The Davos Again Edition

Summary

Slate Money – The Davos Again Edition (January 23, 2016)

Overview

In this special “Davos Again” edition of Slate Money, host Felix Salmon and guests Jenny Anderson (Quartz), Cathy O’Neill (mathbabe.org), and Jordan Weissman (Slate) gather to dissect the spectacle, contradictions, and real impact of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Broadcasting directly from the event, they swap field notes from the ground, debate elitism and gender disparities, touch on U.S. and global politics, and offer a sardonic peek behind the velvet ropes of the world’s richest annual schmooze-fest.

---

1. The Davos Experience: Contradictions and Realities

Timestamps: 00:57–11:09

Davos: Privilege, Snark, and Networking

• The panel start by poking fun at the extravagance of the event (Felix broadcasting from “Eurovision studios”).
• Jenny Anderson defends Davos as a unique intellectual playground:

  “Davos is effectively a place where you can sit in one of the most beautiful places in the world, meet a ton of interesting people by walking two feet … it’s kind of an amazing privilege to be able to be here.” (03:04, Jenny)

• Felix admits that connections and serendipity are real boons:

  “There are fascinating people you get to bump into … If you hang around for long enough, you do eventually start getting invited to the lunches and the dinners.” (03:44, Felix)

• However, both hosts agree that Davos falls short of its stated mission to “improve the state of the world,” instead mainly providing value to elites.

Criticisms of Davos

• Cathy O’Neill likens Davos to the dystopian “cloud city” of the film Elysium:

  “Davos is offensive because … it is a city floating above the poor people. That is literally what Davos is.” (05:35, Cathy)

• The team agrees Davos is good for those in attendance but essentially “a convention for rich people” (06:17, Jenny/Jordan) and cannot realistically solve big global issues.

Panel Discussions vs. Real Conversations

• Chatham House (off-the-record) panels are often filled with platitudes:

  “What people say behind closed doors is just as platitudinous and boring as what they say on the record, if not more so.” (07:58, Felix)

• Real work possibly happens in bilateral, private meetings, not in panels:

  “When John Kerry goes into a room with someone from Germany to try to make a dent on the European immigration crisis, it’s a big deal. They’re doing something that Felix and I are not privy to at all.” (08:54, Jenny)

• Felix shares a rare example of a substantive monetary policy debate among central bankers, but admits it’s the exception.

Glimmer of Social Good

• Jenny recounts meeting a young woman scaling schools in Africa, using Davos for real impact:

  “She is here and she is meeting with research people … with technology people to help her scale … she is doing all that here. That is a social good.” (11:09, Jenny)

---

2. Women at Davos: Progress, Quotas, and Culture

Timestamps: 11:09–22:37

Women: Representation Stagnates

• Felix highlights an abysmally low female attendance:

  “Just 17.8% of the delegates at Davos are women … despite [slight increases].” (12:41, Felix)

• Jenny notes initiatives like UN’s HeForShe report, where male CEOs begin to set explicit targets for gender parity:

  “10 male CEOs are committing to gender parity within a time frame and disclosing numbers that have not been disclosed before…” (13:14, Jenny)

Barriers and Tokenism

• Corporate Davos invitees are nearly all men; including women is often an afterthought:

  “It’s very, very difficult to really get women represented amongst the corporate sector, which is the overwhelming majority of the delegates here.” (15:32, Felix)

• Cathy argues workplaces are hostile to women:

  “The culture itself is awful … if women choose not to do it, it’s totally reasonable. We shouldn’t be asking, why aren’t there more women? We should be asking, why is it such a crappy place to work?” (17:39, Cathy)

• Jordan and Felix discuss the need for a “big push,” not just tokenism:

  “You have to have multiple women at once. You can’t have tokenism or it’s going to backfire.” (16:32, Jordan)

Toward Quotas and Culture Change

• Jenny perceives a growing acceptance, even among women, that quotas are required to reach a “critical mass” and reshape culture:

  “Once there are 20 to 30% women at a table, they become a significant influence...all these people used to really be opposed to quotas. I am seeing a lot more acceptance…” (18:22, Jenny)

• Felix endorses quotas, stating more women benefit companies and even men:

  “Men care about work-life balance just as much as women do. And those kind of issues … generally don’t seem to happen unless you have a bunch of women like being able to influence the decision making processes.” (19:18, Felix)

• All agree deep change will be generational and needs cultural shifts, not just policy pronouncements from panels.

---

3. Rich People, Elitism, and the Badge System

Timestamps: 23:16–33:00

Who Actually Goes to Davos?

• Jenny tells a tale of someone “too rich for Davos”—some billionaires and CEOs don’t attend because they dislike the “vaguely structured chaos and serendipity.” (24:47, Felix)
• The badge system is explained: “white badges” for access, “orange” for press, different tiers within colors.

  “It’s a hierarchical system here so that you know exactly where you sit in the hierarchy.” (26:06, Jenny)

• Only true insiders (or shadow figures like Gordon Brown) can skip the badges.

The Price of Power

• Felix riffs on a $68 hamburger at Davos, concluding the seat—the chance to sit somewhere—is what’s truly scarce:

  “The main thing which you’re paying for … is the empty seat that you can sit down at to order your burger.” (29:51, Felix)

• Jordan quips this is the “Upper East Side Principle”—sky-high prices keep out the normals, making wealthy enclaves exclusive. (30:27, Jordan)

---

4. Davos and Politics: Trump, Brexit, and Globalization Angst

Timestamps: 33:36–42:19

The Absence and Fascination with Trump

• Trump is the most talked-about non-attendee:

  “Were he to arrive in Davos right at this second, there would be an exodus … to go see him.” (34:48, Jenny)

• Davos represents the opposite ethos: globalism versus Trump’s “us vs. them.”

Prediction Markets and Political Shocks

• Jordan’s “number” for the week:

  “43 — the percent chance that the prediction markets are giving Donald Trump of winning the Republican nomination.” (36:08, Jordan)

  • Only 16% for actually becoming president.
• Davosians see Trump’s actual odds as much lower, which the panel finds out of touch.

Anti-Globalization: Underrepresented Voices

• Growing anti-globalization sentiment in the US and Europe is not represented in Davos, yet is a real political force:

  “There is a massive disenfranchised part of the United States which is not represented in Davos, which is much more powerful than anybody is estimating…” (37:48, Jenny)

• Europe’s political stretch to anti-globalization parties is noted, but the “delegates” in Davos are out of step.

Brexit: Looming Disaster?

• Felix’s number:

  “50 — the generally received probability … that the UK is going to vote to leave the EU. Basically everyone says, oh, it’s 50%.” (39:12, Felix)

• Uncertainties about consequences; Jenny notes the contested view in the UK:

  “There is definitely a pretty strong set of voices in the UK right now that are making the case the UK will be just fine without Europe…” (40:48, Jenny)

• Felix pushes back, warning of the risks of going it alone, using Canada as a cautionary tale.

---

5. Quick Hits & Memorable Moments

Timestamps: 42:19–44:40

Other Numbers

• Cathy: “50 — percent Weight Watchers stock has gone down since January 1st. … It’s a metaphor for New Year’s resolutions.” (42:26, Cathy)
• Jenny: “9 — the number of cups of coffee I have had so far today, which is most of the sustenance I have had.” (43:18, Jenny)

The Toll of Davos

• Felix and Jenny lament the lack of food, sleep, and the unhealthy atmosphere:

  “The general health situation in Davos is atrocious. It is like a concerted attempt to turn the beautiful air of a ski resort as unhealthy as you possibly can.” (44:07, Felix)

• The self-mocking tone continues to the end, with the panel joking about “Davos FOMO” and low self-esteem.

---

Notable Quotes

“Davos is offensive because ... it is a city floating above the poor people. That is literally what Davos is.” – Cathy O’Neill (05:35)

“I interviewed the head of research at Johnson and Johnson on Oncology today. Like, how often do I get to do something like that?” – Jenny Anderson (03:04)

“What people say behind closed doors is just as platitudinous and boring as what they say on the record, if not more so.” – Felix Salmon (07:58)

“Once there are 20 to 30% women at a table, they become a significant influence … all these people used to really be opposed to quotas. I am seeing a lot more acceptance…” – Jenny Anderson (18:22)

“Men care about work-life balance just as much as women do. … Companies with lots of women in positions of authority are better places to work.” – Felix Salmon (19:18)

“Davos is like FOMO for everyone’s at a better party.” – Felix Salmon (27:34)

---

Conclusion

The episode delivers a lively, sardonic, and honest appraisal of the World Economic Forum, laying bare its “cloud city” elitism, infighting, gender issues, and disconnect from broader political winds. It’s a must-listen for those curious about what actually happens at the world’s most exclusive meet-up — and what doesn’t.

Transcript

[A]

Slate Money is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a 100 day period. Get $50 towards any mattress purchase by visiting Casper.com slatemoney and using the promo code slatemoney and buy TaxAct. File simple federal and state returns for free by visiting taxact.com slate TaxAct will guide you through every step of the process using your computer, tablet or phone and get you the maximum refund guaranteed. That's taxact.com slate and by credit Karma, do not pay for your credit score with Credit Karma. You can get your credit report right now absolutely free. Just visit creditkarma.com save to get started. There are no strings attached and no credit card is [e-mail] Save the Following.

[B]

Podcast contains explicit language. Hello and welcome to the Davos edition of Slate Money, your guide to the business and finance news of World Economic Forum week, where all of the world's finance ministers and central bankers and heads of state and plutocrats and billionaires and hangers on and artists and Kevin Spacey and most importantly, Jenny Anderson all managed to come together for five days of crazy. I am coming to you from. I'm not making this up. From the Eurovision studios in the Media center in Davos, where I am staring at a poster of Queen Elizabeth II wearing a kind of peachy suit. What would you call it, Jenny?

[C]

I don't even know what to call that. A very unfortunate set of attire.

[B]

So welcome, Jenny Anderson. You are at Queen. What do you do at Quartz?

[C]

I am a reporter at Quartz in London.

[B]

And welcome as well as ever, Kathy O', Neill, the [e-mail] in general. Awesome data scientist person.

[D]

Hello from New York.

[B]

Hello. And of course the Moneybox columnist, Jordan Weissman, who what was the deal? Like your chairman asked you to go to Davos and you said no?

[A]

He didn't ask me. He asked me if I wanted to. It wasn't like an offer I couldn't refuse.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, what did you say?

[A]

I said no. I felt like there was a. I had things to do here in the us. There's an election going on, you know, so. Yeah, I mean, you know, Davos is not until November. Yeah. But there are things happening.

[B]

There's a point, there's a.

[A]

There's a primary going on. I felt like I was needed here on the home front. Someone had to hold down the fort.

[B]

Jenny is rolling her eyes and I understand this because, Jenny, you actually love Davos. Now we're going to start, we're going to start with this. I wrote my annual sort of Davos snark, Davos bashing column this week and Jenny is going to take the contrarian view here that not only should Jordan be coming to Davos, but that Davos is some wonderful thing which makes the world a better place.

[C]

What I am so sick of is journalists and bankers and all of these bigwigs walking around complaining about Davos. When Davos is effectively a place where you can sit in one of the most beautiful places in the world, meet a ton of interesting people by walking two feet. You can't eat. That is definitely one of its downsides. I generally starve. It's only my second year here, but I never get to eat enough. But it's just because you love the intellectual playground. I interviewed the head of research at Johnson and Johnson on Oncology today. Like, how often do I get to do something like that? I mean, it's just, it's kind of an amazing privilege to be able to be here. So I'm done with the snark.

[B]

So one, I have to say that I thought I was going to get more pushback from Jenny than this because I 100% agree with everything that Jenny is saying. There are fascinating people you get to bump into and make friends with, like all manner of crazily awesome people. It is beautiful. If you hang around for long enough, you do eventually start getting invited to the lunches and the dinners. You can even eat while you're here, which is amazing. But. But it does take a few years. They starve you for the first few years.

[C]

It's an endurance test.

[B]

It is an endurance, but it is also an endurance test.

[C]

I came with granola bars this year.

[B]

There is also, on top of all of that, a very sort of high minded mission for the World Economic Forum. It has this slogan committed to improving the state of the world. And my point was quite simple, which is that it hasn't done that.

[C]

And Davos should be able to solve the refugee crisis, the fracturing of Europe, Brexit, in Donald Trump. Davos is going to solve Donald Trump. Davos can't solve these things. It's a forum for which people to come to talk about all the shit that's going on in the world and try to make progress. But you're asking Davos to solve something that cannot be solved in Swiss.

[D]

Me, I think one can agree with Jenny and I agree with Jenny that for, for the participants, it's a fun time and with interesting people and still think that Davos is essentially a corrupt concept. Do you guys remember that that science fiction movie that came out a couple years ago, I think was called Elysium or something about that with like the other rich cloud city.

[A]

Yeah. Matt Damon kills all the rich people. Right.

[D]

It's like, is it like Davos is offensive because for the same reason that, that the city that literally floated above the poor people was offensive. I mean, it's not because the rich people didn't have.

[B]

No, it is. It is a city floating above the poor people. That is literally what Davos is.

[D]

And that, Jenny, the reason on top of that, that it's not just a rich floating city on the clouds, the reason that it's also even more offensive is because it does actually claim to be helping the poor people. And it doesn't. So it's got this sort of brand that it's trying to help and it doesn't help. So that makes it even worse.

[A]

I think it's kind of funny to think of Davos just as like any other convention, but for the super rich, like it's the equivalent of all the insurance managers in Iowa getting together, but for billionaires and like, I think it's kind of fair to have that. The billionaire should have their own convention. We should just like admit that that's what it is. It's a convention for rich people. That's all. It's nothing more.

[B]

It's a convention for rich people. It's really useful for rich people. They're building incredibly valuable networks. And Jenny is absolutely right that there's no way that a rich people convention is going to, in and of itself, make the world a better place. All I'm saying is basically what Jenny was saying, like, this is not realistic. It hasn't happened. It's not going to happen. But this year in particular is the year where you have the markets in turmoil, you have the refugee crisis, you have Britain looking like it might well leave the European Union, you have Donald Trump, you have everything going horribly pear shaped. And it looks even less like it's becoming more and more obvious that no one here is actually in control of.

[C]

Anything, which is absolutely true. But I went to a panel yesterday on the future of Europe where I actually saw a bunch of people who generally spend much more time spewing vitriol at each other, trying to put a good foot forward in terms of talking about the refugee crisis. I'm sure it's a complete waste of space. It's all empty, you know, airtime but does it hurt for them to be up there saying yeah, actually we probably should stay together? Yes, you know Britain, you really do matter to us. Please do stay in the eu. We really do like you. That was the Prime Minister of France. He doesn't usually say things like that about the UK and so everything's going horribly wrong and yet there are Prime Ministers.

[B]

I'm going to say for the record, I have no idea who the Prime Minister of France is, Manuel Voss and neither does anyone else. But yeah, except Jenny. Jenny knows these things.

[A]

So I have a question. Does anybody say anything at these panels or even behind like close closed doors as far as you know that like you couldn't also read in Bloomberg View or like a op ed in the Financial Times? Like is there.

[B]

Okay, this is an incredibly, this is an incredibly good question. Jenny and I are honored to have what's known as white badges which means we can go into the Chatham House off the record panel discussions which you know are never reported in the press and we get to hear what people say behind closed doors. And I can assure you that what people say behind closed doors is just as platitudinous and boring as what they say on the record, if not more so that I am. I am pretty much convinced that the reason these panels happen under Chatham House rules is just so that the world doesn't realize how boring they are. Jenny, would you agree with that?

[D]

Sorry, I'm just going to interrupt and say that this kind of discussion that's happening behind closed doors is part of the branding, that they're doing some important stuff when in fact what they're all there for, as far as I can understand it, is to make personal deals with their friends and to make new connections. So it is literally a cover.

[C]

I am going to actually agree with both of your points on that one. I actually disagree. Nothing substantive is happening on the panels that Felix and I are going to. Whether there is substantive things happening for the good of society in some of the bilateral meetings, I can't say. That is the art of diplomacy. It takes time when people who hate each other get together and try to have a conversation about solving the world's crisis. When John Kerry goes into a room with someone from Germany to try to make a dent on the European immigration crisis, it's a big deal. They're doing something that Felix and I are not privy to at all. So we can't say that. But the silly panels we go to, yeah, not a lot is said.

[B]

The only time I've ever seen Anything of sustenance in the panel was when I got invited, I was quite sure by mistake, to a panel of central. It wasn't on the official panel, but it was a, an all room discussion of basically every single major monetary economist on planet Earth and me. And like Stephen Fiddler from the Wall Street Journal. I'm not quite sure why we were there, but we were there, I guess just to witness the fact that all of these monetary economists were having an incredibly high level debate, which I understood about maybe half of, on, you know, monetary policy post crisis, zero interest rates and this kind of thing. And it was fascinating to watch. You know, these super, super smart people have a super, super smart conversation. I guess that does happen and I guess the wef, the World Economic Forum does facilitate those discussions, but I've only ever seen it once.

[C]

So I had. Can I just offer one example? Then we can move on from this because it's probably boring poor listeners to death here, but I met a woman yesterday who has started 400 schools in Africa and Nairobi. She has scaled her model of primary secondary education, some nursery in unprecedented ways. She's, you know, 6 years old. She's so young. She's 26, 27 years old. She is here and she is meeting with research people to help her scale. She's meeting with technology people to help her scale. She's meeting with VCs that can help to fund her. She's meeting with other social innovators who can help her on pieces of her business that she, she just doesn't know. She is doing all that here. That is a social good. She is using this for something. I am not saying everybody is doing that, but she is. And it was an example that I thought I might share.

[B]

Jenny, thank you for doing that because you've brought up something which we haven't really seen much of is women in Davos. We're going to move on to that in a second. I do need to say first that this podcast is sponsored by by Casper, which is the online retailer of premium mattresses which would normally cost a lot of money, but because they disintermediate and take out the mattress retailers and stuff, they cost very little money. So no markups. If you go to Casper, you get this incredible mattress which combines premium latex foam with memory foam. And instead of paying well over $1500, you end up spending just $500 for twin, up to 950 for a king. These are great mattresses. You buy a mattress incredibly easily. You can try it out for 100 days and send it back without any problem. It's risk free. It's pretty much a no brainer. So go ahead and get $50 towards any mattress by going to Casper.com slatemoney and use the promo code SLATEMONEY. So that's $900 for a king, $450 for a twin. Just by going to Casper.com SlateMoney and using the promo code Slate money. Okay. Jenny Anderson, congratulations on making it as a woman in Davos because there are a precious few of them. Just 17.8% of the delegates at Davos are women. This is more or less unchanged for a long time. And that's despite.

[C]

No, no, it's up dramatically from 17.44% last year. Let's get our math right.

[B]

And I was at a. And that's just the official things. If you look at the unofficial things, which go on in the sidelines in the hotels around town. I was at one panel at the Belvedere Hotel on the Internet of things, which was 10 men and 0 women. And then the following morning, also at the Belvedere Hotel, Mercer Consulting did a panel on gender equality and the moderator was a woman, but the four panelists were all men.

[C]

But no, hold on. That's actually part of the theme of Davos this year. So the he for she report that was released this morning by the UN and by 10 major CEOs, let's see, Barclays, McKinsey, Schneider Electric, Tupperware, Twitter, Unilever. 10 male CEOs are committing to gender parity within a time frame and disclosing numbers that have not been disclosed before for exactly what they have in senior leadership. Exactly what they have on board is exactly what they hired last year, what percentage of the workforce they hired. By putting these numbers out there and saying we're setting a target, a more aggressive target, they are taking a step forward. And the whole point of this is we've all been sitting in groups of women year after year after year saying, why can't we move this forward? And now the conversation is, let's get the men involved. Do you want. They seem to still be sitting in those seats of power and if they commit to it, maybe they can help facilitate the change. So that wasn't the point of that panel, but the panel I went to this morning with Emma Watson. It was Emma Watson on stage with a bunch of men who were super psyched to be with Emma Watson. But it was intentional. It was the UN saying we're using one was intentional.

[B]

But. But it is. It is A problem. What happens is that the corporate members of Davos, and to become a member of Davos, like it's not just the individual tickets cost $50,000. It's it that's just table stakes. To be a real corporate member of Davos costs hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars for the strategic partners. And they, in return for spending all of that money, they want a certain amount of ability to do what they want. And what they want is generally what the CEO wants. And the CEO is invariably a man. And you know, they say, well, we get five tickets and I want this guy and this guy and this guy to come along. And the wife says, well, you need at least one woman. And they go, oh, well, okay, we'll fish around and try and find one. But it's very, very difficult to really get women represented amongst the corporate sector, which is the overwhelming majority of the delegates here. You know, governments are slightly better, media is actually quite good. But it's, it's just if you want a reminder of how very male dominated the world is at the upper echelons of money and power, all you need to do is come to Davos.

[D]

Yeah, it kind of reminds me of like when I was like shopping around for graduate schools in math. I visited the departments. So I went to Princeton, for example. I'd been accepted to Princeton. There were no women in sight. No women. And then I went to Harvard. There were very few women, but at least there were some women. And I chose Harvard and I ended up at Princeton for a year afterwards as a visiting scholar. It was miserable. And I've come to the following conclusion, that people get causation and correlation wrong here, that they think it's a bad place because there are no women. But they disregard the fact that women will not go to places that are totally male dominated because they're a miserable place to be. So when I hear people calling for like, more women in private equity, more women in finance, and also for that matter, more women at Davos, I always ask, like, why would women want to do that? Like, I know the answer is going to be because it's positions of power and influence, but actually it's a. Probably the everyday lives of the people there are not necessarily great.

[A]

Yeah, you kind of have like a chicken the egg problem. That's why you need what they call, like a big push. Right. Instead of getting one woman on the panel and having her think it's a terrible experience she never wants to go through again, or in the boardroom, you have to have multiple women at once. Yeah. Can't just, like, have it. You can't have tokenism or it's going to backfire in a way.

[B]

I was talking. I was talking to the head of the Global Shapers earlier today, which is one of the more ridiculous bits of the Davos program, but it's basically where they take a bunch of people under the age of 30 and invite them, you know, into Davos to be young and vibrant and optimistic.

[C]

They pay for them to go around the world for five years and learn interesting things. Yeah, they really do.

[B]

Not all of them, but I, you know, they. The global shapers of 50% women. And I. And I was saying, this is silly. They should be 100% women. If you want to actually make a change, you know, you can. You can really make a statement by saying, you know, we're going to pick all women to do these roles, and that would actually make a difference.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, I guess. Yeah. Thank you, Felix. I feel like people are saying, oh, we for some reason can't find women. But what they actually don't ask is, why aren't women trying to get here? Like, why, you know, why aren't women.

[B]

Why is quite a few women who are trying to get here?

[D]

Well, maybe Davos, but I think Davos is sort of like an extreme example of a much larger question. And the answer is that the culture itself is awful. I mean, we saw an article about JP Morgan trying to get people to take vacation more often. You know, it's a terrible place to work in finance for the most part. And if women choose not to do it, it's totally reasonable. And we shouldn't be asking, why aren't there more women? We should be asking, why is it such a crappy place to work?

[C]

Right. Or maybe women are just too smart to go work in such miserable jobs with such miserable people.

[D]

That's exactly my content.

[C]

So that is. And I actually think they are coming very belatedly to that conclusion. Whether they can change it or not is. I mean, they probably can't. Right. It's just.

[B]

Well, no, but that's a culture. But that's actually part of the.

[C]

One of the things I'm noticing, though, is I think there is an interesting shift back towards quotas. And it's not for the sort of patronizing fairness thing. It's because there is a sort of critical juncture of once there are 20 to 30% women at a table, they become a significant influence. They can influence a decision, they can change the tone of something. So there is. Whereas all these people used to really be opposed to quotas. I am seeing a lot more acceptance of the idea of, you know what, let's just make people do it. And this isn't necessarily in finance. I'm talking just about on a board, for example, or senior leadership positions. I was talking to someone today who said, you know, I've always been opposed to it. I would never want to be the woman who was put in a position of power because of a quota. And yet I want to put it in place because I just want to put a bunch of women in the room so they start making the decisions and see that they're really good at making the decisions and that they can take ownership of this company and they can drive it into a good place. That's an interesting change.

[B]

If I'm the man who gets, you know, passed over from, for a woman who gets the job because of a quota, I'm actually okay with that. I'm more than okay with that. I'm happy with that. Because what happens is that men are realizing that having more women at the top of companies is absolutely in their own best interest. Men care about work, life balance just as much as women do. And those kind of issues, which generally don't seem to happen unless you have a bunch of women like being able to influence the decision making processes. Companies with lots of women, you know, in positions of authority are better places to work. And I would rather have a woman like, you know, taking that job and making the culture better than trying to do it myself.

[C]

So that was another big discussion this morning was pretty much all of these CEOs, CEOs of PricewaterhouseCoopers of another big company. They were saying we have best in class programs in the world. No one takes them. We will give you flexibility, we'll give you telecommuting, we will give you part time, anything you want, take it so that you don't get to the point where you quit.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Because that's what happens. So take the flexibility. No one's taking it. I said, have you ever thought about maybe encouraging men to take it? Because if the men take it, then it's not going to be seen to be a stigma that women only take. And then you know what? You're also encouraging. You're sending a message that all that stuff that happens at home, it's important for men to do that too, you know, so there's.

[D]

But. Right. I mean, and that brings up the basic point, which I'm just going to summarize, which is that we talk about quotas. We talk about getting more women in because we want to be seen as fair, but it's really the culture itself that needs to change. And then women will. It'll be. It's a chicken and egg problem. Women will be more. They'll stick around more often, and they'll want to get in more often. And the culture is what is so hard for people to actually want to change.

[B]

And this is my point as well about Davos, which is that there's any number of incredibly powerful, broad demographic, what's the word? Drivers which are going to help to make the world a better place. And over the long term, the world is absolutely improving. The state of the world is improving, whether the WEF is committed to it or not. And frankly, the way that this change happens is generational. It's not through the CEO of Procter and Gamble sitting on a panel in Davos and intoning about, like, how this is very important to him. Even if that's true, which it probably is, it's not going to make a difference nearly as much as, like, the big generational shifts which are going to happen whether he likes it or not.

[A]

I actually disagree just a tiny bit. As the, as the token millennial here, as the, as the fulfilling the millennial quota. There are, there are plenty of sociopaths in my generation who are plenty happy to sacrifice all forms of work life balance in order to get ahead on multiple street or law firms or large corporations. I actually think that. I do think that the CEO getting up and talking about how it's important is kind of a crucial role because there has to be some sort of role model that shows that people are not going to be penalized or not going to suffer in their careers necessarily if they take these options. So I kind of respect that a little bit more than I think you might.

[C]

One of the CEOs actually made a great point. He said we're also psychotically competitive, that now that we've set this target, we're all going to try to, like, kill each other to get to it. But it just so happens that finally the targets. Well, I don't know. We'll see.

[B]

I mean, like, yeah, I'm going to. I'm going to come out.

[C]

66% of Deloitte's intake last year were women.

[B]

I'm going to come out and say right now that, like, the chances of the Twitter Engineering Corp getting women is zero. We are going to talk about these CEOs, lesser CEOs, and more, as just generally rich people after I tell you about Tax act, which is the other sponsor of Slate money this week. I'm happy to. You know we are in one of the world's most famous tax havens right now. Yes. Yeah, we are coming to Donaldson.

[D]

Thank you for saying that, Felix.

[B]

Yeah. So we're in one of the world's most notorious tax havens, and every so often, someone local. Where do you live? Oh, I live in Sue. I live in Sugar. It's just code. But I have more money than God and I pay no taxes. But if you live in America, you pay taxes. You need to file your tax returns, and probably you're going to get a refund. And so get that refund by going to taxact.com and you can file your simple federal and state tax returns for free. And you can do it on your phone, you can do it on your tablet, you can do it on your computer, you can go back and forth. It guides you through every step of the. The process. So it's like something we all need to do because most of us don't live in Switzerland. So just go to taxact.com slate and get your simple federal and state returns for free taxact.com slate. You got this, Jenny?

[C]

Are we talking about rich people?

[B]

Can we talk about rich people?

[C]

I have some funny rich people stories.

[B]

All right, tell me some funny rich people.

[C]

Met someone so rich they don't come to Davos.

[B]

Oh, they exist on the plane.

[C]

The guy next to me owns a massive steel company in Ukraine, which is proving problematic for a number of reasons. He lives between Lugano, Louisiana and London. And so we're chatting, chatting. And I'm assuming the guy's going to Davos. It's, you know, Tuesday at noon, flight from London. And I said, so you're going to Davos? No, no, I wouldn't waste my time with that meeting. Oh, my God. Too rich for Davos.

[B]

I have a billionaire friend who doesn't go to that.

[C]

There are.

[B]

There are. Well, that's actually, it's very interesting. There's a whole bunch of people who you would think would come to Davos. And don't they include CEOs who need to be in control, who have, like, large staffs who organize every single minute of their days and where, you know, they sit in large offices and receive guests and have meetings. And that's not something you can do in Davos. You need to be okay with sort of vaguely structured chaos and serendipity and bumping into people and going to parties where you're not Only not the most important person in the room. You're not even in the top, you know, 40 most important people in the room. And there's a lot of people who have been so rich and powerful for so long, they just really don't like that kind of lifestyle. And those people don't come to Davos. As well as just people who don't like mingling and socializing, because that's really all it is.

[C]

Or people whose companies are doing so badly that it would send the world's worst message for the CEO to get on a plane and go to Davos, or get on the company's plane and go to Davos.

[B]

And also the people who aren't invited, because for all that, there are lots of, you know, rich people in Davos. There are so many more rich people in the world than there are delegates in Davos. There's always going to be some people who don't get an invite.

[D]

Just, just for the uninitiated, you mentioned that there's white badges. Like, could you explain the badge system? Because it sounds very intriguing.

[C]

Hierarchical system here so that you know exactly where you sit in the hierarchy.

[A]

How high is the white badge? Like, how high from the top, close.

[C]

To the top are you? So I have a very particular kind of white badge.

[D]

Oh, my God. There's different white badge tiers.

[A]

Is this like reading a wine label? Like, is this like a grand crew badge?

[B]

My former boss, Christja Freeland, who used to be a white badge, is now a white badge with a shiny hologram on it because she's moved from being a media leader to being an mp, a minister. So if you're a minister, you get a hologram. There's so many different flavors of white, and then there's pink and purple and orange and green and red.

[C]

The orange is the press badge. That basically means you can go to the bathroom and have some of the free croissants and coffee, but it also.

[B]

Means you can get into the hotels.

[A]

Wait, Felix, if I had showed up, if I decided to take. Take the plane, you would have been shot. Okay, aside from being shot on sight, who is this scruffy person?

[B]

There are snipers. There are a lot of snipers.

[A]

Assuming I survived to get to the badge table, though, right? Let's take that far flung assumption here. What badge do you think I would have had?

[B]

You would have got the orange, what's known as working press badge, which is what you get if you're ostensibly actually reporting on this.

[A]

So I would have, like, an orange minus is that basically what that is like you are a pro badge.

[D]

The color of the badge that Jordan would have worn was like basically a toxic waste.

[A]

Basically warning the water in Flint, Michigan is the color of the badge I would have gotten.

[B]

I can tell you the orange feels bad. But everything feels bad in Davos. Davos is like FOMO for everyone's a better party.

[A]

Weirdly, I'm from here, but you never know what.

[C]

No, no, no, you get, you're excited for seven seconds. You're like, oh my gosh, I get to go to Davos. Aren't I lucky? And this within two seconds. You can't get into any panels because they've all sold out. You can't get a single meeting with anyone interesting because you're definitely not interesting enough to get a meeting with that person. You walk down the hall and that person is then standing with another reporter and you feel even worse about yourself. I mean, it is a pretty much 247 exercise in self esteem destruction.

[A]

But it feels like now I know why you like it so much. Yeah. I was about to say you were talking about how you were deconstructing a hamburger with Gene Sperling or some such. It sounds like you've kind of mastered the system.

[B]

So. So this was, you know, I was. This is true. There's this wonderful thing that happened, happens in Davos, which is that every single restaurant raises its prices by about 500% for the week of the World Economic Forum. And so there's this brand new hotel in Davos right next to the conference center called the Amaron. And Joe Wiesenthal bravely ventured into the Amaron and discovered that they were serving a $68 hamburger.

[D]

Oh my God.

[B]

And so I was talking about this as you do when you're in Davos, to Gene Sperling, who, you know, just, you know, you hammed, happen to be in the same place as Gene Sperling. And talking about hamburgers. This is literally the only place in the world you happen to be in the same place as Gene Sperling talking about hamburgers. But we were, and we were trying to work out if you wanted to sort of deconstruct like the $68 of the hamburger, how much of it is what, you know, obviously the, the labor going into it. It's a few bucks. Swiss labor is expensive and the meat and the bun cost something. I'm sure the beef was very expensive. And there's just the fact that the Amaron Hotel wants to maximize its profits for the week. And so they Just like raising prices and doing sort of price gouging things. And there's the fact that the plutocrats who hang out there are very price insensitive and everyone's on expense accounts anyway, and so no one really cares what.

[C]

It costs and they don't eat in restaurants.

[A]

Well, also, I wonder if there's.

[B]

But the main thing which you're paying for, which I decided was the main thing that you're paying for is the empty seat that you can sit down at to order your burger. The main thing which is in scarcity. In Davos, there's no scarcity of money, there's no scarcity of champagne, there's certainly no scarcity of coffee, but there is a scarcity of places to sit. And so what they do, the way you guarantee an empty seat for people is by making the restaurant so expensive that people stay away from it. And then there will be a seat there. And the seat is what you're paying for, is what I think.

[A]

That's sort of what I like to call the Upper east side principle, that in New York, the Upper east side is full of really bad, expensive restaurants. And the idea is that the prices actually just makes it kind of a private club. It keeps the normals out so the very wealthy can go and have their place to eat quietly and enjoy themselves. I guess in Davos, it's also partly getting empty seat or keeping probably the journalists the way I imagine that's part of the goal. Except for you, Felix. You kind of messed up.

[D]

This Felix emerges between the two, I think. Is there anyone who's like, so, like so high up in the. In the ranking that they don't actually have to wear a badge?

[B]

Oh, so funny you should ask that. I actually found someone who was so important that he wasn't wearing a badge.

[D]

And who was it?

[C]

Clout.

[B]

Who was it? You're gonna. You're gonna love this one. Gordon Brown.

[C]

No, really, really, really.

[B]

Gordon Brown is apparently so important that he doesn't wear a badge.

[A]

How the hell did he still.

[C]

Was. Was Bono wearing one?

[D]

Actually, I have no idea who Gordon Brown is. This is. Could you guys explain it? It's awesome.

[B]

So, honestly, there is no reason why you should know who Gordon Brown is. And if you don't know who Gordon Brown is or why he might be important, you are in a state of grace. And I feel it would be, you know, just bad to.

[D]

So you're keeping me happy?

[B]

I'm keeping you happy by not telling you.

[D]

I will not Google it.

[A]

Wait, wait. Are we really not gonna. He's the former Prime Minister of England.

[D]

Oh, Gordon Brown.

[A]

I mean he like, he didn't have a good time event Gordon Brown. He didn't really, he didn't really have.

[D]

A. I just don't think of actually. I guess it's Davos, right?

[A]

Although, like, I don't know because like.

[B]

No, no. The thing about Gordon Brown that he is not important because he's the former Prime Minister of England, Britain, I should say. The. The thing which makes him important in Davos is that he was. He ran something called the imfc, which is the International Monetary and Financial Committee, which is basically the board of the IMF for many, many years. He was one of the longest serving G8 finance ministers of all time. And he basically is Davos man incarnate. He knows every single finance minister, every single central bank governor. He can schmooze perfectly with them. And he has this kind of very important and very ill defined job for the wef, sort of chairing all manner of panels and being sort of important at the high level at the wef, convening things, bringing all of the heads of state and finance ministers and central bank governors together. So he is the real sort of secret, shadowy power behind the scenes at Davos.

[A]

I think that's like a perfect kind of metaphor for the entire international order, right? Like, and international organizations in general, that being the democratically elected leader of one of the wealthiest nations in the world is less important than being, than being a member of these like shadowy boards that sort of try to pull the strings and like, behind closed doors like that is far more relevant to Davos and the people who go there then having been the Prime Minister of the.

[C]

Uk Also potentially a reflection of what Felix thought of his term as a.

[B]

Prime minister, which was universally regarded as kind of disastrous.

[C]

Disastrous. Can we talk about Donald Trump and the fascination with Donald Trump here at Davos?

[B]

Okay, so we're going to have, we're going to talk about Donald Trump, but first I'm going to talk about Credit Karma, which is also a sponsor of Slate Money. This is the app which tells you your credit score, which is free. That's all you need to know. You want to know your credit score. You don't want to pay to know your credit score. So what you do is you go to credit karma.com save and then you get a free credit report. There are 45 million people who are already using it. These are quite sensible people because Credit Karma does things differently. It does truly free credit reports. It's not going to ask you for your credit card. There are no strings attached to attached and it's incredibly easy to use. So just go to credit karma.comsave right now to get your free report. Jenny Anderson, who is the single most important person who is not in Davos this year?

[C]

Let me think for a nanosecond about.

[B]

That Donald Trump and is there anything Davosian about It strikes me that he is the least Davos person you can possibly have in on. Like he's stand he's more or less polar opposite to everything that the west stands for.

[C]

Yes. And yet I would agree with the point you made in your column. Were he to arrive in Davos right at this second, there would be an exodus from every corner of the Congress hall to go see him, to see the real deal.

[B]

People are absolutely fascinated by him. And he has mobilized a kind of anti globalization for Davos stands for bringing the planet together. He wants to be, you know, us Americans against the world. He has this zero sum view while the World Economic Forum has a let's all create value for everyone's kind of view. Do you think that it's actually a failure of Davos that those kind of people, that people holding those kind of opinions aren't really represented here?

[C]

Yeah, absolutely. I think more opinions would be better. I mean I'm not advocating to Donald Trump being here. He would be popular. It would be great. You know, it'd be nice to hear him. I heard Eric Cantor speak on a panel about Donald Trump in the U.S. political election and it was great. It was great to hear, you know, a different view from a view that I hear often.

[B]

So what does, what does Eric hand to think? Does Eric handsome think that Trump is going to win A the Republican nomination and B the presidency?

[C]

No and no. He doesn't think he has a shot the view and there was quite a few people.

[B]

Okay, but let's, let's come to Jordan because Jordan, your, your number this week is actually a Trump number.

[A]

It is a Trump number. Yeah. So Eric Cantor might not think that Trump is going to win, but right now Trump is leading the prediction markets predict wise which is the basically the.

[B]

Largest nomination of the presidency for the nomination.

[A]

So he is My number is 43. That's the percent chance that the prediction markets are giving Donald Trump of winning the or predict wise is giving Donald Trump of winning the nomination. Next after him is Marco Rubio with only a 28% chance. Ted Cruz follows at 13%. So Donald Trump is right.

[B]

And what's the prediction market? I Mean, I know that you, without me glaring at you, you have your laptop open in front.

[D]

Oh, yes. Oh, yes.

[B]

So what is the prediction market probability of Donald Trump actually becoming president?

[A]

They are giving Donald Trump a 43% chance of winning the nomination. The markets are predicting that he has a 16% chance of just winning the election, the entire presidential election outright. By comparison, they're giving Hillary Clinton a 53% chance of winning the entire election.

[D]

16% is not that small.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, there's not.

[B]

And it's also higher than the general received wisdom in Davos because Davos is actually a lagging indicator for a lot of this stuff. And most people are convinced that even if he wins the nomination, he has no, almost no chance. Well, he has no chance of winning the election overall, and there's a good chance he lose every single state.

[A]

Yeah, I disagree with that entirely. I see. Here's my question about this. Do people at Davos have any understanding of how fierce anti globalization sentiment is and is becoming? Do they get that?

[D]

No, they're in a global.

[A]

Okay, no, no, no.

[C]

There was so I actually this, this. I went to a panel on US politics and it was very interesting because kind of half of the people on the panel were, and it ended up in a big discussion that there is a massive disenfranchised part of the United States which is not represented in Davos, which is much more powerful than anybody is estimating and could potentially have a much more powerful effect in the election that anyone in that room could possibly predict, because they don't know those people and they've never met them and they've never seen them.

[B]

And what's more, in Davos, which is a European forum, which then became global, you know, it feels very European here. And we've seen, you know, a very anti globalization government get elected in Greece. We've seen the rise of anti globalization parties in Portugal and in Spain and in France. And even with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK in the Labour Party, like this is an absolutely known quantity in Davos. But you're right that it's not really reflected in the delegates.

[C]

And one of the comments that someone said is the difference between Europe and the U.S. thus far has been in the U.S. these people don't get elected. They might run and they might exist. Populism is a very human thing. It's. It has and always will existed. But in the US populists don't get elected. In Europe, that actually obviously does happen. But that's. That. That's like the question, I think that's part of the fascination, like, could this actually happen in this place? We didn't think it could happen.

[B]

So my number this week is 50, which is the generally received probability. If you kind of talk to a whole bunch of people in Davos and awesome. What's the probability that the UK is going to vote to leave the EU? Basically everyone says, oh, it's 50%. Some people say it's a little bit higher than 50 or it's basically 50, 50, but that's what people are saying now. Even a few weeks ago, no one would have said that. There's this referendum coming up this week which David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has idiotically promised the populace and said, if you elect me, I will give you a referendum in the option to leave the eu. And he should never promise that because he saw in Scotland how stupid it is to promise referendums because they can come back with the wrong answer. And now it's looking like. And now it's looking like he, you know, there's a very good chance, like a greater than 50% chance that Britain is going to go. Oh, okay, then we have the option. Yeah, we're going to leave, which would be a complete disaster.

[A]

How bad is. I should probably know more about this. I do. But how, how bad is Britain leaving for the project, considering it's not part of the euro, it's not part of the monetary union.

[B]

So the euro is a relatively new part of the project. And, and seriously, like, it is about as bad as you can get. Like, if it's politically or one of the most important parts of the. The EU just simply up and leave, then, yeah, the European Union as we know it ceases to exist. It becomes a very different thing.

[A]

Okay, so politically it's devastating, but it's not as if it's going to have like, financial market repercussions and any financial. Okay, there would be.

[C]

That's what I will tell you, that this is definitely a contested view. There are, I would say Felix is telling you the assumed was the conventional wisdom. But there is definitely a pretty strong set of voices in the UK right now that are making the case the UK will be just fine without Europe and actually could free up amazing innovation, trade possibilities. You know, England stood on its own before, it can stand on its own again. It's underestimating its own abilities. Europe is truly holding back Britain and it's not as if Britain is going to stop trading with the eu. They just have to renegotiate all these treaties.

[B]

So there is going to be very reluctant to give Britain, you know, friendly terms on trade if it has just snubbed them like that. And the other thing which actually I was talking about at dinner was this idea that independent Britain would be a bit like Canada. Like, Canada goes okay without being part of, you know, some greater bloc, which basically isn't true because firstly, Canada is part of nafta, and secondly, have you seen what's happened to Canada recently? You know, the economy is imploding, the currency is in the toilet, and there are major problems in Canada. And you really want to be able to rely on being part of a greater whole. It's very, very valuable. And Europe is not going to simply let Britain leave and give it. Let it keep all of the good bits and not keep all of the collective bits. It's not going to happen. My number. This is the longest numbers round in the history of Slate Money. Kathy o', Neill, what's your number?

[D]

Oh, my God. My number has nothing to do with Davos.

[C]

Hallelujah.

[B]

You have a non Davos number. I didn't even know that was a number.

[D]

Oh, shit. My number is 50 also, Felix, just like yours. But mine is the percent that Weight Watchers has gone down since January 1st. I feel like it's a metaphor for New Year's resolutions, actually.

[B]

But in any case, the Oprah investment.

[D]

Didn'T save Oprah bubble has popped, my friend. And I know that the S and P as a whole has gone down a lot, but, you know, Weight Watchers has tanked.

[B]

Which brings us to the whole question, Jenny, of like, oh, my God market and. And the people running around like chickens with their heads chopped off, where every time. Now that Britain is in the bear market and. And oil is at $27 a barrel.

[C]

And like, we've just been saved by Mario. No limits Draghi. And markets are rallying.

[B]

Thank you, Mario Draghi. We're going to leave. We're going to end now with the great Jenny Anderson bringing her number. You're the only person who hasn't had a number yet.

[C]

Such a embarrassing number, but I'm gonna give it. So as Felix pointed out, and mine is Davos, so I apologize for that ahead of time when you were very unimportant like me. You don't get fed at Davos. You're not invited to lunches and dinners. There is no food available. You eat granola bars that you keep stashed in your purse. My number is 9, which is the number of cups of coffee I have had so Far to today, which is most of the sustenance I have had. And I am just hoping if I ever do come back to Davos, they.

[A]

Feed me well, I can buy food for. Please find food. Just.

[B]

I'll bring you to the Canada party. I'm sure they'll have, like, maple Canada. No, the. It's true. It's general. The general health situation in Davos is atrocious. It is like a concerted attempt to turn the beautiful air of a ski resort as unhealthy as you possibly can.

[A]

Oh, yeah, you're in a real, like, Mumbai slum right now, guys. Yeah, you're really.

[C]

Did you send some donations?

[B]

But the fact is someone gets sanitation in there. If you want to stay healthy, you should eat well. If you do eat, you wind up eating basically just veal and cheese. And even if you do eat, you get no sleep. And with the amount of sleep we're all working on here, like, it's unbelievable that anyone can even put a sentence together. So I'm going to just bring.

[C]

This might explain this panel.

[B]

I'm going to bring this, this slightly chaotic episode of Slate Money to a close by saying thank you for putting up with all of this Davos bollocks, because God knows, you know, we put up with it normally so that you don't have to. Thank you for listening to Slate Money. And thank you and apologies if none of this made any sense. But. But if it made no sense, that's entirely a function of the fact that none of us have slept in living memory.

[A]

Well, I have. I have because I'm not Dallas, but.

[B]

Yeah, the non Dallas.

[D]

I slept great people and I ate really well this morning.

[A]

I went to the gym.

[C]

Stay home.

[B]

If this show made any sense, the reason is that it was produced very professionally by the one and only Zach Dynastein. The executive producer of Sleep's podcast is Steve Lichti. The executive producer for all of Panoply is Andy Bowers. Late Money is part of the Panoply Network. Check out our entire roster of podcasts and itunes.com panoply and we'll talk to you next week on Slate Money, which I believe is going to be a special millennial edition, which I'm not even invited to. Is that. Is that right, Jordan?

[A]

That's what it's shaping up as.

[D]

Yet I'm also not here, so I'll miss you guys.

[B]

Yeah. Because you and I are old.

[D]

Yeah. We're not invited. We're not invited.

[B]

It's just the millennials next week, so I don't know what they're going to do to the franchise. Make sure you don't wreck it. Don't have, like, some kegger which destroys the entire franchise.

[A]

I'll try not to crash the car, dad.

[B]

All right, we'll talk to Jordan. We'll talk to you next week on Slate Money. Sam.