Q&A Part 2: Working Two Jobs, Incentives vs. Handouts, the Gold Standard, and Government ROI

Summary

Summary of "Q&A Part 2: Working Two Jobs, Incentives vs. Handouts, the Gold Standard, and Government ROI"

Optimist Economy Podcast
Hosts: Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi
Release Date: July 31, 2025

In this second installment of their Q&A series, Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi tackle a range of listener-submitted questions that delve into the intricacies of the U.S. economy. The episode covers topics such as the implications of abandoning the gold standard, the challenges of working multiple jobs under new labor regulations, the power dynamics within the labor market, and evaluating government initiatives based on return on investment (ROI).

---

1. The Gold Standard: Abandonment and Its Consequences

Listener Question:
Navid from San Diego asks, “Does it actually matter that America has abandoned the gold standard? Is there real evidence that leaving the gold standard has had negative economic consequences? Or is this a bunch of nonsense being pushed by the descendants of the John Birch Society? Would there be any benefit to returning to some version of the gold standard?”
Timestamp: [01:15]

Kathryn's Response:
Kathryn asserts that abandoning the gold standard has been beneficial for the U.S. economy. She explains that while there are trade-offs and certain limitations that come with moving away from gold, the significant advantage lies in the ability to implement an independent monetary policy not constrained by gold reserves. This flexibility allows the Federal Reserve to manage the money supply more effectively, fostering economic stability and growth.

Notable Quote:
"The real value to having a Federal Reserve is independent in overseeing the money supply."
— Kathryn [01:41]

She references the book "Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World" to illustrate how the gold standard historically hampered economic recovery during crises, such as World War I. Kathryn concludes that returning to the gold standard would limit the government's ability to respond dynamically to economic challenges.

---

2. Unintended Consequences of the 30-Hour Work Week Cap

Listener Question:
Pamela Gordon from San Jose, California voices concerns about the unintended consequences of capping the work week at 30 hours. She mentions that some companies reduce employee hours to avoid providing benefits, forcing workers to take on multiple part-time jobs.
Timestamp: [04:21]

Kathryn's Response:
Kathryn critiques the practice of employers minimizing work hours to circumvent benefit obligations, labeling it as "petty." She challenges the broader system where essential benefits like health insurance are tied to employment, arguing that this creates a gatekeeping mechanism that can exploit workers. Kathryn advocates for stronger worker protections, such as a higher minimum wage and policies that increase competition in the labor market to prevent employers from having excessive power over employees.

Notable Quote:
"Because the idea of perfect competition... when you have perfect competition between firms and workers, you're gonna be paid what you're owed."
— Kathryn [11:53]

She emphasizes that enhancing competition among employers and implementing robust wage laws can mitigate the power imbalance currently favoring employers, thereby ensuring fair compensation and reducing the need for multiple jobs.

---

3. Labor Market Power Imbalances and Worker Mobility

Listener Question:
Paul Wilk questions the power imbalance in the labor market, pondering whether universal basic income (UBI) could serve as a solution without discouraging work.
Timestamp: [08:16]

Kathryn's Response:
Kathryn explains that power imbalances arise when workers have limited outside options, reducing their bargaining power. She highlights the importance of worker mobility—the ability to move between jobs—as a critical factor in maintaining this balance. Kathryn suggests that increasing competition among employers, banning non-compete agreements, and preventing wage suppression through employer collusion are essential steps to empower workers.

Notable Quote:
"Mobility is everything for a worker. You have to be able to pack up and leave, take this job and shove it and go somewhere else."
— Kathryn [13:02]

She advocates for policies that enhance worker mobility, such as expanding access to the internet for job searching and enforcing antitrust laws to prevent employer monopolies that restrict labor market options.

Additional Insights:
Kathryn and Robin discuss the decline in worker mobility over recent decades, attributing it to factors like increased housing costs and reduced willingness to relocate. Kathryn also touches on the complexities of unemployment insurance and its role in either creating incentives or mitigating barriers for workers seeking better employment opportunities.

---

4. Evaluating Federal Agencies Through ROI

Listener Question:
Amir Bafroy from Houston, Texas asks, “How would you determine what federal agencies or grantees provide the federal government with the most ROI? How would you determine what federal agencies, programs, or grantees provide the most ROI to the government?”
Timestamp: [21:03]

Kathryn's Response:
Kathryn challenges the application of ROI as a metric for evaluating federal agencies, arguing that the government’s objectives often extend beyond financial returns. She provides the example of AmeriCorps, highlighting its low operational costs and significant societal benefits despite not generating direct financial profits. Kathryn emphasizes that government programs should be assessed based on their ability to serve public needs and improve citizen welfare rather than strictly financial ROI.

Notable Quote:
"What makes an economist conservative or liberal... same thing with like this incentive of like, do you write them a check... I'd take it. I'll take it 10 days a week."
— Kathryn [20:25]

She critiques the over-reliance on ROI metrics in the public sector, advocating for evaluations that prioritize service quality and long-term societal benefits over short-term financial gains.

Additional Insights:
Kathryn discusses the inefficiencies within federal agencies, attributing them to legislative shortcomings and bureaucratic redundancies. She calls for comprehensive government reform focused on enhancing service delivery and career satisfaction for federal employees, rather than solely on financial metrics.

---

5. Closing Thoughts and Spiritual Sponsors

As the episode wraps up, Kathryn and Robin share their "spiritual sponsors," personal elements that provide them with grounding and inspiration.

Kathryn:
Expresses her affection for her dog, describing how her pet's behavior on the couch serves as her spiritual sponsor.
Timestamp: [28:25]

Robin:
Humorously cites "improvised yoga pose names" as her spiritual sponsor, sharing anecdotes about the whimsical names her son assigns to yoga poses.
Timestamp: [30:18]

---

Conclusion

This episode of Optimist Economy offers insightful discussions on pivotal economic issues facing the United States. Kathryn Anne Edwards and Robin Rauzi provide expert analysis on historical economic policies, labor market dynamics, and the effectiveness of government programs. Their thoughtful responses underscore the importance of policy reforms aimed at enhancing worker protections, increasing market competition, and re-evaluating government evaluation metrics to better serve public interests.

---

Transcript

[Robin]

Foreign.

[Katherine]

Hello, and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm Katherine.

[Robin]

And I'm Robin.

[Katherine]

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.

[Robin]

So optimist we talked. Catherine Horst. Last week, we decided to record more questions than we really had time for. And we've added a second episode this week for more Mailbag. Truly, we have more questions in the hopper than we could take. We really appreciate all the ones you sent on substack and by email, and we'll try to do this maybe every 10 episodes or so.

[Katherine]

Yeah. So I couldn't actually stop myself from answering every single question that Robin gave, even though she's like, let's. Let's pick the ones that we think are best.

[Robin]

Nope, that one too. My blood sugar's crashing. Can we stop now?

[Katherine]

This. This microphone. For my cold, dead hands. You asked me about Social Security and CBO in the same hour. Like, how does one stop? It was a little bit like Christmas these episodes.

[Robin]

It was Christmas for Catherine. It's true.

[Katherine]

All right, so. So more questions, more answers. Let's go.

[Robin]

Here we go. Next, Navid in San Diego asks, does it actually matter that America has abandoned the gold standard? Is there real evidence that leaving the gold standard has had negative economic consequences? Or is this a bunch of nonsense being pushed by the descendants of the John Birch Society? Would there be any benefit to returning to some version of the gold standard?

[Katherine]

No, I think that the easiest one is no. There's trade offs and risk. Of course, there's something we lost from leaving the gold standard, but what we gained was independent monetary policy that wasn't tied to the amount of gold we had on reserve. So this is the real value to having a Federal Reserve is independent in overseeing the money supply. So we get a stronger independent central bank to help manage the economy if they're not basically shackled to the gold standard. This is why the gold standard people are also anti Fed people, because you can't have it both ways. If you want gold, you don't want strong monetary policy. If you are interested, there is a really amazing history book called Lords of Finance, the Bankers who Broke the World. And it's about the gold standard in World War I as it fell apart. And it's a very long but excellent illustration of why the gold standard hamstrings countries. And in the case Of World War I, England and Germany and France had a lot of gold, but then they had a really expensive and they sold it. America bought all of it. We had a lot of gold and we become powerful. And then each of these countries has to decide basically at what rate are they going to enter back into the gold standard. And by having to enter back into the gold standard, they each have to decide whether or not they're going to punish wage earners or punish savers because the value of the currency relative to gold is going to affect one of them. So I think that that gives you an idea of why you wouldn't want it to be a commodity that's fixed in amount and out of your control. And for what it's worth, that book has an excellent description of the start of World War I, which starts in August of 1914 when like half of the major players are on their month long August vacation and they're like, well he couldn't be reached because he was on a boat in the Mediterranean. I'm like, who are these people? Like every.

[Robin]

Cell phones.

[Katherine]

I mean every country is like we are on the brink of war. War could be any day. We don't know what's going to happen. Like you time to go on my Mediterranean cruise. It's like I've got to go on a boat in the Mediterranean for a month, be back and then I come back and there's war. That's so weird. We were right on the brink of it when I left, but I went on vacation anyway. Said like 17 different people in all these countries. I'm like, well I know there's.

[Robin]

They just went and relaxed a while. Like things would just calm down. Everybody just needs to go chill out.

[Katherine]

I know there's war, but there's also summer to be had. Anyway, it's a great book, but no, I don't think the gold standard gives us much.

[Robin]

Okay. Pamela Gordon in San Jose, California. I've been concerned about the unintended consequences of the 30 hour work week cap. In order to get benefits, I've heard many companies reduce hours for their employees and who are then forced to get two jobs. My own 26 year old aspiring musician son works two part time jobs and one of his employers keeps shifts under six hours or four even to minimize their paid breaks.

[Katherine]

That's petty. That's real petty.

[Robin]

It seems like employers are now welcoming employees to work at two different companies or more just so they can avoid paying for breaks in insurance. I'm curious if this has been an increasing trend.

[Katherine]

Hard to measure I would say because you wouldn't be able to figure out the causal direction.

[Robin]

What do you mean by the causal direction?

[Katherine]

Like do I have two jobs because I couldn't find a single job that I like or I prefer working for these two employers. And it fits my schedule. I mean, especially in the data, like you couldn't really see it. I can tell you that the rates of multiple job holding have not increased much over the past 30 years. It's a pretty consistent. And I actually think it's a falling share of people who work two jobs. It could be that the class of people who are working two jobs is changing.

[Robin]

But what do you mean?

[Katherine]

It could be that there might be more people who have higher education and earnings who find themselves working two jobs. And the two jobs question in the current population survey, where we get this data, it's arguable of how well it covers gig work.

[Robin]

We have seen again, not data, but journalistic reporting about companies using highly sophisticated software to program the amount of hours that people work work and schedule their shifts. And that that has had some negative effects on how many hours. You know, they're trying to minimize the number of worker hours that they have, particularly in service industries. Right. They don't want any more people on the shop floor than they have to have. And that, you know, that means that overall people might be getting fewer hours than would help them qualify for things like benefits or breaks.

[Katherine]

For me, the bigger question is, is there a benefit to having so many benefits tied to your employer in general? Sure, in general. And I think that her question is one of many that would come up with like, why do you even get health insurance from your employer? Yeah, why? I mean, I can understand maybe philosophically why retirement you might need to get from your employer since it is, you know, kind of like wage extension of.

[Robin]

Your salary or your wages. Yeah, yeah.

[Katherine]

But even then, like, do we still benefit from having your employer control access to retirement savings? Do we still benefit from having your employer control access to high quality health insurance? I think you'd be really struggling to find the answers of like a resounding Yes, I think employers like it for the employees that they like that they get to like lure them over with these benefits. But I don't think we as an economy have benefited from gatekeeping essential benefits behind employers in the 30 hour minimum is a great example of how if they don't want it, they'll get around it. The break one though, this, you just need to pay.

[Robin]

That just needs to be petty.

[Katherine]

Yeah, it's so petty. Like, I mean, not wanting to pay for health insurance, which the, the value of health insurance. That's like you and your employer Buy a new car every year. Health insurance is crazy expensive. So if an employer's like, yeah, I did some dirty stuff to get around it, I'd be like, I get it. Like, it's, it's a lot. But a 15 minute break. Let's call the Wage and Hour division of the Department of Labor of California because that one is petty.

[Robin]

Yeah. Okay. Another question. We've gone through a lot of questions. You know, we've been on the, we've been, we've been on this for a while. How you feeling?

[Katherine]

I'm feeling good. I'm, I'm, I'm doing great.

[Robin]

You just get, just getting loose.

[Katherine]

I'm just getting loose.

[Robin]

Okay. We just got like another question just today says, I just heard that you're asking for listener questions. I'd been a little confused about how the labor market is supposed to function in a capitalist economy, and I thought, finally, this is my chance.

[Katherine]

Oh, no.

[Robin]

Each time I came up with a question, I would start wondering how some detail works. And then I had a list of questions so long that I wondered if I'd missed my calling. But I've come up with this question. In our economy, it seems like we generally try to let most things run with as hands off an approach as possible. Everything has to be its own market. Sometimes the markets fail to function correctly, and the government tends to step in to address these things. The labor market appears to have an extreme power imbalance, though. If, if I as a real human person do not have a job for long, a long enough period, then it's an existential problem. If I don't have income, then I can't pay for house, clothing, or food. If your average business doesn't hire another employee, they just miss out on the small amount of revenue that that employee would add. But the business continues to exist. Is this a malfunctioning market? I know that unions can address that power imbalance, but is there a more universal solution? Is there, for instance, a sweet spot of universal basic income that doesn't discourage people from working, but can also allow them to pass up working conditions that don't align with them? That's as brief as I could make it. Signed Paul Wilk.

[Katherine]

Paul Wilk. Paul, so what I would describe as power imbalance in the labor market isn't because employers have power over workers all the time. It's because in certain conditions, that power balance is greater. I would argue, and this is going to sound real arrogant, but not a lot of employers have power over me. Katherine Edwards, because I have a Ton of outside options. And if I didn't like a place, I could go somewhere else. And I have a ton of power in the labor market and there are a bunch of employers I could sell my labor to.

[Robin]

She could quit this podcast anytime.

[Katherine]

I could quit this money losing podcast whenever I wanted. You don't tell me what to do anymore, Robin. But in that case, the difference is that employers are competing over me. And so I have power in the labor market. And so this idea of an exploitative relationship or me being at their whim, you know, it's not there. And a lot of people in the US labor market, they aren't under the power of their employer. They have outside options. What has happened for a lot of people is that their outside options have gotten to the point where there are so few that employers do have more power. And like, they know you can't go anywhere else. And some things that affect worker power would be things like recessions or kind of the period we're in now where there's not a lot of hiring or even geography, right? Yeah, geography can affect it. But we're also in an era in which we've had incredible concentration of businesses and lots of mergers and acquisitions. And so most people are in some kind of labor market where there is a concentration of employers. And so I don't have a ton of options of selling my labor somewhere else now. I think that there's never one perfect right solution. And part of what we need to do is put in some more basic protections for workers so that these, these employers who do have so much power, can't exploit it to such a degree.

[Robin]

Like a stronger minimum wage or what?

[Katherine]

Yeah, like a stronger minimum wage. Because the idea of perfect competition, which a lot of economic theory is based off of, and it's not because we think it actually happens, it's just because it gives us a really good intuition to how the world works. When you have perfect competition between firms and workers, you're gonna be paid what you're owed. If employers don't have to compete for that much, they're gonna pay you less than what you're o. So part of getting you back up to where we want you to be is in regulating, like just how far down the employers can kick the floor. But the other part is doing more to have competition in the labor market. We do this through things like banning non competes, prosecuting firms that collude to keep wages low, as well as monitoring the concentration of employers into large trusts or monopolies because a monopoly is going to have an effect not just on the consumer market, but also on the labor market. So the power can switch between employer and worker, and the more effective policies are about shifting that power back.

[Robin]

Okay.

[Katherine]

And I also just want to clarify that that does correlate. Like your power in the labor market can correlate with income or education, but not perfectly so. One of the largest employer collusion settlements in US History was the tech sector, and those people made a ton of money. But a set of firms in Silicon Valley basically entered into a compact that they weren't going to.

[Robin]

They weren't going to poach workers from one another, right?

[Katherine]

Yeah, they weren't allowed to poach workers from one another. So if you worked for one of the companies that I was in cahoots with, I'm not going to hire you. And that's a way to keep people from moving around. The heart of worker power is your ability to leave, is mobility. Mobility is everything for a worker. You have to be able to pack up and leave, take this job and shove it and go somewhere else. And so everything that can increase worker mobility is something that can increase worker power. And I think that that's really optimistic because there's lots of ways to increase mobility. I mean, you can increase worker mobility by, like, expanding access to the Internet to get people more chance to look for jobs.

[Robin]

I know that I'm not the optimist economist in this podcast, but I have often thought that mobility. The United States has been in this process of what some demographers call the great settling in, that we used to be an incredibly mobile society. I have friends who moved six times when they were kids because their parents just moved with their job from Illinois to California to Indiana, back to California. And the people just don't do that anymore. And there's probably a lot of reasons for that, housing costs and the cost of moving. But what things that we could do to actually enable people to move, to take jobs where they are, where the market is healthier or has more opportunities, rather than just say, well, you know, sorry, you live in, you know, a small town in West Virginia and there's no opportunities there. Well, you're stuck there.

[Katherine]

Yeah. What's interesting is that higher educated people always moved more than people with just a high school degree. And I know that that's a brute distinction, but it's just. That's what we can see in the data, is we can see your terminal educational degree. That doesn't mean we see, like the. The textured quilt that is people's abilities in the labor market. But the more education you have, the more associated you have been with mobility for a long time. Even if you could have someone who was like, I'm a plumber in this city. If I move to be a plumber in this city, I could get like 15% more income, people don't do it. I will say amongst the unemployment insurance people, of which I am proudly one, there has been a question for a while if unemployment insurance, it's typically an enumerated benefit that you get for a certain amount of time. So there's a formula based on your past earnings. It gives you a weekly benefit amount and you get that weekly benefit amount for a specific number of weeks. It used to always be 26, but now in a lot of states it's dropped down to 2016, or in the case of Florida, nine. But there's a question of whether or not you should make people get a half week, like somewhere between 25 and 50% of their prior earnings on a weekly basis. Or you should just cut them a check for the whole amount. And some of the cut them a check. People are like, look, I'm entitled to 26 weeks of benefit at a 35% replacement rate. Write me a check. And it gives people the power to like take the money and go. And that it could be an avenue for mobility for people who are in labor market duress. It's not necessarily going to lead to higher benefit payouts because most people do take around the max of their unemployment. But it would give people like a different.

[Robin]

Rather than getting, you know, $380 a week and worrying about your rent, you just say, I'm moving out of this apartment and I'm taking this used Honda and going to Nashville.

[Katherine]

Yeah.

[Robin]

Or whatever.

[Katherine]

Yeah, on a wing and a prayer. And the other part too, I mean, the problem with that is that, you know, some people think it would create an incentive, right? Because I have this cash bonus for getting fired, for getting laid off. Because you can't get it unless you've been laid off through no fault of your own. But yeah, I know someone who is actually dying to convince a state to do this of just like let half the people who claim for benefits get a check and like, let me see what they do, see what happens. Because it could really improve long term outcomes. It's that same kind of question about incentives versus barriers. You know, someone who's lost their job, it's probably a recession. Or if it's not a national recession, it could be a recession.

[Robin]

Local recession, region.

[Katherine]

Yeah. Or a recession in your industry, right. You immediately don't have enough money for your life and you somehow have got to get back on your feet to do something else because you have less earnings or no earnings and less income. It's really unclear if you'd be able to get into a job training fast enough to get a job before your unemployment expires. In the meantime, you might lose your cost of living. And it's expensive to move even when it's under duress and you know, you are faced with the prospect of lower earnings for the rest of your life. So like is the problem. And this is also going back to what makes an economist conservative or liberal. Some conservative economists would say, you know, the problem is that unemployment insurance lengthens the spell of unemployment. I'm giving people a benefit every week, and so I basically incentivized them to take as long as possible to get a job.

[Robin]

And they won't get a better job until they have. They're going to.

[Katherine]

They won't get a job until they have to.

[Robin]

Every last.

[Katherine]

They're not wrong. I mean, the exit rates from unemployment insurance is like, if it lasts 26 weeks, it's like the number of people exiting are like. And at 26, it jumps up. Right? So then like a liberal economist would say, that's good. We want people to take their time to find a job because if people just take the first worst job they can find, the economy has lost human capital and that person has lost earnings. So you want to, you want to invest in the job search because a good job search has a ton of rewards for the economy overall and not just that person. So same thing with like this incentive of like, do you write them a check of like, okay, well, there could be an incentive problem or it could be that because they've lost their job, they now don't have the type of resources to make the investment that could help them move to a labor market where there's still work. So if I lose my job and I am a bank teller, I've lost my job because my branch has closed and there aren't bank teller positions open where I live. But I know, you know, because my cousin lives two states away, she asked, you know, a bank that she goes to and they are hiring, so I need to somehow get there. What's going to make the difference? Incentive or barrier? Right. I would say a lot of people face a barrier for moving two states away to take a new job and that the incentive is less of an issue. It's really just the practical concerns of moving across the country. Yeah, but I'm a liberal economist. I want to give people more money. I want to invest more in people. And I know that there are trade offs to how much people will work or how fervently they will search for a job. And I'm just like, look at that. My pulse didn't even rise. I'll take it. I'll take it 10 days a week.

[Robin]

And that's because you think that those investments pay off for the economy overall.

[Katherine]

I think those, yes. I think those investments.

[Robin]

Not just because you're a bleeding heart liberal and you just want to give money away.

[Katherine]

I mean, no, I think that we don't spend our money that smartly and we're so cruel about it that it ends up not being effective.

[Robin]

We've opened up the back of the tax truck and we spew it out like a bank heist movie gone bad.

[Katherine]

The government tax truck is on its way to Palm Springs, cash in the back, ready to go through that neighborhood and give those people what they deserve. The government cash truck. That one. That's a great image.

[Robin]

Okay, this question comes from your hometown of Houston, Texas.

[Katherine]

Oh, my God. Yes.

[Robin]

From Amir Bafroy. Amir asks, how would you determine what federal agencies or grantees provide the federal government with the most roi? That's return on investment. For those of you who aren't into that jargon, please feel free to define ROI in whatever way is most quantifiable. But I'd also be interested in your qualitative analysis too. How would you determine what federal agencies, programs, or grantees provide the most ROI to the government?

[Katherine]

Okay, I would come back with, the government doesn't make decisions based on roi, and that a lot of what the government backs the private sector would consider to be a loser. And that's why the government is there for them. So I would say probably the worst ROI you could possibly have is trying to keep an 80 year old alive. What are you going to get out of that? You're going to get more tax dollars. You're just keeping dependent people alive for longer. The ROI, once someone turns 70, every aspect of it is negative from the government or economy's perspective, for the most part. So we don't let ROI determine how we make investments as a government because we're a democracy and holding federal agencies to some kind of ROI standard based on their investments. It rests on the idea that one, ROI is something that's a worthy pursuit for a public entity, and two, that we'd be able to Measure that return. So an example of an agency that hit the chopping block because of doge is AmeriCorps. I mean, you could not find that much cheaper of an agency to run considering that the bulk of grantees don't get paid.

[Robin]

Volunteers volunteer.

[Katherine]

Right. So it's not as if the investment was really breaking the bank of the federal government and the return is incalculable. What is the benefit to our economy of having people encouraged to volunteer in certain areas and localities of people in vulnerable situations? I mean, the number of members of Congress that were VISTA volunteers themselves is truly incredible considering how small the program is. I think that if you try to come up with an ROI to compare that to say, what's the return on investment for America of having a civic minded volunteer organization versus the ROI to an office within the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that passes through policy on reimbursement rates in order to discourage people from treating ambulances like fancy Ubers. Well, yeah, I mean, that office is going to do really well because they're playing around with more money than God. It's money in the US healthcare system, you save half a percent. Like we've all gotten $10,000 richer. Right. It's really like that calculus of return and investment I don't think makes sense in the public sphere because it's about meeting citizens where they are. So that's one is just to make sure that that way is clear.

[Robin]

You're going to discant some more?

[Katherine]

I'm going to discant some more. I'm scanting more, fellow Houstonian. I'm just scanting more. That said, the federal government is in such desperate need of reform, Federal agencies are in desperate need of reform. And if you needed to ask anyone about this, you could ask any federal employee and they would be like, oh, I could tell you 10 different things that I need to do differently in my federal agency. But up until January, the only people who had any power to change the functions of the federal government was Congress. So I mean, yeah, I've talked about this before, but you know, some people in federal agencies are in an office created by a piece of legislation. And the person who wrote the legislation never bothered to check that there was a similar office at like the agency next door. And now the government is like, now these people are blamed for being inefficient when it's really just that Congress is not good at their job, nor will Congress take the responsibility to correct it. So the reform of the federal government takes leadership and it's Very hard for me to keep a level speaking voice when discussing what the Department of Government Efficiency did. And so I will not try to dwell too long on the subject only to say that, man, if you ever needed proof that someone ought to stay in their lane and remain an accountant for tech companies, we have it here. But there have been so many good proposals about how to reform federal government that looks at these ideas of efficiency not from the perspective of like, an roi, like calculation from the market, but from the perspective of, like, what leads to better service for the American people and what leads to better careers for the people who decide to serve in that capacity. Someone who was a longtime leader on this was Paul Volcker. I struggle with his last name, Volker. And he pointed out things like the federal government needs fewer political appointees, not more. And that that would make it a much more effective and efficient agency because you wouldn't have people who, like, spend their career and then basically cap out at where the political appointees begin that you don't want this. There's also been ideas that we should have some type of recurring commission that's basically like a congressional committee that, like, is given mandates to review federal agencies and take suggestions from the federal agencies of, like, dear Congress, you created two duplicated offices with the same function. It's like a suggestion, please get Rick. Like, the suggestion box from federal workers of, like, please get rid of one of us. I mean, I knew someone who worked for a federal office that the way the law was written, the law created their office. And at the same time, the law gave them no oversight. So, like, they were an oversight office when the law didn't include any oversight. And so she was like, oh, we've just been. I mean, it's Orwellian because someone has to have this job. The person who runs our agency is Kafkaesque. Kafkaesque. This agency is required by law to report that it is fulfilling the duties that the law demands of this agency. And part of it is that we have people staffed and office offices, or else they get in trouble with Congress. And then we're writing them back to be like, can you please give us.

[Robin]

A job to do?

[Katherine]

Like, there's so, like, I don't know. Reform always comes best from the people who are affected most by it. So, yeah, I think that was a lot of. Lot of answers.

[Robin]

No, but good stuff. Good stuff in there.

[Katherine]

This was fun. I mean, I could keep going. No, no, no.

[Robin]

It's 2:30. You have children to pick up.

[Katherine]

I do have children to pick Up. All right. We didn't do anything else this episode or normal pilcrows this episode. But we can't end a show without a spiritual sponsor. So for this bonus mailbag episode, spiritual sponsors. We need to shout out the things that keep us going and keep us steady. I'm gonna have a controversial spiritual sponsor this time.

[Robin]

Really?

[Katherine]

Yeah. My spiritual sponsor is my dog. And I need to say that my dog is the best dog. And I know that lots of you listening have dogs, and you would be like, well, no, my dog is the best dog. She is my spiritual sponsor. There are many things I love about my dog. One is that she's quite cute and has ears for days. Another is that she's very cuddly, and even though she weighs 50 pounds, because she's a pit mix, she's pretty sure she's a lap dog. But I think what really made her my spiritual sponsor is that she loves being on couches. Loves couch, and in particular, loves pillow on couch. So if she falls asleep in the house during the day, it is on the northernmost point of the couch. So she'll get, like, there's three pillows on one side of the couch. She's, like, right on top of it, asleep. Her utilization of pillows is a remarkable thing. It's just so. It's so good, like, how she gets up there, how she gets comfortable, and then she just immediately falls asleep, and she's on top of, like, three things. I have to wash. And yet I love her. So my spiritual sponsor this week is the best dog in the world. My dog.

[Robin]

Okay. All right. My spiritual sponsor this week is improvised yoga pose names. So I've been taking yoga a long time, so I've heard a lot of yoga names, and I've been in. I didn't really realize they're sort of regional names for poses. Like, I heard names for poses in Spokane that I had never heard in Los Angeles. But every once in a while and again, I haven't taken yoga for a very long time, somebody will say something like, awkward airplane pose. And you're like, what? And it makes me laugh. It often makes me actually fall out of whatever pose I'm in. And I just, you know, I just love that people are like, what kind of weird shape have I put all this whole class of people in? And I'm now going to give a ridiculous name to.

[Katherine]

Oh, man. Robin. I can foresee a future for spiritual sponsor of the names that my kid gives to yoga poses. So in preschool, they did yoga. They definitely did. I don't do it. I've tried it a few times. It's not for me. I think maybe the relaxing. I don't know.

[Robin]

Yeah, I can see that.

[Katherine]

But your future spiritual sponsor will be my son. Trying to rattle off the names of their yoga voices and getting them. I mean, even though I don't know do yoga, I know he is getting them wrong. And he does do them occasionally. He's like, mom, I think we should do yoga. And he'll just, like, do something. He's like, and let's do this. And I'm like, like, that can't be. One of them was like, falling stick. And I'm like, nope, Just send me.

[Robin]

Like, a list and I'll see. I'll interpret them for him and see if I'm right.

[Katherine]

It's great. But I was like, man, so they teach yoga in public schools. Don't tell Republicans.

[Robin]

Put that on. Yeah. Mindfulness.

[Katherine]

For extra production on an extra long.

[Robin]

Yeah.

[Katherine]

Session of Q and A questions.

[Robin]

Q A from hell.

[Katherine]

Q A from hell. No, no, you don't love discanting. Snapping out.

[Robin]

Snapping out.

[Katherine]

Andy. And so, like, dying for us.

[Robin]

Stop talking. Stop talking. Talking.