A (0:01)

Recommendations can be great. Maybe someone recommended this podcast and here you are. But home projects are a little different. If the podcast isn't your thing, you might lose a few minutes from your day. But if you hire your cousin's neighbor to mount your tv, you might end up with a lopsided screen and wall damage. I know a guy isn't a good strategy for your home. That's why thumbtack works so well. It matches you with top rated local pros with photos, reviews and credentials all in one convenient place for your next home project. Try thumbtack. Hire the right pro today

B (0:41)

Zootopia 2 has come home to Disney. Let's go get ready for a new case.

C (0:46)

We're gonna crack this case and prove we're victorious.

D (0:48)

Partners of all time.

B (0:49)

New friends. You are Gary the Snake and your last name? Desnake Dream Team Hidden New Habitats Zootopia

C (0:58)

has a secret reptile population.

B (1:01)

You can watch the record breaking phenomenon at home.

D (1:03)

You're clearly working at Zootopia 2.

B (1:07)

Now available on Disney. Rated PG.

C (1:10)

What is your pre performance ritual? What are you doing 24 hours before that big meeting an hour before your race? I'm Reben Artisan, VP and head instructor at Peloton and host of Project Swagger and this week every step I take to lock in ahead of high stakes, high stress events. This is your performance toolkit. Follow Project Swagger now wherever you get your podcasts.

D (1:40)

Welcome to Office Hours with Prop G. This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship and whatever else is on your mind. If you'd like to submit a question for next time, you can send a voice recording to office hourspropertymedia.com Again, that's officehoursoftgmedia.com or post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit and we just might feature it in our next episode. Question number one. Our first question comes from Cheddarben on Reddit. They say, hey, I was looking at the BLS report. That's I believe the Bureau of Labor and Statistics report. And women, specifically women aged 25 to 34 had a very large unemployment jump year on year compared to any other group. 25 plus. I'd like to hear your take on this data point. I haven't heard anybody speaking about it. Okay, so what does the BLS data say? Women 25 to 34 had an employment rate or an unemployment rate of 5.3% in January 2026, up from 4.5% in January 2025. That's a 80 basis point or 8/10 of a percentage point jump, the largest year over year increase of any of the 25 plus age group. For women, by comparison, men 25 to 34 rose only 0.3% over the same period from 4.3 to 4.6. Women in other age groups move modestly or even improved. Women 35 to 44, the unemployment rate actually ticked down there. The stress is concentrated in this cohort specifically. And for women specifically, the most Recent data in February 2026 shows a pullback to 4.7%, which suggests January may have been a one month spike rather than a sustained acceleration. The year over year trend is still real, but March data will be important to watch. So what's probably happening here is federal layoffs hit early career women hardest. So with federal employment, they have a probationary period and those in their first year or recently promoted are disproportionately affected. And those tend to be disproportionately women. In some agencies, over 60% of probationary workers are women. That's exactly the career stage of a 25 to 34 year old. So some of this, quite frankly, is DOGE. That's the government, the largest employer in the US has shed over 307,000 jobs in 2025. That's eight times more than 2024. And that has been especially hard on women and especially hard on young women in this cohort. Also return to office mandates affected women disproportionately. Women aged 25 to 44 were children under 5 saw labor force participation fall nearly 3 percentage points between January and June of 2025 as remote flexibility disappeared. The 25 to 34 group is most likely to have toddlers, not school age kids, making that inflexibility hardest to absorb. And then finally, childcare has collapsed. Federal childcare subsidies ended in September of 2024, forcing center closures and tuition hikes. Roughly 20% of child care workers are immigrants, a population also disrupted by deportations in 2025. For many women in this age group, the math of working simply stopped adding up. So just a couple observations or some nuance or takeaways from this data set. The first is that a lot of our when we cut government spending, a lot of it, I believe we're cutting the wrong stuff a lot of times. And that is government spending should have a return on investment and sometimes that return is social right? Spending money. Well, I was going to say spending money on the homeless doesn't have an economic return. It probably does in terms of supposedly In San Francisco it costs $80,000 in social services or $80,000 per homeless person. And you think, well, it's probably less expensive than to build, just to build low income housing for people. In addition, I think that we probably need a Gestalt or Zeitgeist amongst corporate America. I think work from home is terrible for young people. But I do think work from home or remote work is an unlock for caregivers. And that is so many people are in the sandwich generation now taking care of both parents and children that I think a general viewpoint or a general approach for corporations should be that they should make accommodations or make a real effort to provide remote work opportunities and capabilities for people who are caregivers. And in the 90s when I was starting my firms, I didn't do it because I was a moral person. I wanted to improve the world. But I used to have. I had a lot of single women, not single women, had a lot of mothers working for me and they were really talented, certified, great education. But the ability to work from home two days a week and just come in Monday, Wednesday, Friday was a huge unlock for them and a differentiator because Nestle or Levi Strauss or Clarks wouldn't let them do that. You had to be in the office every day. So providing remote work capability for people is, I think, a good investment. Investment in universal childcare. One of the most accretive things for our economy was civil rights protections or protections for women in the workplace such that women could go to work and we could maintain our economic dominance. If we hadn't provided those sorts of protections, we'd be a second rate economic power to you, to China. So I think actually a really solid investment in the United States would be universal childcare such that it made sense economically for women to go to work. It has all sorts of second order positive effects. The daughters of women who work are more likely to make money later in life because they see their moms working. And that's not to say that being at home isn't great for the kids. But I see no evidence in the data that mothers working is bad for the kids. As a matter of fact, I see oftentimes the opposite. What's bad is, is when women are so economically strained or the pay is so shitty, or they don't have access to childcare such that they don't have the option to work and add to the economy or develop their own skills, such that if they get divorced later in life, they're totally economically fucked. So I see a lot of infrastructure investments around childcare being very accretive to the economy and unlocking and unleashing this incredible workforce that participates because the majority of the sandwich generation, emotional labor or logistical labor, let's be honest, it falls to women. And as evolved as we'd like to think we are, there's still that that burden disproportionately falls to women. So making an investment in an infrastructure around childcare, ensuring a certain level of minimum wage, encouraging corporations to have remote work, I think is just not only the right thing to do, I think it's a smart thing to do for our economy. Thanks for the question. Question number two comes from Jimmy, who emailed us. Hey longtime listener of the pod, I've always felt that emotions should be left out of investing, and it seems like you take a similar approach with that in mind. Here's a big IPO coming up this summer that I'm curious about. Do you plan on investing in SpaceX when it goes public? Okay, so just some data. SpaceX is targeting a June July 2026 IPO raising $75 billion at a $1.8 trillion valuation. According to Bloomberg, it'd be the largest IPO in history, surpassing Saudi Aramco's 29 billion raise. From our property markets newsletter SpaceX generated 8 billion in profits in 2025 off of roughly 16 billion in revenues, and analysts expect sales to increase 25% this year. A $2 trillion valuation would imply a 125 times price to sales multiple. Not price earnings price to sales. So no, I'm not planning to Invest. I think SpaceX has the largest moats of any business in the world right now. I think they're responsible for 80 to 90% of the launch capacity right now. Two thirds of the lowest satellites are controlled by SpaceX and its Falcon Heavy rocket can can put material into space for 1/5 the cost or sometimes 1.6 of its closest competitor. It's just an incredible company with incredible moats. It is absolutely not worth its valuation. The only way I would invest is if I had access to the IPO and then I traded out on the first trade, which I will not get access to the IPO because the investment banks, I don't know, I just don't. I don't see getting on the friends and family list of SpaceX. So if you were to get into the IPO somehow I think you'd want out after the first trade because as amazing as this company is, it is not anywhere near worth, nor can I think of a company worth 125 times price to sales. So my prediction will be this will get a tick up at the IPO because people will be excited about it, and then one to three years later, it'll be trading at half what it went out at, maybe even less. This just doesn't make any sense. To give you a sense for just how crazy this valuation is, when Google went public, it was growing 240% a year and it was trading at 10 times sales. This company is growing at 20, 20% a year and trading at 120 times sales. So when Google went public, it had 10 times the growth and was trading at 1 10th the price to sales of SpaceX, which just gives you a sense for how outrageous this valuation is. And the definition, or a definition of intelligence is the ability to hold two thoughts in your mind at once. And is this an incredible company with some of the biggest moats in the history business? Yes. Or is it overvalued? Yes. And we can hold both those thoughts in our mind at the same time. Ar Yota on this is my colleague at NYU Stern asked, swapped the motor in, and his take is the following. They made the decision already that SpaceX is a great buy. Now they're looking for some way that they can justify that. And this pricing sounds like that exposed rationalization. In other words, investors have already decided they want SpaceX and are now working backwards to justify the price. Not a lot of obvious comparables here, which is the problem in itself. Wall street can't agree on what to compare SpaceX to. They're cycling through Boeing, AT&T and Palantir, GE, Vernova, Vertiv, none of which actually fit. When bankers can't find a peer, it usually means the valuation has no anchor. And this one doesn't appear to have an anchor. There are some red flags here. IPOs, on average underperformed the broader market in the one to three years after the listing. SpaceX's valuation went from 350 billion in May of 2025 to 800 billion in December of 2025 to one and a quarter trillion to February 2026. And it's targeting a $1.8 trillion valuation at the IPO, roughly 5x in under a year. Saudi Aramco, the previous record IPO, popped on day one and then spent years trading below its IPO price. Plus, Musk has advertised retail access, reserving 30% for retail investors. You know, sounds like he's a man of the people, but it could be read as selling to the most emotionally invested buyers, fans not analysts. So in sum, yes, I want to give people a chance to invest. I think it's because he thinks they're the only ones stupid enough to buy at this valuation. So no, I will not be investing at SpaceX. Thanks for the question. We'll be right back after a quick break.