The WeBurnout Edition

Summary

Slate Money: The WeBurnout Edition (Jan 12, 2019) – Detailed Summary

Episode Overview

In this episode, hosts Felix Salmon, Anna Szymanski, and Emily Peck dive into three main topics: the recent viral conversation on millennial burnout, the peculiar rebranding trend at companies like WeWork, and the sudden resignation of the World Bank president. With energetic debate and a signature blend of data-driven skepticism and wry humor, they interrogate pop narratives, business buzzwords, and global leadership politics.

---

Segment 1: Millennial Burnout – Myth or Reality?

[00:53–14:48]

Key Discussion Points

• Millennial Burnout Article

  • Inspired by Anne Helen Petersen’s viral BuzzFeed article.
  • Claims that millennials are more burned out than previous generations, largely due to a precarious job market and increased economic pressures.

• Is Millennial Burnout Unique?

  • Felix notes a University of Phoenix poll reporting that 55% of people feel burned out, across all ages—and most blame work ([01:03]).
  • Emily summarizes the BuzzFeed thesis: “Millennials are burned out because of the economy... so precarious out there for working adults now” ([02:14]).
  • Anna challenges the narrative, arguing: “...if you actually look at statistics, the idea that most millennials out there have precarious jobs... is simply not supported by anything.” ([03:28])
  • Emily counters by citing the disproportionate student debt load, housing costs, and challenging job market, especially for non-college grads ([04:00]).

• The Data Debate

  • The hosts wrestle with conflicting data on millennial fortunes compared to prior generations.
  • Emily: “...real estate is far more expensive for us now...” ([06:16])
  • Anna: While incomes may be comparable or higher, disposable income is squeezed by health care, housing, and education costs ([06:06]).

• Structure vs. Precarity in Work

  • Felix: “If you’re in a more precarious situation where you don’t really know what your career even is... that creates a bunch of kind of low-level stress that exacerbates whatever the hard work parts are.” ([02:45])

• Is It Just “Being a Grown-up”?

  • Anna (as “elder millennial”): “You mean being a grownup? Like, I’m sorry, like, I’m a millennial. I’m 36. I’m an old millennial.” ([07:12])
  • Emily: Pushes back—“the real economic and psychological labor of building one’s life... I trade my iPhone for my dad’s pension any day.” ([07:23], [14:48])

• Is the Past ‘Mythical’?

  • Anna: “We’re comparing it to this mythical past that never existed.” ([08:16])

• Destigmatizing Mental Health

  • All agree on the need to destigmatize mental health issues at work.
  • Felix: “...there’s still a stigma around people just taking mental health days off work... it should be much easier and much more common to do that.” ([08:22])

• Policy Implications

  • Universal support for better childcare, support for working parents, and awareness of mental health—even as the panel spar over causes and narratives ([12:22–13:39]).

Notable Quotes

“I trade my iPhone for my dad’s pension any day.”
—Emily ([14:48])

“There is, as Emily said, like, this BuzzFeed piece did touch a nerve. I think it touched a nerve among people of many ages, not just among millennials.”
—Felix ([09:44])

---

Segment 2: The Great Rebranding (or “Dbranding”) – WeWork Becomes “We”

[14:48–23:05]

Key Discussion Points

• WeWork’s Name Change

  • WeWork is renaming its holding company “The We Company.”
  • Felix dubs it “dbranding”: moving away from the flagship brand’s name.

• Why Do It?

  • Emily: “There’s two strategies... house of brands... or branded house” ([16:33]).
  • Felix: “What this says to me is they’re a little bit ashamed of their brands. Would you agree with that?” ([17:54])
  • Emily: Sees it as “cosmetic change” in strategy, not substance ([18:26]).

• The Tech Aspiration

  • Anna: “I think what they’re really trying to do is make themselves appear more like [a tech company]... because of how tech companies are valued” ([18:35–18:52]).

• Expansion into Other Businesses

  • Discussion of WeLive (residential space) and WeGrow (preschool/coding academy).
  • Felix recounts a child choosing between “Spanish, Mandarin, or Hebrew”—to Anna’s consternation ([20:01–20:20]).
  • “That’s a horrible idea.” —Anna ([20:22])

• When Is Rebranding a Good Idea?

  • Emily presents classic name changes (Pepsi from “Brad's Drink,” Nike from “Blue Ribbon Sports,” eBay from “AuctionWeb”) ([21:01]).
  • The team agrees product rebrands are different from holding company rebrands:

    “I just don’t think there’s a case to rebrand a Holdco or to create a new brand which is just your holding company brand.”
    —Felix ([21:35])

• Holding Companies – Who Cares?

  • Emily: “No one cares what the holding co is called. They care about the brands.” ([21:50])

• Consensus

  • All regard “The We Company” move as ill-advised.

    “It’s a stinker.” —Emily ([22:59])
    “Everything WeWork does is ill advised.” —Anna ([23:00])

---

Segment 3: The World Bank – Leadership Vacancy, Global Power

[23:05–34:32]

Key Discussion Points

• Jim Yong Kim Steps Down

  • President of the World Bank leaves abruptly despite a recent re-nomination and successful funding efforts ([23:05–23:57]).
  • Speculation about possible “mini scandal” and rumors ([24:02]).

• Is the World Bank Losing Relevance?

  • Felix: “Maybe less important than it used to be... big infrastructure projects are mostly history, it’s now more a poverty alleviation institution” ([25:15–26:39]).
  • Now, World Bank operates mainly in the poorest countries.

• Who Will Lead Next?

  • Noting only men (all American) have held the presidency, and pondering a woman/non-American leader ([24:43–25:05]).
  • “They’ll throw a woman at it”—Anna’s cynical take ([24:56]).

• Politics of Appointment

  • Historically, the U.S. appoints the World Bank head; Europe gets the IMF ([26:51–28:46]).
  • In the Trump era, other countries may push back against a controversial pick like Ivanka Trump or David Malpass.

    “If he did something like that, then I think the rest of the world will just be like, okay, in principle, ... let’s actually have that open and transparent, merits-based [competition].” —Felix ([28:46])

• Will the “World” Stand Up to the U.S.?

  • “The Americans only have 16% of the vote, so they really need to wrangle support from the rest of the world. And... does this strike you as the kind of administration that can wrangle support from the rest of the world?” —Felix ([29:45])

• International Order – Cracking?

  • Emily: “That post-World War II world order just sort of falling apart...” ([30:33])
  • Anna: “There is a reasonable argument that it perhaps should not be an American who is the head of the World Bank.” ([30:42])

• Potential Female Leaders

  • Felix: Endorses Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigerian economist and former Finance Minister ([31:32–31:39]).
  • Anna: “She did an amazing job renegotiating Nigeria’s debt back in the day. She’s qualified.” ([31:37])

• Speculative Outcomes

  • Discusses possibility of Indra Nooyi (ex-PepsiCo CEO) as a compromise pick ([32:26]); Trump's lack of attention may allow it.

---

Segment 4: Crunchless Doritos and Gendered Snacking!

[32:51–34:49]

Key Discussion Points

• Doritos for Women
  • Indra Nooyi’s comments on differing male/female snacking habits.
  • Anna defends her intent: “She wasn’t saying like, women have to eat Doritos one way. She was saying, this is what our study showed, so we’re going to try to create a product people would like.” ([33:27–34:03])
  • Emily is unimpressed: “If they marketed low crunch Doritos, that’s just weird. No one wants those... The whole point of a chip is you get in there and you crunch the hell out of the chip.” ([34:32])

---

Numbers Round

[34:56–38:10]

Key Numbers & Moments

• Six – Months of paid leave in California’s proposed plan; Emily reflects on California’s “liberal goodies” ([35:04]).
• $27.7 billion – Pentagon funds left unspent last year ([35:53]).
• 202-452-3000 – The public office number for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell; Anna suggests listeners “call up Jay Powell.” ([37:10])
• Brief side discussion on current Fed/monetary policy and Trump’s influence ([37:47-38:10]).

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “It’s a lot of we.” —Emily ([23:03])
• “We can talk about young people in Tunisia... Italy... countries where it is actually quite hard to make a go of it if you are millennial or younger.” —Anna ([10:59])
• “Employers trying to work with people who are worried about burnout... would have made sense 20 years ago and still make sense today.” —Felix ([12:39])
• “No one cares what the holding co is called. They care about the brands.” —Emily ([21:50])
• “Everything WeWork does is ill advised.” —Anna ([23:00])
• “If you have America and Europe both going along with this, then it’s almost impossible for anyone else to get a word in.” —Felix ([27:02])
• “She’s qualified.” —Anna, on Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala ([31:37])
• “Just send us a very simple email: Doritos for women. Good idea or bad idea. And we will tally it up and we will see whether Emily, or even...” —Felix ([34:08])

---

Tone and Style

• Friendly, energetic, and often deadpan; heavy on debate but inclined toward consensus on policy goals.
• Panelists blend personal anecdote with macroeconomic analysis, unafraid to call out buzzwords or media narratives.
• Frequent use of humor and light sarcasm.

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Millennial Burnout: [00:53–14:48]
• Rebranding/Dbranding & WeWork: [14:48–23:05]
• World Bank Leadership: [23:05–34:32]
• Doritos & Gendered Snack Marketing: [32:51–34:49]
• Numbers Round: [34:56–38:10]

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode blends sharp skepticism and progressive empathy as the hosts disentangle media narratives around millennial malaise, roll their eyes at corporate branding stunts, and analyze the shifting sands of global economic institutions. If you want to understand why “burnout” isn’t just for millennials, what WeWork’s rebrand signals about business identity, or why the next leader of the World Bank matters, this Slate Money edition delivers insights and laughs alike.

Transcript

[A]

Hello. Welcome to the We Burnout edition of Slate Money, your guide to the business and finance news of the week. I'm Felix Salmon of Axios, joined as ever by Anna Shymansky.

[B]

Hello.

[A]

And by Emily Peck of the Huffington Post.

[C]

Hello.

[A]

Hello. And wait for it. We are going to talk about crunchless Doritos. You're gonna have to wait for this one. But there is going to be. Trust me on this one. Somewhere in one of these three segments, we're gonna talk about crunchless Doritos. I have decided. I have decided it, and so it shall be.

[C]

So stay tuned.

[A]

We are going to talk about the World bank, which is a massive institution which is kind of a little bit in turmoil because its head just stepped down mysteriously. We are going to talk about de branding and the difference between companies of brands and brands of companies. And it's going to be WeWorktastic, because WeWork is no longer calling itself WeWork, or rather WeWork is still calling itself WeWork, but that's the subsidiary. And the Holdco is called the we, the We. Well done. The Wii. That was a great idea. Which was universally applauded on the Twitters. And but first, I think we should talk about burnout, because this is apparently something which every millennial identifies with. And if you are struggling to adult, then this first segment is for you. All of that coming up on Sleep Money. So let's start with millennials and whether they're burned out and whether all of us are burned out. Because I actually just did get a press release from the University of Phoenix saying that 55% of people say that they're burned out whether they're millennial or not. And they all think it's work related.

[C]

I mean, I think that's justified. So what we're here to talk about is this incredibly popular article that buzzfeed published over the weekend about millennial burnout, the Phenomenon of Millennial Burnout by Anne Helen Peterson. And I guess the basic thesis of the piece was that millennials are burned out because of the economy, basically because of how hard it is in the job market, how hard they have to work, essentially, and how precarious. Precarious it is out there for working adults now.

[A]

And it's not just hard work, it's precarious work, precarious work which are orthogonal to each other. If you have a career where you need to work hard, but it is very structured, and you know that your employer has given a permanent job, and you know that you're making mortgage payments and all the rest of it, that somehow you can fit hard work into that structure. Whereas if you're in a more precarious situation where you don't really know what your career even is, then that creates a bunch of kind of low level stress that exacerbates whatever the hard work parts are.

[B]

So if it were the case that millennials were actually this incredibly precarious generation, I would say okay. But it's just absolutely not. I feel like we have these narratives that we talk about with millennials. And while I am very sympathetic for the fact that a lot of millennials came into the workplace during the Great Recession, I am sympathetic about some of the student debt load. However, if you actually look at statistics, the idea that most millennials out there have precarious jobs or most millennials are barely getting by is simply not supported by anything.

[C]

There is some data that shows that the situation economically for younger adults today is pretty shaky and definitely not as good as it was for their parents. For example, real estate and housing costs are much higher than they used to be. This generation has 300% more in student debt than their parents did. If you're a high school graduate, if you're a millennial who didn't go to college, you are effed. Like, the job market is bad for you and it is precarious.

[B]

So if you're talking about people who did not go to college or don't have a high school degree and also in our country, minorities, then yes, I'll agree with you.

[A]

That is a majority of millennials.

[B]

Yeah, well, although I will say the.

[C]

Buzzfeed piece really seems to focus on a certain kind of white.

[B]

Yes. And that's not a majority of millennials, like the majority of millennials. That is not the situation.

[A]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm saying that a majority of did.

[B]

Not go down, did not graduate high school, did either.

[A]

Wait, did not graduate from college, or, or like minorities, like, there's like, it's still more common than not to not go to college, to not graduate from college anyway.

[B]

Well, millennials are the most well educated of any generation. If you're looking at.

[A]

And if you do graduate from college, as Emily says, you wind up with student loans. Right.

[B]

But actually, this is interesting because if you're looking at student loan debt, it really depends. So if you're someone who went to. Which is what this article was really talking about, which people who probably went to a decent one for your college, you have a huge benefit from going to that school. If you're looking at the gap between People who have not gone to college.

[A]

Absolutely. We can all agree on that.

[B]

Now, if you're talking about people who did not graduate college, went to for profit colleges, went to, like, cosmetology schools that are, like, pretty awful. Yes, Those people I do feel sorry for, but who I do not feel sorry for are people who went to good schools and are getting a big boon from that degree. Yes.

[A]

I think Emily's point is that for all that they might have a boon compared to the their peers who didn't go to college, they are not getting a boon compared to where their parents were at at the same point in their lives.

[B]

It depends on what you're looking at. If you're looking at actual incomes, then actually young people. Millennial. The millennial age currently now is actually doing a little bit better. If you're looking at disposable income, that's a separate issue.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, if you look at incomes and housing costs, I think there's no question that real estate is far more expensive for us now than it was.

[B]

And I'm not saying that if you're talking about issues of health care, education, and housing, there aren't some concerns. However, I think the. No, I agree with you. No, but my point is the idea.

[A]

That apart from those three, everything's fine.

[B]

No, but my point is the idea that it's so much worse for millennials than it is for previous generations is not true.

[C]

Here's what I'll say.

[B]

There's some evidence that there are, like, slight differences, but it's not as extreme as people make it out to be when you actually look at data that the government puts out.

[C]

I think one reason that millennials might say it's worse for us right now is because they're just coming into adulthood and they're having to navigate and make a lot of decisions that older adults, Gen Xers, boomers, obviously have already made, like navigating, where am I gonna live? Who am I gonna partner with? How am I gonna raise my children? What are my children's prospects? Like, there's just a lot going on.

[B]

You mean being a grownup? Like, I'm sorry, Like, I'm a millennial. I'm 36. I'm an old millennial. So I think this idea that, like, oh, we're just becoming adults. I'm 36 years old.

[C]

Like, that's a very shallow way of viewing what I'm talking about, which is, like, the real hard economic labor and psychological labor of building one's life. And I think now, in the Modern times, to do the things that came pretty easily for previous generations, like build a family, have a home, is harder because of the precariousness of the labor market right now, which I think the three of us sitting in this room can personally attest to that. And because of the expense of things like health care and housing, where you really don't know if you can afford things, and even if you have health insurance, one bad thing happens to you. I just spoke to a woman who had a great job at a Fortune 50 company. Her kid got cancer, she got forced out. She was fired, didn't have a job after that. There's not a lot of safety net anymore for millennials compared to previous generations. The costs are higher. Don't make a face.

[B]

I am making a face because we're talking about it, because we're comparing it to this mythical past that never existed.

[A]

No, no, but wait, hang on a sec, Ana. Let's listen to this. I think that it's very easy to do the grumpy old man thing and say, well, in my day, it was no better if I could deal with it. Then you should be able to deal with it. But in fact, I think there is something real going on. And what's more, there is an opportunity here. I think that, like, one of the things that this University of Phoenix study was saying was basically that there's still a stigma around people just taking mental health days off work instead of, like, physical health days. They do help, and if that helps both the employer and the employee, it should be much easier and much more common to do that. And I think that's, like, a simple way of making the world a better place for everyone.

[B]

Yeah, I'll agree with that. I mean, I'm. I think that overall, every generation has had problem with being overwhelmed, and I do think that we should destigmatize mental health issues a hundred percent. I just think that the idea that millennials are having a harder time with this than previous generations, or somehow that millennials are working so much harder than previous generations, I think is a nice narrative that isn't supported by very much.

[A]

Data, except for it would not show up in the data, is what I guess. I'm saying that, like, you can look at income data and wealth data and housing price data until you're blue in the face, basically, and you can slice it any way you like, and you can, you know, come in with your priors, and you will wind up finding your priors reinforced by looking at the data. I think that if you come at it the other way and just listen to people. There is, as Emily said, like, this buzzfeed piece did touch a nerve. I think it touched a nerve among people of many ages, not just among millennials. And I think it touched a nerve in a way that maybe it would not have done in previous generations, or maybe if it would have done in previous generations, then it should have done. And, like, maybe it would have been a good idea to publish it then. Being able to talk about these things and being able to talk about burnout as an issue and being able to talk about how, you know, navigating adulthood is tough is, like, great. We should destigmatize that, too, instead of just, like, writing off an entire generation.

[B]

As whiners, saying that it's an entire generation of whiners. But I am saying that if we do want to talk about young people who I think we should actually be focusing on, we can talk about young people in Tunisia. We can talk about young people in South Africa. We can talk about young people in Italy. We can talk about young people in countries where it is actually quite hard to make a go of it if you are millennial or younger.

[C]

I think there are also some interesting things that she could have put in the piece that she didn't put in the piece kind of hinted at. But one reason it's so hard to adult right now is because kids move really far away from their families. Like, we're at a point in American life where families are very displaced. And I think, like, for this section, she was talking about women who do more labor at home, second shift. And that makes you more burned out for, like, working mothers. It's like, 20 years ago, you would have had a working mother, would have her mother living really nearby and able to help, and you would have had, like, an extended family around.

[B]

There's actually less social. No, actually, there's. People are moving less than they did in the past. That I'm just saying, like. And I know they're saying that, like, well, the data doesn't matter, but I guess that I do think data matters because when people talk about their own experiences, our own experiences are, of course, we feel them. We like. So that's why if somebody writes something that seems to relate to what we experience, we'll say, yes, that's right. But that's not how we structure policy. That's not how we make changes based on just, like, what people are feeling.

[A]

Wait, wait, hang on. If you're talking about structuring policy, though, I think I kind of get the feeling that for all that you're upset about this, you kind of agree with the policy implications of this piece, which would be things like, you know, better childcare.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean look, better support for like self diagnosed mental health issues, mental health care, basically, employers trying to work with people who are worried about burnout. All of these things which would have made sense 20 years ago and still make sense today. So you know, I, for all that you can quibble with the, whether the data show that labor mobility is going up or down. If, if we are now more aware of the, call it the plight of parents who don't live close to their own parents, then that's a positive development from policy purposes.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, and that's fair. And you're, you're right. I mean, I think the reason that, I'll be perfectly honest, I think this article just infuriated me, which I'm sure you can probably tell, was that the author was like suggesting that because she decided to go to school to get a media studies PhD and it didn't work out so well, that somehow that says all of these things about an entire generation. And I just found that absolutely infuriating.

[C]

Yeah, I mean it would have been, I think it was a good piece. It could have been a better piece if she spoke to more people about their personal experiences. But I think she does have a point about how academia is and it's not just media studies. I mean when I was in graduate school, I mean everyone kind of knew like, don't stay here, this is what I don't do it, you're going to be screwed later, you know, and I left and I didn't get my PhD because I freaked out. And I was like, I better get into that job market. And speaking of the job market, like unemployment might be low right now, but holding down a full time job for the privileged people that this article mainly addresses, like, it's very stressful. There's no, you have no sense. Now I am speaking a little bit from personal experience, but you don't really have a sense of security working in the modern labor market. Most jobs are inherently feel insecure. And there's something that does produce a lot that produces a lot of anxiety which leads you to work a little bit harder, which yes, leads to burnout. I don't see how that's like so.

[B]

Crazy because I think you're not acknowledging all of the advancements that have come in the past 30, 40 years that have actually made our lives quite a bit easier.

[C]

I trade my iPhone for my dad's pension any day.

[A]

Okay. So I'm gonna try jumping in here and do less of the sit back and listen to the fireworks. There is a thing that I have decided to call dbranding. And the reason why it's in the news this week is that WeWork, which is a multibillion dollar valuation company which makes all of its revenues from renting out offices to people, has decided to re. I won't say rebrand, but I would say dbrand itself as on a corporate level that it's now just going to be called the we. Which. Which is genius. The.

[B]

It's something.

[C]

I don't understand how that got through you guys. We mean so many things and as we said as we were coming in here, most of them not good. You don't want to be associated with.

[A]

We now it's just we. Or maybe it's. Or maybe it's the we company or something.

[B]

It's a tiny little company, a little wee.

[A]

It's a little we company. But they are not the only company to do distance themselves from their flagship brand. And this is fascinating to me because normally, you know, the Coca Cola company makes lots of things. You know, the number one top thing it makes is Coca Cola. And they're like, great, we're going to call ourselves Coca Cola, Pepsi Go. Yeah, you name it. Anything which. Any companies which own the big flagship brand, even Facebook, you know, has a big flagship brand called Facebook. It buys Instagram, it's buys WhatsApp, still called Facebook.

[C]

Wait, there's a marketing name for this? There's two strategies to naming your company. There's the house of brand strategy. So that's like Procter and Gamble. They're called Procter and Gamble, but then they have all different products tied, blah, blah, blah. Or the branded house strategy, which would be like Apple or Facebook, as you were saying.

[A]

And so, but what's very uncommon is for a branded house company to become a house of brands company because there's clearly advantages to the company having its brand front and center as part of its corporate identity. If you kind of become a weird role, if you're like Berkshire Hathaway or something and you wind up buying companies hither and yon and you wind up doing this and you wind up doing that. You can't just be a branded house, you have to be a house of brand. On the other hand, if you are Facebook or WeWork or Google and you create this amazing brand and then you start branching off into other things, then it makes perfect sense to just keep on calling yourself Facebook or we work or Google, except for the WeWork has decided to change its name to We. Google changed its name to Alphabet. Snapchat changed its name to Snap. You know, Yahoo changed its name to Oath and now changed its name again to Verizon Media Group. So explain to me because what this says to me is they're a little bit ashamed of their brands. Is this not. Would you agree with that?

[C]

I would definitely agree with that. And we see there's other examples like Kentucky Fried Chicken calling itself KFC to sort of, I guess it's like it's.

[A]

The brand itself changing. I feel like when the brand itself changes, that's a slightly different thing. Like MasterCard deciding to just become two balls.

[C]

Yeah, I don't know if it's ashamed of the brands, but it's like it's trying to do business strategy via just cosmetic change.

[B]

Well, I think it's trying to do is it's trying to appear like a tech company. I think that's what we're seeing in both of these instances. WeWork has oddly been valued as though it's a tech company, even though it decidedly is not. And I think what they're really trying to do is make themselves appear more like that. And that is exactly what's happening with.

[A]

Why is calling your we or we?

[B]

Because then it's suggesting that you're creating this kind of, you know, new universe of how people work. And they even pointed out, oh, we're hiring all these engineers. I'm like hiring all these engineers. To do what? Like this has been a strategy that WeWork has had. And it makes a lot of sense because of how tech companies are valued versus companies that are not like just a company that rents real estate, but.

[A]

I mean that they're too announced subsidiaries that actually exist and they claim that they're going to start growing. And not the WeWork subsidiary, but some other subsidiary are WeLive, which is basically exactly the same thing where we rent out long term leases and then sublease them to individuals. Except for now it's people to sleep in rather than to work in. And then we grow. Which is a preschool.

[C]

Yeah, preschool.

[B]

And a coding academy. No, it is actually both of those things.

[A]

Teach your toddler to code.

[B]

No, it's no, I mean it's no, those are two separate things.

[A]

Sorry.

[B]

I mean it is a coding academy.

[A]

I actually know a kid who goes to We Grow because his dad works for WeWork and he's like, great, I get to send my kid to the kindergarten in the office. So that's nice. He's like four and he gets the choice. Does he want to learn Spanish, does he want to learn Mandarin, or does he want to learn Hebrew?

[C]

He gets to choose the kid.

[B]

That's a horrible idea.

[C]

That's good.

[A]

I'm like, yeah, what are kids should.

[B]

Never get to choose?

[A]

Playing with crayons.

[C]

I thought so when we were talking about doing this, I thought at first, oh, well, if a company's changing its name, it's always, this is a bad sign. Like when I heard this about WeWork, I just thought like, oh, this company is going down. And you know, and there was that.

[A]

Can we mention the au Tronk. Let's not forget.

[B]

Yes, yes.

[A]

And can we mention the spreads on WeWork's bonds? We can mention those have been hitting record highs. I mean, all high yield debt has been hitting record high yields of late. But wework even more than virtually any of the others. But.

[C]

So I googled, I was like, this can't be true. Maybe sometimes a name change is a good thing. And I found this amazing listicle on cnbc.

[A]

Oh, I love listicles.

[C]

Okay, so Pepsi, which we would agree is like a decent brand, used to be called Brad's drink. In 1893. It was founded. Nike was called Blue ribbon Sports. Ebay was called Auction Web. I mean, it just. This is, it's a great list.

[A]

No, I think, I think there is a case to rebrand a product.

[C]

Yes, there's definitely a case.

[A]

I just don't think there's a case to rebrand a Holdco or to create a new brand which is just your holding company brand, which is, you know, one level in the org chart higher than the, you know.

[B]

Well, then why.

[C]

I think that is the absolute correct point. Because it's a waste of time and money. No one cares what the holding co is called. They care about the brands.

[A]

Like, does anyone look back on Google's decision to rename itself Alphabet and say, oh, that makes perfect sense?

[C]

No. Everyone thinks it's weird. And Kara Swisher's like, no, I'm called that.

[A]

People talk about the fang stocks. The G stands for Google. The A stand for Apple and Alphabet. I mean Apple and Amazon. The like, the fact that there's a third A is just confusing.

[C]

Yeah, holding companies don't matter. So don't mess around and spend millions of dollars rebranding what they're called because that's not the brand that matters. Unless it's Berkshire Hathaway, I guess, kind of Matters maybe.

[A]

I mean it was. I remember when like Conde Nast Traveler came out. That one was interesting to me because they were like Conde Nast was always just this holding company that no one had ever heard of and then suddenly they were turning it into a brand new.

[C]

But that I feel like organically Conde Nast just started becoming a brand just because of the way it was covered in the press. And then it did have a brand to it. You know, it took on a personality.

[A]

Still, I don't. I feel like we can all agree that this move to the we is probably ill advised.

[C]

It's a stinker.

[B]

Everything we work does is ill advised.

[C]

It's a lot of we.

[A]

Let's talk about the World bank, which is a large and important organization, but weirdly I think maybe less important than it used to be. So maybe that's part of what's going on here. But the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, after having got himself re nominated and reelected to a second term early to make sure it happened in the Obama administration and to solidify his position and then having got the World Bank a nice big chunk of change from the Trump administration and from the US Congress and really setting the World bank on what looks like a credible strategy which you can either agree or disagree with. But he's finally managed to bring the World bank around to his way of thinking. Just one day ups and says, oh you know what? I'm leaving.

[C]

Mysterious.

[A]

It's very odd.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

There. There may or may not be some kind of other part shoe which has yet to drop. There were definitely rumors around December or so of 2016 that there was like some kind of like mini scandal surrounding him. But for whatever reason it is, there is now this kind of vacuum at the top of the World bank which is. Well, nature abhors such a thing. And the thing which fascinates me about this is that when I'm mentally going down the list of like who can or should or will be the next president of the World bank, pretty much every candidate I can think of is a woman.

[C]

Yeah, we were just talking about this because I. Because there's only ever been male presidents of the World Bank, American men. And now Anna was saying that some probably almost definitely gonna be a lady.

[B]

Right. Because it's, as I've said, it's not the most meaningful institution anymore. I'm not saying it's meaningless, but it's not that meaningful. So they'll throw a woman at it. I mean, I think that's often what happens.

[A]

I mean we have a woman in charge of the imf and that's definitely meaningful.

[C]

Wait, can we back up? And can you two explain to me why the World bank is or is not more or less meaningful anymore?

[A]

So what happened is the World bank used to most of its stuff, like the classic sort of post war big infrastructure product projects, building dams in South Asia or something like that, that would be the World bank. They would loan billions of dollars to governments who would then go around building railways and roads and dams. And they would have a whole bunch of domain specific engineers and economists and stuff would say like, this is a good idea, you should build your damn there. And then they would build it and they wouldn't, you know, displace all these. They displace all the indigenous population. And everyone would like go, great. And then what happened was that a lot of those countries basically just grew out of it. You know, like China doesn't need World bank funding anymore. It's China. So world. The World bank more and more became a poverty alleviation in development institution, concentrating mostly on the poorest countries where they don't actually make a profit. They still make a profit through their official lending arm, which is known as the ibrd. But that is the amount of money that the IBRD lends out is small compared to the amount of money that its debtors can borrow in international markets. So the World bank is mostly now important for the poorest countries in the world.

[B]

And a lot of health initiatives, a.

[C]

Woman'S gonna run it.

[B]

Education initiatives.

[C]

The X factor here is of course, as it always is lately, the Trump administration, right? And the question is, and the Trump.

[A]

Administration, who are they going to nominate? Because historically speaking, the Americans always get to nominate the president of the World bank and they always nominate an American to be the president of the World bank, to the point at which when they nominated an Australian to be the president of the World bank, they actually made him get US citizenship before they would nominate him. Jim Wolfenson, who was not a bad World bank president. You know, there have definitely been worse. What's interesting is that they never just pick some senior American within the World bank and say, yeah, we would like this person to take over. They always pick someone from outside the bank who has no idea really how it works internally, because it's this incredibly convoluted bureaucracy in there. I think it's employs more economics PhDs than any other institution in the world. And economics PhDs are not easy to manage. And then what they do is they bring in someone like Paul Wolfowitz who was this crazy Iraq war hawk and say, you run it. And he's like, so the presidency of the World bank is this weird plum that goes to friends of the whatever administration is in power in America at the time. And the rest of the world just kind of goes along with it, according to this kind of gentleman's agreement that the Americans have with the Europeans. That the Europeans get the IMF job, the Americans get the World bank job. If you have America and Europe both going along with this, then it's almost impossible for anyone else to get a word in. But my idea is that the Europeans just aren't really that keen to just go along with the Trump administration. And so if Trump winds up nominating, and I've heard rumors about like, David Malpass, or even worse, if he nominates Ivanka Trump.

[C]

Who's David Malpass?

[A]

David Malpass is like, he used to be at bear stands and then he just became this kind of Trumpist economist. And he's at the treasury right now. He's thankfully been quiet. Like, you know, the less noise he makes, the better. But Ivanka is the one who's been closest to the World Trump. She's worked very closely with Jim Yong Kim. And if he did something like that, then I think the rest of the world will just be like, okay, in principle, we have historically voted for the American on paper. There's meant to be an open and transparent merits based competition which just by sheer coincidence has always been won by an American man. And I think the rest of the world would just say, no, let's actually have that open and transparent merit space.

[C]

So the Europeans could team up with the rest of the world against America. And that would be like the ultimate or the latest, the latest symbol of the United States sort of like declining power on the global state.

[A]

The Americans only have 16% of the vote, so they really need to wrangle support from the rest of the world. And like, you tell me, does this strike you as the kind of administration that can wrangle support from the rest of the world?

[C]

And at this stage, the world is ready to like, stick it to them, I would think. And this is sort of like an easy way to do it, right? I mean, what's the downside for the Europeans and everyone else for going against the United States here?

[B]

Yeah, very little.

[A]

And I think, well, theoretically the downside for the Europeans is that the Americans won't vote for a European to run the IMF next time around. That wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[C]

But then couldn't the same thing happen in the Europeans team up? Everyone teams up against America again?

[A]

Well, the Americans wouldn't nominate an American to run the imf, but the Europeans want it to remain like a European stronghold rather than giving it to, you know, someone from Japan.

[C]

This is terrible. This is a sign of like, again, like that post World War II World Order just sort of falling apart. If it were to go like that. And Steve Mnucci, having said that, there.

[B]

Is a reasonable argument that it perhaps should not be an American who is the head of the World Bank.

[A]

It 100% should not be an American who is like by right the head of the World bank. Just like it 100% should not be a European who is by right the head of the imf. Like the world is more than just American and Europe. And the heads of multilateral, especially the World bank reflect that.

[C]

And the World Bank's making decisions about projects.

[B]

Exactly.

[C]

Not in the United States.

[B]

So it would be reasonable to have someone in there who actually understands that as opposed to, like, Paul Wolfowitz.

[A]

And so, you know, and so there are very qualified, you know, former World bank managing directors who've also been finance ministers in places like Nigeria and Indonesia who could easily step into that role and take on the job and also be the first woman to do the job.

[C]

You had a name?

[B]

It's the former finance minister of Nigeria. I actually do have her name.

[A]

Ngo. So you're conjurable.

[B]

It is.

[A]

She's. Well, I've interviewed her a bunch of times. She's also now the head of gavi, the vaccination fund. She has a great, really interesting life story. She did an amazing job renegotiating Nigeria's debt back in the day. She's like, you know, she's qualified.

[B]

No, she's pretty great.

[A]

So what, so what do you think? I kind of think there's still a decent chance because Steve Mnuchin knows that if he nominates a complete crazy, then the world will vote that person down. And no one wants to see that happen. So for that reason, he might not nominate a complete crazy. And so in the back of my head I'm like, he might nominate Intra nooyi, the former CEO of PepsiCo.

[C]

I knew I didn't make that up.

[A]

And that she would probably then be able to garner enough support from enough other countries and then it would stay in American because she is an American in the same way that Jim Kim is or Paul Wolfowitz was. I mean, Jim Wolfenson was. And then like, the continuity could be continued But I'm not sure that he would do that. I don't know.

[C]

I mean, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that Trump would care about at all. So I feel like he could do that and it would probably be fine because of how little attention or understanding Trump may have of all of what we just talked about. So I feel like that's probably what's gonna happen. Also, Indra Nougie, she was the one who talked about Doritos for women. So I just have to mention that. Cuz it was so ridiculous. You know what?

[B]

She had a good point.

[A]

Wait, what was the point?

[C]

No, no, no. She had.

[B]

She totally did. She 100% did. No. So what? Yes. No. I heard the interview where she was specifically talking about this and she was.

[A]

Saying Doritos for women.

[B]

Yes. No, she wasn't saying. What she was saying was that when they were constantly looking at the way that men and women ate Doritos, they tended to eat them differently. And it had to do with like, kind of men in general being kind of like, you know, eating the crumbs of the bag. And women, that was a very different way. So she was thinking like, well, why don't we have a product that is closer to what our customer would actually, how they would actually use it? I don't think that's unreasonable. She wasn't saying like, women have to eat Doritos one way. She was saying, this is what our study showed. So we're going to try to create a product people would like.

[C]

Just say, just leave it there.

[A]

I'm just. Yeah.

[C]

What's our email address?

[A]

The expression, the expression on Emily's face. If you guys could only see the expression on Emily's face. Doritos, women. Yes. Slatemoneylate.com if you send us, send your angry emails. It doesn't need to be angry. Just send us a very simple email. Doritos for women. Good idea or bad idea. And we will tally it up and we will see whether Emily, or even.

[C]

If they didn't market them, Doritos for women, which is ridiculous. If they marketed low crunch Doritos, that's just weird. No one wants those. I'm not gonna buy those low crunch chips. The whole point of a chip is you. You get in there and you crunch the hell out of the chip. That's half the pleasure of eating the chip.

[B]

That's not what people's revealed preference is.

[C]

I don't believe that. I refuse to believe it.

[A]

Okay, let's have a numbers round. How many low Crunch. Doritos are in the bag. I have no idea. Emily, do you have a number?

[C]

I have a number. My number is six. That is a number of months of paid leave that the new California governor, Gavin Newsom, is proposing to give to working Californians that he announced yesterday when he unveiled his budget. And I watched him unveil his budget, and it was filled with all these kind of like liberal goodies that really made it clear to me that California is not a part of America right now. Things like giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants and building houses. Building houses. I mean, it was just like watching. I don't. Another country, basically, is Gavin Newsom to.

[A]

The left of Jerry Brown.

[C]

I think on. On this parental leave stuff and the child care stuff, he's more committed than Brown was.

[A]

Wow. My number is $27.7 billion. Since we're obsessed with congressional spending resolutions and things these days, I thought I'd mention this one. They've actually started beginning to try to audit the Pentagon a little bit and try and work out where the money goes when you ask for lots of money for the Pentagon. So in the last year, The Pentagon got $692 billion, which is a lot of money. And someone came along and said, well, did they spend 692 billion? And the answer is no. They left $27.7 billion just unspent because they literally had no idea what to spend it on. They received $27.7 billion. And then they were like, yeah, we can't really think of anything to spend this on. And then if they don't spend it, they lose it. And so it's gone now. It's kind of amazing. Like, even, like, flex dollars, the general's like, ask for this money or a.

[C]

Bunch of ibuprofen band aids.

[A]

Sometimes they don't even ask for the dollars. That's the weird thing. Sometimes Congress gives them dollars and just says, go spend this. And they're like, what are we meant to do with this? It's amazing, Anna.

[B]

So My number is 202-452-3000.

[C]

Is that someone's phone number?

[B]

It is indeed. So Jerome Powell, in a recent discussion with the Economic Club of dc, was being interviewed and he was asked, like, well, you know, how can people reach you? And he basically said, well, just call up my office. Well, you know, if you call my office, they can connect you. And so I looked up their phone number, if you wanna call.

[A]

Have you called him?

[B]

I have not. But if you want to, again, that number is 202-452-3000 Call up Jay Powell.

[A]

And tell him and tell him that you've been reading the President's tweets and you want him to stop raising interest. Apparently, he's now stopped raising interest rates.

[B]

He's being patient, very patient.

[A]

He's being patient. No one believes he's going to raise interest rates at all this year. So we'll see whether that happens.

[C]

So he's doing Trump's bidding or it's just coincidence?

[B]

No, no, I mean like this because the things have changed. I mean, the things that they consider have changed now.

[A]

Yeah, we will talk about Jay Powell and monetary policy quite a lot, I suspect, this year because there's a big tension between what the markets expect and what the economic figures are showing. And so, yeah, let's have a little Slate plus segment on one of those economic figures, which is the biggest one of all, which is the non farm payrolls number. If you're a Slate plus subscriber, stay tuned for that and we'll ask whether that might actually be negative this time around. Otherwise. Thank you for listening to Slate Money. Many thanks to Max Jacobs for producing Keep the emails coming on Sleep Money at Slate. Com and we will talk to you next week on Sleep Money.