on the national level that says you can't be fired if you call in sick, nor is there a law on the national level that says if you are sick, you can accrue paid time for your sick. So there's no guarantee that you get it, that you're not fired if you get sick, that you get sick time paid or unpaid, or that you get to kind of, like, earn the access and right to paid sick days. So I would like to do. And sick days. This is not the same as paid family leave, which I don't want to talk about, which would be for longer term. I mean, this is like.

[Robin]

This is. I got the flu.

[Kathryn]

I got the flu.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

I can't go to work, and I should be able to take a day off and get Paid for it.

[Robin]

I think this should not give my.

[Kathryn]

Co workers the flu and not give my co workers. I think this should be a federal law.

[Robin]

Yeah. And it is a law in some states. Right. I mean, I feel like in California we have that law. I mean, I don't know about all the aspects of it, but yeah, some.

[Kathryn]

States and localities have voluntarily started paid sick days. So. Yes, in answer to your question, do I have anything interesting to say about it? I mean, I don't know many people outside of the U.S. chamber of Commerce that would say we shouldn't have paid sick days. Of course, they're vehemently opposed to it, as they are to any intervention into labor regulations.

[Robin]

What their people. Because they're just opposed to labor. Labor.

[Kathryn]

They would say that it's up to the employer to decide if they want to provide it. And they are opposed to paid sick.

[Robin]

Days laws, even if it's in their interest. I mean, it's gotta be in their.

[Kathryn]

It's not. I mean, it's, it's. I think that they are just. It's, for them, it's like you knock down one labor law and more will follow. So they don't want any. They're opposed to any regulation of the labor market that would impede what an employer is allowed to do. I mean, they were against child labor laws.

[Robin]

Some of them still are probably, and.

[Kathryn]

I'm sure a lot of them still are. I mean, they do not want any regulation of the labor market because that means businesses wouldn't be able to say what they're allowed to do. I mean, interestingly enough, there was a presentation from 1 of the U.S. chamber of Commerce members that was leaked and the Washington Post wrote it up about Internal polling of U.S. chamber of Commerce members that found just how many of them are individually in favor of a higher minimum wage.

[Robin]

Oh yeah.

[Kathryn]

So the U.S. chamber of Commerce is like, you know, I mean, just absolutely, like fight to the death. You cannot raise the minimum wage. But they have internal data showing that upwards of 80% of their members are like, we think the minimum wage should be higher. So they defend.

[Robin]

Well, okay, why, yeah, why does anybody listen to the Chamber then if they're not actually speaking for the majority of their members?

[Kathryn]

I think that they will. They do like a close ranks around anyone negatively affected. Like, it's not a majority, it's a, it's a minority driven institution of like, if there's one business that's hurt by this, we will use all businesses to fight it. Huh.

[Robin]

Okay, well, okay, so let's get back to sick days. Yeah.

[Kathryn]

And they actually had sick days in that data. And again, like, vast majority are like, yes, you should have. We should have. Oh, they did, yeah.

[Robin]

And when was that story? I mean, how long?

[Kathryn]

Oh, that's like 2016.

[Robin]

Okay, so not yesterday, but not in the 80s.

[Kathryn]

Yeah. In 2016, support for paid sick leave in the survey showed it was supported by upwards of 70% of members.

[Robin]

So do you have any sense, I don't know how you measure this. How many firms or how many workers are in a situation where they're not getting paid sick time?

[Kathryn]

Yes. So right now, the share of private sector workers who have paid sick days, it's 79% overall, but it's only 55% of part time workers and 58% of the bottom quarter of workers. So if you divide workers up by their wage, like their hourly wage, and rank them highest paid to lowest paid, the bottom quarter, only 58% of those have paid sick days.

[Robin]

So 40%, 42%. Don't.

[Kathryn]

Don't. And the Department of Labor thinks it's around 28 to 30 million people who don't have it.

[Robin]

28 to 30 million people. That's a lot.

[Kathryn]

That's a lot.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

I think most people, including most members of the chamber of Commerce who would oppose paid sick day, legisl and regulation would say, like, obviously we need paid sick days. And. Yeah, I mean, if you want, like, even if you need to be convinced because of evidence, it's not a hard sell. You know, you give people paid sick days so that they're not fired when they're calling sick and they, they stay home when they get sick. You know, there's, there's immediate evidence that it, it helps communities stay healthier. So like, citywide rates of flu go down after a paid sickness leave law goes into effect.

[Robin]

So like the city of Memphis passes a sick day law, Memphis flu rates go down. The whole city.

[Kathryn]

Yeah.

[Robin]

Interesting.

[Kathryn]

Well, think about who's getting, think about who's getting brought into sick day.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Legislation, like by the sick day legislation, it's going to be the bottom quarter of workers. It's a lot of retail.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

And people you interact with. Food service. Yeah, it's a lot of retail and food service and people who interact with a lot of people during the day.

[Robin]

Germ vectors.

[Kathryn]

Germs. Yeah, I mean, people for like, if you had to pick a sick person to like get the flu and you would be like, oh, the guy who works from home, give it to him.

[Robin]

Yeah, exactly.

[Kathryn]

Like, you know, if you were to extend paid sick days to stay at home engineers who don't interact with anybody, it wouldn't have a big effect on citywide flu rates. But you end up affecting kind of high people who are in positions to be high transmitters. So yeah. So it makes everyone healthy.

[Robin]

Right?

[Kathryn]

That's good.

[Robin]

That's good.

[Kathryn]

So that's one argument. Like, even if you hate people who get paid sick days and you don't think they deserve it, you would be healthier statistically and less likely to get a virus if we had paid sick days. So for your own self preservation, it just unfortunately has to go through these awful people who don't deserve paid sick days. But you are better off. I think that's the first, that's the first argument. The second one, if you don't care about becoming healthier and you'd, you'd risk the flu to spite people having paid sick days. What paid sick days do versus how they're described varies by the worker who is going to use them. So you think of paid sick days probably in your like salary job of being a day that you get to stay home.

[Robin]

Right.

[Kathryn]

And it's just about you staying home for a day. For people who are in like high turnover, high volatility industries, staying home sick is missing a shift or staying home sick is getting then like taken from the top of the rota to the bottom of the rota because you aren't reliable anymore. And so now your schedule gets worse. You could be fired for calling in sick. You didn't show up, I needed you. You don't have a job anymore. And so sick days for people who have like relatively luxurious relationships with their employers is just about whether or not you get paid for staying home. That's not how sick leave law ends up operating for a lot of people who don't currently have it. For them, it ends up being essentially a job protection mechanism.

[Robin]

Right? Yeah.

[Kathryn]

And it's a way for people to keep their job and not be punished for staying home sick, including the punishment of not having a job anymore or not being scheduled for any shifts. Like you're not fired, but you know, I don't need you for another three weeks. Like you didn't show show up today, so I don't need you for a month.

[Robin]

Right.

[Kathryn]

So they did a case study of the paid sick leave law in Seattle and they found that the group who was most beneficially affected in terms of their earnings of paid sick leave laws were moms.

[Robin]

Right. Because kids are sick all the time.

[Kathryn]

Kids are sick all the time. CDC thinks it's 6 to 10 colds a year for a kid is normal.

[Robin]

Yeah, they recover pretty quickly, but. But you can't send them to school or preschool or whatever, right?

[Kathryn]

I mean, or you can try and they, they catch you. You're like, I didn't give em Tylenol. And you can also have a lot of care arrangements that are like, if he's sick, he has to stay out for two days.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Or depending on the type of illness, he has to stay out for four. Cause kids also get a bunch of stuff that you don't get as a human. Like you don't get hand, foot and mouth.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

Like an adult wouldn't randomly get it. You'd get it from a kid, Right? My kid got it twice in one year. And I ended the year by quitting full because it broke me. So yeah, the kid getting sick thing is not a small pressure on parents. But what they found was that in Seattle, after they had paid sick laws, it increased Women's employment by 1.2 percentage points, which is not small. But easier to understand is that it increased their earnings by $2000 in a year. And it's not that they took $2000 worth of sick days, it's that they earned $2000 more because they had more stable employment. So for reference, that's the current size of the child tax credit.

[Robin]

Yeah, that's.

[Kathryn]

So they earned the equivalent of the child tax credit simply by not having so much precarity in their job tied to their child's illness.

[Robin]

Yeah, yeah.

[Kathryn]

So I mean, obviously, bonus, the moms themselves said they were healthier, but like, obviously we don't care about that. We just care that little worker bots that have future worker bots in training at home took home more money. Yeah, I think what I find so bewitching about paid sick days is that this is like, win, win, win, win. And yet we cannot seem to have even the basic functioning to pass it or get people to really care about it.

[Robin]

And why do you think, besides the Chamber of Commerce, you know, why do you think that is?

[Kathryn]

I don't know. I mean, it's not like. It's not like truly really don't know much about politics or campaigning. But to me, this is like this glaring issue of this is such a basic, basic economic policy that has clear dividends, it punches so far above its weight class when it comes to a policy that can generate good things in our economy. And yet it's just considered what, not important enough to fight for like, how do we come up with the ordering of policies that's such low hanging fruit would not even be in the top 10. Like, I understand why people don't care about it, because if they have it, you don't really think about people who don't have it. I don't understand why policymakers would not take the win. But I think for me, this is like the biggest source of optimism and why I think the future will be so much better, because we have let whatever toxic conversation has led us to where we are in the economy. There is a path of light out.

[Robin]

And it's not that hard. And it's.

[Kathryn]

And it's not that hard.

[Robin]

Hard. Yeah. I mean, it shouldn't be that hard.

[Kathryn]

But it's also, it's so achievable. Like, maybe the political conversation is so hard and one of our listeners can write and be like, here's actually why it's political suicide to want a single mom who works at a retail sector to have paid sick days. And I'm sure I would listen to him. But I think, I think for me, this is just a fundamental proof positive our economy can be better and it is not hard to get there.

[Robin]

Is this part two of our 68 part series on the Fair Labor Standards Act? Is that what.

[Kathryn]

Indeed it is, Robyn, I'm so glad you're keeping count. It is part two of 68. If you're new work standards for one, paid sick days is number two. And luckily we'll have 66 more at a minimum.

[Robin]

So many policies. But that's kind of where this would live. It is in an updated Fair Labor Standards Act.

[Kathryn]

Yeah. And same with the higher minimum wage. Just give you a preview for the many things to come. But yeah, I mean, basically the Fair Labor Standards act says, here's how many hours people work before you get overtime. Here's what the minimum wage is. You can't employ children. It's just like the rules of the road when it comes to employing people in the US Is set by the Fair Labor Standards Act. So you would just add to that kind of set of existing rules. You can't be fired for being sick. Everyone has access to sick time off and they can accrue paid sick time off based on their tenure. So you wouldn't necessarily say everybody has to start with 10 days sick.

[Robin]

Right.

[Kathryn]

But you do have to set up a schedule to say, like, all right, for every hour work, you can accrue another so many hours sick.

[Robin]

You know, this reminds me a little bit of what you Were talking about, about in part one of our Fair Labor Standards act, about in new work standards though, about the importance of staying attached to the workforce and that this seems to me like another way to keep people from, you know, from getting thrown out of the workforce.

[Kathryn]

Yeah, I mean the evidence we have on paid sick days, it really challenges this assumption that most people have, especially if they're elected to Congress, that the reason why people have low income is because they don't work. Like it's a personal failing. They just don't have enough motivation. And we see this all the time in legislation through things like work requirements. You know, Congress says in order to get food stamps you have to work, but you know, policy has to work backward from the goal. Right. If the goal is to get people to have high enough income that they don't qualify for a benefit like food stamps, work requirements are useless. Because if you can't work, say because you have a disability, this won't change that. And if you are working, this is almost like an Orwellian punishment to have to prove that you have a low wage job. And that's where the burden is. If you wanted to work backward from a problem, the problem being that there are a lot of people who qualify for very low income program participation supports, you know, then the solution is get them higher income. And if they're already working, getting them higher income means getting them a better job and regulating the labor market. And we've got evidence in hand that shows like this is where the problem is. I think Congress is more reluctant to believe that employers need to be brought to task as opposed to people. But here is an evidence of employers need to be brought to task in the low wage labor market. They're very difficult positions with a lot of precarity and instability are causing low incomes and Congress just doesn't want to intervene. On the other side.

[Robin]

We should do a whole episode about work requirements. I don't know. I think there's a psychology to, I don't know, it's like a, there's a romanticization. Romantic. Now if I try, that was as good as I was going to get. Romanticization of American small business owners who are job creators and therefore the greatest thing since the American farmer and that they should be free to do whatever with their business that they want to do.

[Kathryn]

Okay, well, so if I could reference for like the 50th time in seven shows, my time, I testified in front of the Republican controlled House Ways and Means Committee at one point. One of the members of Congress starts like I've just finished speaking, and then it's his turn. And he starts by saying, I really hate it when people who haven't created a single job want to tell me what to do about it or something like that. But he basically points out that I shouldn't be able to talk because I've never created a job and I don't run a business. And so I don't know. Well, yeah, I actually created my job because I run my own business. And when the Democrat went next. The next day, when I actually got a chance to speak, because, of course, you can't speak unless they give you permission. Believe it or not, he wasn't dying to hear a piece of my mind. So then when she gave me a speak, I was like, I need to go back and clarify something. I created my job. And I just. I was so. I was. This was like the maddest I was during the testimony, and I said that my job wouldn't exist if I didn't have childcare. And I'm nothing if I don't have a safe place to put my children. I don't get to have a job because I created it. And. Oh, he's mad in the moment. But, you know, stepping back and thinking about the exchange, like, it's just a reminder that even this deep psychology, this romanticized love of the small business, it's not pure, it's not absolute. And there are lots of small businesses that will tell you that they aren't heard. They're not put on the pedestal. Their needs don't matter. You know, the perfect small business is the one that doesn't want any government policy, but just wants tax cuts. But, you know, there are lots of businesses that would say that they need child care, but they don't count. Right. Like, I didn't count. That's what he told me in that moment. I don't count. I'm a business. But because I don't want a tax cut and because I want childcare, I'm not the right type of small business. And it's the opposite of the fall guy, but it's just as shallow, which is why focusing on the actual policy effects the tangible impacts on our economy and weighing it towards what it does for our economy and the people in it. And not picking a winner, selectively picking a winner and just doing whatever they want. Like, this is. That's. That's how policy should be made for. For the economy. You know, obviously, I want people to have jobs. Yeah. For, like, humans. But, I mean, you know, even for my cold dead heart, that just processes data from the economy, Paid sick days are an easy win. This is a benefit to our economy to have this type of protection that encourages work, stabilizes work, increases income. And it's just how many wins do you think exist? Like paid sick days? This is like an absolute grand slam for me of like, what an amazing policy that we're going to get to have. And I guess this is how we build a better economy. We do it one policy at a time. And those policies, the arrows in the quiver of the better economy in the future, they start with something like paid sick days. And it is such a rock solid start.

[Robin]

Yeah. Well, I'm also optimistic that, you know, that the truth is that business owners would support this.

[Kathryn]

Yeah. You know the newspaper article about the Chamber of Commerce study? I think I've read it 15 times, top to bottom, word for word.

[Robin]

Yeah. There's, you know, the only. There's nobody running around. I mean, except, except the lobbyists saying we shouldn't have this, or people who.

[Kathryn]

Think that it's not important. But.

[Robin]

Yeah, but that's. Yeah, I guess, you know, there's benign neglect. Right. You know, or there's, there's, there's just something you've neglected to do. But then there's things that you vehemently oppose. And the question to me is like, can you get beyond the people who just vehemently oppose any kind of regulation on business and any sort of anything that infringes on the autonomy of the business owner?

[Kathryn]

If I ever get pushback about paid sick days, I mean, I just ask people like, how, how much do you need in a business that you can't even give someone a paid sick day? Like, your business will go bust if you, if your worker. I mean, sorry, like, I don't think that we should subsidize businesses that are so underperforming that a paid sick day would bust them by throwing the health and pay of 30 million people under the bus. Like, sorry, 30 million people? You don't get to have a paid sick day. Cause there's like scattering of businesses that wouldn't be able to sustain themselves if you were actually paid on the day you had the flu. I think there's an empathy there too. A lot of businesses feel like they're barely making it and they don't want to add to a cost. But what are you willing to give over in our economy to support them over the people who have to suffer with lower wages and worse benefits? Like 30 million people get a Sick day. Maybe some businesses are going to close. Well, this is America. They're not barred from ever having a business again. They get to start again. So I try to pitch it it as just how much subsidizing do you need to have of certain businesses through very low paid, very unprotected workers? I think that that's too low of a bar for America which is supposed to have the greatest business economy in the world. Like, I think it's embarrassing that we would be like, we are the best, like we are the most capitalist best innovative. But like also we can't have paid sick days because that would bust us. Like, come on, come on. If we're such an amazing business market based economy, if we're so good at starting business, if we're such amazing capitalists, we would take sick days on face value and be like, ain't got nothing on me, bro. I can still keep going. I would imagine that an unstable mid sized economy that has only had business regulations and licensing for three years could be like, listen, I don't know if I can handle paid sick days, but this is the US Economy. We will manage, we should be able to manage paid sick days. And if the business community is like, actually that might send us into collapse and be like, whoa, this is a house of cards in a way I didn't understand. But when I talk about businesses this way, it's not meant to be callous or unfeeling. And I think what they would push back and say is that it's not just businesses who don't have paid sick days now that would be affected. Right? It's not like there's this good guy business and bad guy business and the bad guy business doesn't have paid sick days. And so they're the ones affected by the policy. And it's like it's just on them and everybody else is okay. If you're a business that currently offers sick days and some of your competitors don't, this is a margin that you operated on for competitive compensation. You make paid sick days a law that everybody has to offer and you've lost your competitive advantage in compensation. The law has essentially made standards something you used to compete on, so now you have to compete on something else. Basically you either have to pay more or you have to offer more in benefits. But again, from the economist's perspective, looking at all the actors in the economy, I would say, yeah, well this is great because people would get paid more. But that also means it's proof that it's not costless to do this, that for all its good benefits, it will cost something. Some businesses may have to shut down because their labor costs got too high. Policies aren't magical unicorns. They, they all have cost and casualties. But you've got away 30 million people having lower earnings and less stable employment versus some number of businesses that are kind of drastically affected. The economy is better addressing the former, getting more people, more earnings and stable employment. But that doesn't mean the latter doesn't matter or doesn't happen. It's a trade off. So paid sick days. This is the policy that is emblematic of current economic insecurity. And this is the policy that is emblematic of just what an amazing future we get to build.

[Robin]

Yeah. And shouldn't be that complicated.

[Kathryn]

Shouldn't be that complicated.

[Robin]

Yeah. All right.

[Kathryn]

All right.

[Robin]

Go write it. Excellent.

[Kathryn]

So now that we've given everyone paid sick days for good, regular reasons through our democratic process, let's write some executive orders.

[Robin]

Let's do that. So you want to go first?

[Kathryn]

We need to make a massive announcement for our fellow optimists out there, which is that we got our first listener submitted executive order and we didn't. I didn't think about it until this guy sent it in, but I was like, this is amazing. Yes, please send us your executive orders. William wrote in that he would like the gas tank to be in the same place on every car. And honestly, like, I don't even want an executive order because that one's so good. Like is it on the left, is it on the right? Or is it on the driver's side or the passenger side? Is it the back of the car or the front of the car? All the cars are different because you'd.

[Robin]

Have an electric car, right?

[Kathryn]

Yes. And, and don't worry, this problem has carried over the charging point.

[Robin]

The charging point. Yeah. I switched from a Subaru to a Toyota car and they went to the other side. Years, years it took me to remember to drive on the right side of the gas. The gas pump.

[Kathryn]

One of my dad's best friends from high school ended up starting his own Chevrolet dealership. So we only drove Chevy's the first time I had a non Chevy car. I don't know how many times it took me to figure out where the gas gauge was. I also, this was the part that was really humbling, that the little gas symbol has an arrow next to it telling you what side of the car that it's on.

[Robin]

No, people have said that. My Lexus does not have. Have that.

[Kathryn]

Your Lexus doesn't have that. Well, I don't feel sorry for you driving a Lexus.

[Robin]

Sorry, sorry. True.

[Kathryn]

I drive an incredibly expensive electric car.

[Robin]

Yeah, I was going to say I bought my Lexus used.

[Kathryn]

I want everybody to feel inspired by William and send us your executive orders, because that was a really good one. That is. I appreciate that.

[Robin]

Staying on the transit theme, actually. So in Los Angeles, they recently raised the parking ticket prices if you park in a bus lane. People treat bus lanes here like they're just, you know, an extension of all the parking zones. And so I. I think they cost over $300. Now, I want the same thing to be true. When you park in a bike lane, people put all sorts of stuff in the bike lane. Trash cans. They. And they use it as double parking. But if you park in a bike lane and you're blocking a cyclist path, you are putting their life at risk. I mean, I cannot tell you if you're. You're coming around a curve and then your bike lane, your lane is suddenly gone. With no warning on Sunset Boulevard, that should be a $500 ticket to start.

[Kathryn]

So this was a long time ago, but New York City was after they put in bike lanes, would start to ticket cyclists that were out of the bike lane.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

And so this guy made a video where he. He stays in the bike lane and crashes into whatever's in front of him, like, on purpose. Like, he's not going that fast. But he films the whole thing of, like, him, like, knocking into a trash can. The is when he just like, absolutely rams into the back of a cop car.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Kathryn]

And they get out and they're like, hey. And he's like, hey, if I go out of the bike lane, I get a ticket. So, like, this is the only choice I have.

[Robin]

Wrapping up our show with spiritual sponsors, because we still don't have any real.

[Kathryn]

Sponsors, but we do have movement on that front, which is that, oh, yeah, Jesus, Robin, we gotta be better about asking for money.

[Robin]

Yeah. The Economist and the journalists don't know how to. I mean, really, this is on you. Journalists already don't know how to ask for money.

[Kathryn]

So we have some news, which is that we have a newsletter on Substack that you can sign up and subscribe and hear more from us. Not just from episodes of the show, but news we find, interesting things we find funny. And of course, if you become a paid subscriber, it helps. Helps support the production of the show. So, of course, we would absolutely take your money. I won't be. I won't be.

[Robin]

We're not shy on that front.

[Kathryn]

We're not going to be shy about that. I will 100% take your money.

[Robin]

Forgetful. Sure.

[Kathryn]

But, yeah, maybe not good about doing it, but I'll take it. We also set up a Just buy me a coffee or buy me a coffee. Oh, well, I mean, I'm glad I remember the name of the website. Jesus, are we not good at this? My God, I would prefer to be trapped in a room and given like a ticking clock in five minutes to design Social Security reform than to somehow say how we ask people for money. My God, this is so hard. There's a website buy me a coffee. And we set up a buy me a coffee account for Optimist Economy. Now, if we are capable of directing you, there remains to be seen, but I definitely set it up. Yeah. So in theory, you can send donations to Robin and I and you can subscribe and become a paying subscriber to the show, and we'll take your money. And honestly, we're going to workshop asking for it, because this is a disaster.

[Robin]

If you're optimistic about our future, you.

[Kathryn]

Want to get in on this. But obviously, this is when we need to thank our spiritual sponsors for the week of the gratitude we put out into the world. Robin, who is your spiritual sponsor?

[Robin]

My spiritual sponsor this week is the Athena Women's Course, who I sing with every Tuesday. Emotional high point of my week right after walking out of choir rehearsal every week.

[Kathryn]

Oh, that makes me. That just makes me so happy. My spiritual sponsor for the week is inspired by. The shirt I'm wearing is banned books. I'm wearing a shirt that says, the.

[Robin]

Listeners won't know that. It says LeVar Burton.

[Kathryn]

LeVar Burton says read banned books. And he's got that, like, amazing kind of like he's got the reading rainbow behind him, and he's kind of like making eyes with the camera or the person who's walking by him to say, you need to read banned books. And you can go through the American Library association, we'll publish the list of the most banned books. And yeah, some of them, I'm like, all right, well, this does make me uncomfortable. But a lot of bangers on that list, too. And so I think if you can write a story that so speaks to people and shakes people that they're afraid of it, you're saying something important. Whether or not I agree with it, whether or not it makes me deeply uncomfortable, but the whole notion of banned books is that you're poking the bear, and so they are my spiritual sponsor this week. All the books that have poked the bear. Kudos to you.

[Robin]

Excellent, excellent, excellent.

[Kathryn]

As we leave, we would of course like to thank our producer, Sophie, who would probably also make a vocal pitch for money. Of course, we'd also like to thank someone we have neglected to thank in the past, but are thanking now, our video editor and producer, Andy, who has done so much to help broadcast and augment and get our show out through really fun video clips. He also makes GIFs of us. Unless it's pronounced GIFs. He makes those too. So thank you to you both, Andy and Sophie. Lady Gaga.