Muse

Morning decisions. How about a creamy mocha frappuccino drink? Or sweet vanilla? Smooth caramel maybe? Or white chocolate mocha? Whichever you choose, delicious coffee awaits. Find Starbucks frappuccino drinks wherever you buy your groceries.

Episode 398. 398 is the standard numeric code for Kazakhstan. In 1998, Google was founded. Microsoft really blew it with Bing. Imagine if they just called Bing Bang. Think about it. Last night, I banged Emily Ratajkowski. That would have been a winner.

Go, go, go!

Welcome to the 398th episode of The Prof G Pod. What's happening? In today's episode, we speak with Gavin Newsom, an American politician and businessman who serves as the 40th governor of California, and oftentimes I'm mistaked for the governor. You know, I don't, it's like looking in a mirror when I speak to the governor. Anyways, like, let me just say up front, I'm a huge fan of Governor Newsom. We've gone from the fifth largest economy in California, I say we, I grew up in California, to the fourth largest. He's been a steadfast supporter of what I think is the crown jewel and arguably the greatest public agency in the world, and that's the University of California. And for all of the shitposting that Fox News and everyone else does about California, the wealthiest people in the world who have the most options in the world choose to live in, wait for it, California. And I find what is happening to the governor, what they did to Hillary Clinton, and that is he is the most likely Democratic nominee for president. So millions of bots, Fox News, and everybody else is basically engaging what I'd call pretty systematic character assassination. So does California have problems? Yeah, but the rest of the world would pray for California's problems. Anyways, we hope you enjoy our conversation with Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor, where does this podcast find you?

I am at Ronald Reagan's old abode, the old governor's mansion, which rarely am I able to do a podcast out of here. So I'm looking forward.

Good. Well, we always appreciate your time. Let's post right into it. So you leave office in January after six years running the fourth largest economy in the world. By most measures, California remains the center of American innovation. Actually, is it six years or eight years?

It's been a little over seven and a half now.

Yeah. So it's eight year term. And look, by a lot of measures, clean energy, AI, venture capital, we've, or we, I'm a native of California, we've gone from fifth to the fourth largest economy in the world. A lot to brag about. Also, a lot of residents, you know, the state, like anything else, is a product, and you have to offer a great service at a reasonable price. Give us an honest assessment of what you think the state and you as a leader has gotten right over the last seven and a half years. And why you think people, how we can do better and what programs, whether it's housing, affordability, you know, what if you were to give someone a playbook, the next governor and say, OK, this is how we go from number four to number three and make that 13 and a half or 13 percent incremental tax. And I realize that there's some of that is misleading because there's other types of taxes. But how do we make California continue to be, if you will, worth it?

One word answer, housing. It's the original sin in California. We're as dumb as we want to be for decades and decades. We forgot about our seventh grade econ class. It's supply and demand. And we simply were not creating enough supply. And demand grew. NIMBYism reigned supreme. I've got mine. And people fought hard against new construction around investment. And that created so many of the problems in more ways in more days. So many of the issues of the state of California can be defined by that, the issues of homelessness, a perfect example, a byproduct of the failure to build enough housing and address that issue. And so, you know, when it goes to your question, what do we do about it? It's one thing to complain about it and talk about it. We've done a lot in the last few years. The challenge is we've done it in an environment where interest rates are high and we've got stubborn macroeconomic headwinds. And so to test the theory, we have been pushing boundaries on land use, pushing boundaries on permitting reforms to a degree that few or no other states in the country have. Last year, in fact, I put my entire reputation by putting a housing package in the budget and threatened to actually veto the budget of the state unless we were able to move forward with some very aggressive land use reforms.

And that was the only way we were able to push through the NIMBYism and all the usual opposition that we tend to find here in the state. And so that's the issue to me that solves more things, but is also omnipresent in terms of the challenges the state faces.

So I know there's YIMBY legislation and zoning. Have you considered, specifically talking about the programs, have you considered subsidies for developers in addition? I mean, it's both economic incentives to build, but it's also reducing regulation. How are you specifically talking about a couple of programs that are going to result in a greater supply of housing?

We've done a massive amount of subsidies and affordable housing tax credits. We've done a massive amount of investment across a spectrum of supports to aid and advance the housing industry and construction industry. I'll go back to the beginning, six and a half, seven years ago. One of the first actions I took, I created a housing accountability unit in the state to actually require real oversight and enforce the law as it relates to our RENA goals, which are regional goals, our housing element goals. In the past, the state was not enforcing the law as it relates to housing construction. One of the first acts I took as governor was suing, not a popular thing to do, but suing one of my cities in Huntington Beach. I put 46 other cities on notice. We're able to negotiate with most of those cities strategies to improve density and bonuses to address their concerns and advance policy as it relates to those concerns that we were able to move through with the legislature. We provided billions of dollars of tax credits that in the past were not afforded developers across the state for housing at all income levels. We reformed our ADU laws. We reformed our single family home laws. We did 42 CEQA reforms. Those are environmental reforms. But we were nibbling around the edges until, again, last year. Sort of an abundance mindset. Forgive the laziness of that. Everything that Ezra Klein and others, Thompson, were advocating for. and we said, we got to go for the Holy Grail. And that's what we did last year. Stubborn fits and starts, but we're able to power through. And here's the good news. 59% increase in the total number of housing construction since I started, 56% Scott reduction in the time for permitting. And that's very significant. We're putting more and more cities on notice. Huntington Beach, by the way, has lost their lawsuit. They're being fined because of their obstinance. We've moved from a NIMBY mindset to a YIMBY. mindset. And we have focused on an issue that candidly, and it's not an indictment of the previous governors, that wasn't a focus in the past. Homelessness and housing were not a focus of the state of California over the last few decades. It has been outsourced to cities and counties. As a former city and county mayor, I can attest to that. I never thought about Arnold Schwarzenegger in relationship to housing policy or even homeless policy. That was the requirement and responsibility of local planning commissions, boards of supervisors, city councils. That mindset has shifted and now we are much more aggressive and proactive in terms of enforcement and support, carrots and sticks.

So speaking of housing, I'll use that as a segue. I'm in Los Angeles right now and I love coming here. I was born and raised here, went to UCLA. I still think LA is an incredible city, but when I'm here, I'm typically in a bubble. I stay at a nice hotel, people come visit me. Whenever I step outside of my bubble, I'm somewhat rattled by the extreme homelessness. And I understand that supply side or housing is a part of it. But, and this is a bridge to this mayoral race, which I just find fascinating. it seems like there's just so much rage in L.A. that leads to, we don't want to talk about government. We don't want to talk about background. We don't care if it's a reality star. We just want change regardless of the experience or lack thereof of a candidate. Whoever promises the most change, even if that change might be promising chaos and anger, it feels to me like it's a redo of Harris and Trump to a certain extent. I'm curious if what your thoughts are on homelessness being more than just a housing problem. It goes to, whenever I talk to mayors, they say by far the biggest, most difficult dilemma is the homeless. It just calls on mental illness, veterans affairs. But LA does feel like as a proxy for, if Democrats can't figure out a way to run cities and operate them well, we're just gonna have trouble across the whole federal stack in terms of elections. Curious what you think about homelessness as it relates to things like law enforcement, the drug problem, more than just housing, if you will. And I'm curious, I don't know if you've taken a public stand. I didn't do the research here. Your thoughts on the LA race being a larger metaphor for what's happening across our federal politics. I apologize for the word salad there, governor?

No. I mean, you saw this play out in many ways, similar contours and connecting a lot of the narrative that you just advanced in San Francisco as it relates to the last mayoral election. And change did take shape there. The incumbent lost. And there's a different set of spirit and pride right now. You're seeing real progress. You saw some of that progress, candidly, before the election, but it wasn't felt. People didn't see it, so they didn't believe it. So it's a liberalism that builds, yes, But you also have to have a mindset around visible results and the ultimate manifestation of that failure, the byproduct of the affordability crisis, what's happening as it relates to street homelessness, unsheltered homelessness, encampments in particular, the permissiveness, particularly that came at peak during and after COVID as it relates to tents out on the streets and sidewalks, the quality of life, the diminution of quality of life. And this notion that we couldn't do anything about it, this sort of victim mindset that, frankly, was almost universal with many of the leaders in local government. And somehow we were applying the standard that it was compassionate to step over people on the streets and the sidewalks in the name of their personal liberty. when, in fact, the degradation of the communities, the businesses that were impacted by that, the family structure, you know, mom that just wants to walk his or her kid or her kid down to the playground or in the stroller. It was outraged and furious and didn't trust government. And so it is the issue that defines people's angers. It's the issue that defines my anger as governor. Here's the good news. For the first time in close to two decades, Scott, no other governor, if they don't say this in decades, We've seen almost a double-digit decrease in unsheltered homeless in the state of California. We've not seen that. We've actually begun to stabilize the overall numbers. We're starting to see real progress as it relates to encampments, even in L.A., by the way. Mayor Bass is making that case for her re-election. But again, it's hard because people have sort of attached so much of their discontent to the incumbent. San Francisco, we've seen that. and across the state. Again, rural areas, not just urban areas. Some real progress supported by policies in the state that didn't exist six or seven years ago. Again, the state had no homeless strategy, no homeless plan. It was not there for the cities and counties. And it was obvious the cities and counties were overwhelmed and couldn't move forward without the support. Unprecedented mental health support, $6.38 billion. We reformed our conservatorship reforms to allow a little bit more leverage and a little bit more cohesion as it relates to getting people off the streets and sidewalks that are a little bit reticent. We created a third strategy called Care Court, which is about supportive care, not substituted care. And it's producing some real results. And then we flooded the zone in terms of supports for the cities and counties

to give them the flexibility and resources they need. And again, it's a flywheel. Progress is finally being made, But it does mark, you're right, so much the anger and frustration, particularly in the country's second largest city, L.A.

Just sticking with the theme of L.A., a lot of the biggest creative or entertainment companies are still headquartered here. But you've seen, and this goes back well beyond your administration, it feels like there's just a giant sucking sound in the creative community to other countries and other states. and that it's sort of, I don't want to call it a race to the bottom, but I was working on a Netflix show and it's supposed to take place in San Francisco, but we were going to film in New Jersey because they would give us 40% tax breaks. Is this just an instance of the reality is AI jobs and tech jobs are where the economy is headed? It's a free market economy and we're just going to, California is just going to continue to lose traditional Hollywood jobs? Or is there something that leadership can do here? Because while you did supersize or you increased the tax subsidy budget, a lot of people in the creative community would say it's still not competitive and California is going to continue to lose a lot of the mojo around people deciding to shoot. I know that we decided we just can't afford to shoot in California. What did you get right and wrong here? And what would your advice be for the next governor? Is it just a case of market dynamics or is there something to be done?

Yeah, for decades, we frankly stopped investing in our lead, particularly as it relates to production. And we watched other countries, particularly near the border, notably Canada, one of the first to be aggressive on their tax structure. We saw some of those southern states, particularly Georgia and New Mexico, New York really stepped and asserted themselves. And then we started to see the global competition from New Zealand, the UK and elsewhere. And frankly, California was not proactive in terms of supporting the industry, particularly with its tax credit program. You're right. I more than doubled it to the second highest level in the United States.

right below Georgia. But New Jersey, to your specific point, went even further in terms of how they structure their tax credits above the line, not just quote unquote below the line. But we're seeing the fruits of that over the course of the last year. We've seen so many productions now look anew at California. Is it good enough? No, no one's denying that. And localism, again, like homelessness and housing is determinative. It's local government on permitting, making it easier overtime for police, making sure these production shoots are made with a concierge mindset, a red carpet mindset. That's also really important. But at least California is now back in the game in a much more significant way. And we're seeing the benefit, including, by the way, just bringing Baywatch back to California, bringing Baywatch down to Southern California. And that was literally because of the doubling of the tax credit just a

few months back. Speaking of taxes and tax credits, your thoughts on the wealth tax, which is getting a lot of press. You came out against it, correct?

Yeah, state-driven wealth tax, you know, capital moves. And, you know, we've seen that. It's not anecdotal. There's been a lot of headlines of folks that have moved outside of the state of California that are no longer taxpayers investing in this state and generating hundreds of millions of dollars a year, quite literally, in the case of the three or four major figures that we know have left the state. I'm intimately aware of at least a dozen others that haven't, that don't want to talk about it and don't want folks to know they've moved out of the state, that are interested in coming back if we don't move forward with this wealth tax. That said, I absolutely believe nationally we need to tax billionaires more. We need to change the stepped up basis. We need to address the issue of capital gains. We need to address the issue of corporate taxes. We need to address, and you've talked a lot about this, the $84.4 trillion, up to seeing some estimates over $124 trillion of generational wealth over the next decade and a half, two decades that will pass and address the issue of inheritance dynasty trusts. And going back to some tax brackets that are more, you know, analogous to the guy who used to reside here at the governor's mansion back in the 80s, or at least in the 60s as governor and president in the 80s. And so we need to do all of those things. At the same time, at the state level, I'm proud of this. I don't defend it from a defensive posture. I spent a good 15 minutes at my state of the state earlier this year making the case for California's progressive tax structure. We, yes, have the highest tax rate for the 1%. But by definition, 99% of people don't pay that rate. So people lazily refer to California as a high-tax state, when in fact, states like Texas and Florida tax their low-wage earners more than we tax our high-wage earners. Yet they're considered low-tax states, which is rather perverse. And I challenge people to consider that perversion. A middle-class family, for example, in the state of Texas, pays more in taxes than the state of California. You looked at the top 10 effective tax rates in America. A new study just came out. California's not even in the top 10. That's not to suggest we're not a high-tax state, but not in comparison to the rhetoric that comes from the right that's painted this picture. And by the way, just if I may, Scott, we grew at 40% since I've been governor. There's no jurisdiction in the United States of America whose growth rate has been more significant than the state of California. A nation at 15.1% since 2019. California, 40%. What's that 40% number? 40% GDP growth. GDP, excuse me. We have more Fortune 500 companies than we've had in close to two decades.

We've graded about 1.6 million new startups, but less than 600,000 during that time in Texas. You talk about the economy of the state in every category. Number one, manufacturing state. Number one state for farm. You talk about farmers. You talk about ranchers. You're talking about California. You talk about hunting jobs. You're talking about California. It's not just ag. It's not just Hollywood. It's fusion. It's quantum. Yes, it's AI dominating in that space. But in every key category, and it's not by chance. It's by design, a formula for success you intimately understand that is about that conveyor belt for talent. The UCs and the CSUs, the community college. It's about research and development, pushing out the boundaries of discovery and the National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation. It's about best and the brightest first round draft choices. from around the rest of the country, policies that have helped advance. the economic architecture of the state and our nation as the temple of the U.S. economy, California.

So, and to your point, money is optionality and the wealthiest, I think, California is the greatest concentration of billionaires or people with the most options in the world and they decide to stay. So clearly, despite the taxes and the governance or their criticism of it, they still opt to stay. It feels to me like the exodus is, you know, rumors of the exodus are vastly overstated. Having said that, should you? I want you to imagine that someday you might hold federal office. Would you be in favor of a proposal that said, all right, if you're the founders of Google and you're worth $60 billion and you aggregated that wealth because of the unbelievable infrastructure, culture, I think the greatest public jewel in America, the University of California, that you should not be able to piece out to a low-tax state, that you should, in fact, pay the state taxes of where you aggregated that wealth. Would you be in favor of some sort of federal legislation along those lines?

Well, the first time I really thought about that was when Elon Musk, to great fanfare, announced he's, quote-unquote, leaving the state of California and taking Tesla with him. Of course, he took a piece of paper with him, the Corpus, and actually added 10,000 new jobs in California, Came back, Scott, and opened his world headquarters for R&D because we're 18% of the globe's R&D in California. Can't compete globally unless you're in the R&D space in California. It's another area of dominance for us. Came back, but he took his capital gains with him, to your point. And that's why he, quote, unquote, left to Texas. And many others are doing the same. And so I think it's absolutely, I've never considered that except the futility and frustration many of us have for these folks that have taken advantage of all of what you just described and what I was trying to describe earlier is that formula. And then when they hit that peak and they were going to start to sell or borrow against their stock, something we have to also address in this country and avoid taxes completely, they left the state. So, yeah, my state of mind would very much be on leveling that playing field. It would have a huge advantage, states like California. And this race to the bottom would be less pronounced. And by the way, that race for the bottom includes the tax credits as it relates to film. And that's why I also think the president of the United States has a role to play here, Trump, on looking at federal tax credits to keep American film production, which also would be significant and help level the playing field as it relates to those international tax credits that I think are the biggest driver of the exodus of the creative economy, even more so than what New Jersey or New York or even Georgia is doing.

We'll be right back after a quick break.

We'll see you next time. slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored

Jobs. Support for the show comes from Framer. A website should help your business grow, but when it's filled with a bunch of small mistakes that leave your teams constantly tinkering, that can slow you down. Framer is your shortcut to get that website right. Framer is an enterprise-grade, no-code website builder used by teams and companies including Perplexity and Miro to move faster. With a real-time collaboration and a robust CMS with everything you need for great SEO, not to mention advanced analytics that include integrated A-B testing. Your designers and marketers are empowered to build and maximize your dot-com from day one. So whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full dot-com, Framer has programs for startups, scale-ups, and large enterprises to make you going from idea to live site as easy and as fast as possible. Learn how you can get more out of your dot-com from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at framer.com slash prop g for 30 percent off a Framer Pro annual plan. That's framer.com slash prop g for 30 percent off framer.com slash prop g. Rules and restrictions may apply. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B marketing gets wasted on the wrong audience. Like, imagine running an ad for cataract surgery on Saturday morning cartoons or running a promo for this show on a video about Roblox or something. No offense to our Gen Alpha listeners, but that would be a waste of anyone's ad.

budget. So when you want to reach the right professionals, you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers according to their data. That's where it stands apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, company revenue. Also, you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn ads boast one of the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks. Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Just go to linkedin.com slash Scott. That's linkedin.com slash Scott. Terms and conditions apply.

It's always struck me that there's something about not just California, but it feels like proximity to the Pacific Ocean, whether it's, you know, NVIDIA is now worth more than every publicly traded company in Germany and Spain combined. And they chose, Taiwanese immigrant, went to school in Oregon, then Stanford, chose to headquarter in California. Obviously in Washington, you got Amazon, you got Microsoft, you go down to San Diego, Qualcomm, you got SpaceX, you know, Alphabet, Meta, just on and on and on. And then you hit the, you hit San Diego on the Mexican border, you got to go another 6,000 kilometers to get to Mercado Libre. You hit the Canadian border, you got to go a couple hundred miles to get to Lululemon, which is, you know, the only billion dollar plus company. What do you think it is about, I won't even say California, the West Coast, that creates so many, so much value creation from a shareholder standpoint, And what would you suggest the governors and officials do to maintain? What is the secret sauce and how do we keep stirring it?

No, I mean, I think it goes back to that formula. It's all by design. It's our values. 27% of California. And you can extend this to the diversity in those northern states as well. But 27% of the state is foreign-born or majority-minority state. You go to an NVIDIA. I was just down at their conference. I mean, come on. You walk around. You know, thank you to the contributions, not just from Taiwan, but mainland China. Thank you for those that have come here, for riches and new beginnings that felt included and seen from India. The diversity on that floor, the entrepreneurial energy, the future. They all know happening here first, where America's and globe's coming attraction. The entrepreneurial spirit, the innovative spirit, the energy and daring, the rules for risk taking in California, but not recklessness. There is no Tesla without the regulations in California. You opened on clean energy. We dominate in that space, and we dominate in that space because we don't want to be dominated by China in that space. And we continue, by the way, to make the case anew for capturing the wind and the sun, with all due respect to Trump and his futility in Iran, the cost of sun never goes up. and the opportunity to capture that as we capture market share and competitive strength moving forward. But I think this notion of immigration policy, legal immigration, again, back to the framework of first-round job choices, the commitment to R&D, I mentioned 18% of the world's R&D. Germany is about 20%. China, about 21%. California, 18% of that R&D. Sandia Labs, Lawrence Livermore Labs, the finest institutions of higher learning. You went to one, not just UCLA, but UC system broadly defined, Stanford, Caltech, and these ecosystems, venture capital, I didn't even get to that, 106 billion last year, of which 62% was reinvested in the state because we have a startup mindset, an entrepreneurial mindset, back to, again, risk-taking. So all of these things are part of a formula that we've exported. It's a world we invented. It's competing against us. That's why we have to invest in our lead. And that's been the mistake of the past on a lot of the issues you've touched on. I can't make up for the last 30, 40 years. I am accountable for the last seven. But I think many of those things are truly American. And we've exported them. And I think they need to be scaled even more broadly and socialized more specifically in the consciousness of the American people that I don't think fully appreciate aspects of this state. that certainly predate me that are deeply present in the future that we're all creating together.

So by some estimates, AI, the majority of that shareholder value creation, it has actually been in California on the West Coast, is responsible for 90% of the GDP growth nationally. Extraordinary value creation. At the same time, there's so many concerns over it. And I was thinking that...

a lot of these founders will claim that this is more powerful and has more upside in terms of value creation and potentially more danger than nuclear, than fission, right? That this might be more dangerous but powerful and have more potential than nuclear. But we would have never imagined back then, letting private companies develop and sell nuclear bombs. So my question is, why is having private companies, it's clearly good for shareholder value, but what is the government's role in AI? Because right now it strikes me that the government's role is to make sure there is no regulation around AI. And you're in a difficult spot because you want to let your thoroughbreds run. You desperately need that tax revenue. You desperately want to continue to have the money to ensure that, you know, their social programs continue to attract the best and brightest who are going to go where there's the most economic upside. At the same time, it feels like the only regulation around a technology that, according to the founders, is more dangerous than nuclear has got to come from you or not. What is your thought at a state level around regulation or

AI and at a federal level? Well, it has. California is the only state, you're talking the only governor, and Hochul, to her credit, she backed in on some of the policies we advanced a few years ago, SB 53, to regulate large language models, to regulate frontier models. We did so as it relates to transparency and safety, and it was a multi-year process, very controversial, and we led, as we lead on a lot of these child safety issues, and we have a lot more work to do, including a number of bills that I look forward to signing in the next few months, particularly as it relates to social media and our kids. But on AI, we're the only game in town. So I couldn't agree with you more. And nor could I disagree with you less on the fact that it's a huge part of the narrative that I just advanced for you as it relates to the 40% GDP growth in this state. I'm not naive about that. I love your frame around these thoroughbreds. And I just had my budget announcement. We're balancing not just for this year, but the year I'm gone, multi-year, because of the abundance in capital gains, another $16.5 billion, by the way, just in corporate payroll, corporate and personal income tax, just the last three months. I can only imagine what takes place and shape as we see what happens to SpaceX in the next few weeks and potentially anthropic and open AI. So we're always trying to find that balance around peril and promise, around truth and trust and transparency. But we have been muscular and leading. We've been very aggressive in condemning the Trump administration that have a let it rip policy. I think the mythos example that was pulled back was an example of perhaps some short-sightedness in that space that even within the Trump administration, I think there was a pause only to be relieved again when David Sachs picked up the phone and Elon Musk and said, no, Mr. President, we want to continue to let it rip. But you, when you opened up and started ask the question sound a lot like the Pope, sound a lot like Steve Bannon. There seems to be a growing consciousness around these concerns and how we can, regardless of politics, I think there's a bipartisan, I mean, it's almost a universal construct here, that we should, you know, accelerate the technology, but we need to steer the technology. And we need to address the downsides, particularly as it relates to cybersecurity and trust. And we can't have in the hands of five human beings, the ability to decide our fate and future, what we read, what we see, and who we ultimately vote for, these algorithms that are, you know, are redesigning us. And so we're leaning in on that nationally complete absence of any leadership or accountability. It's a corruption story. Trump's part of that corruption. His family's part of that corruption. I think that explains it as much more than anything else. And I think the Republican Party, Democratic Party will pay a big price unless we lean into this, not from a jobs apocalyptic

perspective. I know you have, you know, you think that's more of a fundraising story, which I appreciate. I think there's zero evidence to suggest you're wrong. But there is some evidence to suggest you may not be right. And that's why I'm also leaning in to make sure we're prepared if this is, as Dario says, even if he's half right, 50 percent of those white collar entry level jobs will be gone in the next four and a half years, even if he's half wrong. I want to be on the right side of this and prepare for that. And we have five specific strategies that we've advanced that I'm not aware that any other state has advanced. So states have a responsibility and role to play here. And how do you prepare for that? Give us an overview of the cliff notes

on those five strategies, if that in fact plays out. If you, you know, I think one thing about

generative AI. AI, as we've all learned, my mom used to say this to me, I never understood until now it makes more sense in this concept. If you don't like the answer, ask a better question. And I think so much of AI is about what we prompt and the questions and the creativity that we bring in those human features. But for us, the questions now we're asking to your question, to your specific question, if clerical work is being impacted, there's no clerical capital, so it's hard to define it geographically. And if it's happening not on the factory floor, but, you know, quietly, and it's, you know, there's a little bit of noise, but not a lot of noise with the unemployment numbers. But if it does hit us and it hits us on the head, are we prepared with our unemployment insurance system? Is there a different and better approach? So we're piloting employment insurance. We're piloting strategies, by the way, the Danes do this, where we pay employers to keep you employed and pay a percentage of that salary over the course of a number of years and then provide that ramp to the alternative, looking at portable benefits radically differently. We have something called Secure California as it relates to retirement benefits. We're looking at other benefits that aren't attached, like health care, to your employer, looking at the payroll tax system that perversely rewards the exact thing we want to avoid, which is we give tax credits for automation, but we penalize businesses for hiring and looking at strategies to address that that don't impact Social Security and Medicare. We're looking more broadly at strategies that, to me, are particularly interesting around universal basic capital, looking at wealth, sovereign wealth funds. I years ago talked about a data dividend and worked with the Bergurian Institute. We struggle with that, but we've created 5.5 million child savings accounts. We did the Trump accounts six years ago before Trump ever did. We have a mechanism now, baby bonds we have as well for years and years, how we can use those accounts to create an ownership construct, not charity, UBI, university-based income, but ownership equity. It's more difficult, one thing to say, another to do. But we're having advanced conversations in that space. And so I put out a lot on this. We've done a number of executive orders, procurement, different strategies. And I think we need to be prepared. And I hope you're right. I hope, you know, Dario's wrong. But I don't think we're having the kind of debate we need to be having across country on what could happen if this thing moves as quickly at AGI as people

think it might. Yeah, well, I get it wrong all the time. I think you're smart to be thinking about what happens. I want to move. I'll come back to domestic politics in a couple of minutes, but I'll talk a little bit about Iran. For a long time, Democrats have agreed with the president that Iran cannot be a nuclear armed Iran. What do you think the president or the current administration has gotten right? And what have they gotten wrong about Iran? And describe kind of where you think we are now. And if you were advising the president, which I doubt you are, you obviously have arguably one of the biggest bully pulpits in the world. What do you think has gotten right? The administration has gotten right. What has he gotten wrong? And what do you think we should do moving forward?

Well, I was an early supporter of his efforts to bomb those facilities. And I know Democrats were hesitant about that and had on my own podcast, You know, a lot of the folks that helped design those strategies going back four, three, four administrations. And I thought it was perfectly executed. And, you know, we couldn't argue the timing, but I'll argue it was well-timed. Since then, I've been flabbergasted by the just total incompetency. This guy's way out of his league on Iran. I mean, I think we've had six ultimatums, all of them that have been passed. Talk about a red line. He's servicing no confidence in the global construct. I mean, we're paying, what, 21% more in airfare since the war. We're paying 18% more in energy since the war. We're paying 53. Forgive me, I haven't looked today, but last week when I left on Friday, I was 53.1% more for gasoline. $1.51 here in California, $1.55 on average across the United States. And he still hasn't had a consistent theory of the case. And we had a peace deal this weekend, and we're bombing this morning. And so he's just gotten it wrong, horribly wrong, with this iteration of his pursuit. But look, the pursuit of making sure there is a real red line on ending the nuclear program was wise. Throwing out the JCPOA, I think, was foolish. And the fact that he's probably going to back into a version of Obama's original deal is rather remarkable, and I look forward to Sean Hannity explaining that to his viewers on Fox.

What do you think the administration...

has gotten right and wrong with respect to our relationship with Israel.

Well, way too permissive to Bibi. I mean, the recklessness of Bibi's administration and putting at peril a two-state solution. We should be much more aggressive and demanding some reforms in that respect. Obviously, even Bibi is acknowledging that there's a timeline in terms of foreign aid, particularly coming from the United States. He's talking in 10 years, but now almost universally, at least in my party, Democratic Party, rightfully, he's talking about conditioning that aid, supporting the defensive posture, but certainly conditioning that aid as relates to the offensive strategies by Beebe and his administration. I'm hoping there's a change in administration. I don't want to get into foreign politics and domestic politics within Israel, but hopefully there'll be some fundamental change in October coming out of Israel. But if there's not, and we're doubling down on stupid, as Beebe does, we're going to have to have a complete reset as it relates to that relationship. But look, I think the president has been just too simply permissive in supporting Bibi's agenda, but he's not wrong in supporting Israel. And I've long supported Israel, long condemned with clarity the terrorist attacks by Hamas, and condemned how this war has been conducted in response to those attacks by Hamas. I was just talking to Jose Andres about, you know, his experience this weekend in Gaza and how food was used as a weapon, a weapon of war, starvation in Gaza. I'm, you know, watched tens of thousands of people die and you've got, and we all have kids. What the hell happened in terms of how

they conducted this war is a disgrace. Do you think there's any truth to the notion that Israel and the IDF are held to a higher standard in terms of what we expect from them versus some

of the atrocities elsewhere? I think at times that may be the case. I don't disagree with you on that. And I think we have to be cautious about that. And as someone that went to Israel right after October 7th, met with the president, met with the prime minister in the bunker, brought supplies, medical supplies, a field hospital. By the way, we brought a field hospital to Israel and eventually got it into Gaza. So I wasn't there just rhetorically and symbolically. But I was there because, you know, I've long condemned for using the word revered, but I've long been a supporter of Israel, just not this president. Do you consider yourself a Zionist? Yeah, I mean, to the extent that, you know, everyone seems to me loaded word, you know, and everyone has a different definition, and I've seen it weaponized. to the extent to Israel's right to exist. Yes, of course. And I believe that right should extend to the Palestinians. And I think that needs to be enunciated with more clarity as well.

We'll be right back.

Pregnant athletes are not fragile. Yeah, that's right. I said pregnant athletes. I am Rabinatr Son, VP and head instructor at Peloton, and I PR'd my deadlift the week before my son was born. I was also a, quote, geriatric type 1 diabetes pregnancy, and so I know there can be a lot of fear and uncertainty about what is healthy movement when you're pregnant. That is why I got trained in pre- and postnatal fitness, and this week on my podcast, Project Swagger, I am sharing some key guidelines and the story of how I stayed active during my pregnancies. Listen now at Project Swagger.

This week, Jen Easterly, former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, joins us on the podcast. The episode's out now. Search for and follow The Long Game wherever you get your podcasts.

Buy Now, Pay Later is everywhere. And honestly, we need to talk about it. 60% of Coachella goers put their tickets on Buy Now, Pay Later this year. You can even pay off your DoorDash order in installments now, like your sushi. So this week on Net Worth and Chill, I'm breaking down exactly how these companies are making money off of you, why missing one payment can flip your interest rate from zero to nearly 36% overnight, and the uncomfortable truth about what it really means when you need to split a $200 purchase into four payments. Plus, I'm answering your questions, including what to do if you're already in over your head.

wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com slash yourrichbff. We're back with more from Governor Gavin Newsom. So I could do this for three hours, but unfortunately we only have you for about another 18 minutes. So I'm going to do a bit of a lightning round. I'd love to just get your top line thoughts on some stuff, just general reactions. If again, should in fact you at some point have influence over federal policy or national policy,

mandatory national service. I mean, are you kidding? You're talking to the guy who's built the largest service corps in the United States of America, significantly larger than the Peace Corps, someone that has, without going out of my way, been critical of what we try to do on student debt in the last administration without asking for anything in return. I'll give you an example, Scott, because I know you care about higher education, UC system, which by the way, we've invested, since I've been governor, 46% increase in investments in the UCs, 40,000 more California residents have gotten into the UC system, 55% increase in dual enrollment, and 65% of people coming out of the UC and CSU still graduate debt-free. I don't know, there's many systems as large, and we still have work to do. I'm not naive about some of your critiques. But one of the things I'm proud of is we provide $10,000 grants for service in return for 450 hours of service contribution. And it's just been extraordinary. Absolutely. We need to make it mandatory. How we do that and scale it, there's some nuance, but I think it would be one of the most significant and consequential things to knit this country back together.

$25 an hour minimum wage.

Well, I've done it. Not talking about it. Only governor country can lay claim to that. $20 for fast food workers, criticized hourly in the Wall Street Journal ed board, and $25 for healthcare workers, $16.90 adjusted for inflation for everybody else. But nationwide, it's a disgrace. 20 states have $7.25 minimum wage, and you and I are subsidizing those corporations with our tax dollars, with so many other workers that are ending up on the public welfare rolls. And so it's outrageous. It needs to be indexed to productivity, and that gets you closer to $25, perhaps.

40% of American households have some sort of medical or dental debt. What about lowering Medicare eligibility by a couple of years every year or single payer effectively nationalizing or socializing healthcare in this country?

I think it's inevitable. Look, you know, I say this, I don't want to come across as braggadocious, but you're also talking, and someone who's done more on advancing universal health care than any other governor in the country, regardless of pre-existing conditionability to pay. And yes, I've been criticized, and I'll take the criticism, regardless of your immigration status. We move forward to lowering costs, not just subsidizing costs on pharmaceuticals. Created something called CalRx in the spirit of single-payer financing for drug purchases. $11 insulin is an example of that. And we've done the same low-cost naloxone, and we're subsidizing diapers for newborns in California. I think single payer is inevitable in the United States of America. I think the math doesn't add up for the private and public sector. I think the issue of debt and entitlement will be a dominant theme in the next five to 10 years. Both parties have neglected it. Issues of energy and climate change and how we can democratize our economy to save our democracy being the third leg of that stool. But I do believe it's inevitable that we move forward. How is the difficulty? How the hell do you do it without impacting your private health insurance, my private health insurance, and disrupting? But the math just doesn't add up. And so absolutely, we've got to lean into that debate, as I've tried to do here at a state level with ERISA issues, 1115, 1332 waiver issues. Forgive all that. If you're listening, you're already bored. But there are challenges at the state level of getting it done. We push the boundaries in California, but nationwide, I think it is inevitable and needs to happen.

So if you live in California and a high-income earner, what I refer to as a workhorse, mom's a baller, partner at a law firm, dad owns some chiropractic clinics, write certification, work their asses off, make two or three million bucks a year. In New York or in California, they're paying 52, 54%. So people regurgitate on the notion that the rich aren't paying their taxes. It feels like it's the owners who qualify or the 0.1% people who own assets. A, do you agree with that? And B, what would you do to elevate or create a truly progressive tax system where the owners start paying as much as the super earners, if you will?

Well, no, look, if you're a high-paid doctor or lawyer, accountants, and you're getting taxed on income, I get why you're over this, you know, saying what's fair and you blow back. But to your point, the.

super wealthy aren't paying on income, they're paying on that capital. So we have to address that issue. Question is how the hell you do it. And we talked a little bit earlier about stepped up basis. We talked about the issue of borrowing, you know, these lifestyle loans, which, you know, we can overstate, but they exist and persist. So we could talk about issues around corporate taxation, which is more broad than the issue of individual taxes. We can talk about the issue of transfer of wealth and how we have to address some of the state taxes, these dynasty taxes, these generation skipping taxes, and how we reform those trusts in this country and how we get to income tax brackets that we once had for the ultra wealthy and the super rich. There's some constitutional questions. It's not me balking on the issue of a wealth tax, but a billionaire tax, absolutely. And we've got to be much more robust in this respect. Now, Biden put out a lot of policies, 25% minimum tax for billionaires. It's not an AMT. It's not the Buffett rule. But, you know, it's in the same genre. So what's the Buffett rule? You get to unrealized capital gains. That gets a little more challenging. How do you mark to market? Easier with equities. We have no choice. The social contract, it's over. It's going to be, and I think it'll be detonated by AI. The imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics. That's Plutarch warning the Athenians 2,000 years ago. 10% of people only two-thirds of the wealth. Those staying 10%, only 93% of the value of the stock market. This thing, the first trillionaire is coming later this year, maybe next month. I mean, this thing's not working. The pitchforks are already coming out. Molotov cocktails, you know, assassinations on the streets of CEOs, you feeling it. And we have to get ahead of this. And it's not me begrudging other people's success. Businesses can't thrive in a world that's failing. What does that look like? Is it raising

like a, what would you think of an alternative minimum tax of 40% every time? If you borrow against your assets, that triggers a capital gain, but at a minimum corporations paying an AMT of say 40%, wealthy people, loopholes, you know, be damned. If you're not paying at least 40% above of a certain amount, you pay 40%.

I mean, it's exactly where we need to go. The AMT, so, I mean, I was looking back at the old AMT the other day. We had some tax experts in looking back at it. I had forgotten about the 2017 tax cuts, all the damn loopholes in that. What a mess that is on the AMT. But absolutely moving back to along what you just described. I'm not landing prescriptively, but I'm landing absolutely generationally. back to, and I'll say it, I don't want to come across as, you know, another throwaway line, but I really believe that the issue of democracy, which I've been very aggressive about in Prop 50, redistricting, calling out Trump and Trumpism, is directly connected with the issue of populism and the economy. And again, unless we democratize the economy, we will lose this republic. And so these are the same fights. It's the same fight. And, you know, you're hearing, you know, white collar workers sounding a lot like blue collar workers. There's a new working coalition here. And so, you know, there's aspects of Bernie and Elizabeth and AOC, but, you know, I, you know, in that populism, but we, I think those that have overseen capitalism as we've known it and the decline, we owe it to people to own up to these trend lines. And we've got to be much more aggressive and assertive. And so, AMT, along the lines you suggest, exercising some real stepped-up basis strategies that protect farmers, that protect small businesses, and particularly business, family-owned businesses. This is just table stakes right now and needs to be aggressively

adopted and pursued. I want to talk at this in our remaining few minutes here, so it's a little bit more personal. When you look back, as your tenure as governor comes to an end, when you, you know, 10, 20 years, 30 years down the road, when you look back, what do you think you'll be? What is the one thing you'll think you'll be most proud of? And what is the one decision or action you think, you know, I missed it there? It's a weird thing because I don't want

to, it's almost too easy and lazy. This service commitment, I'm telling you, I'm a Sarge Shriver Democrat. I'm a, I don't know what it is about the vernacular 60s and solving for ignorance, poverty and disease. I love the Bobby Kennedy, sort of the hard-headed pragmatism. He didn't begrudge other people's success. There was a pragmatism and a muscularity. I think the biggest problem with the Democratic Party is we're perceived rightfully as too slow, weak, and ineffective. We got to be more aggressive, stronger, and more assertive, more clear, more conviction. But this notion of service, the old adage, no one stands taller than he or she. fence down on one knee to help lift other people up. I've seen it in the eyes. We do swearing in, Scott. We do it virtually. And we swear in all the service members. And I'd sit there, I'd start crying. And, you know, first generation Republicans, no one cares. It's just a spirit of community. And these kids, their experience is off the charts. They come out, they say, this changed my life. And so I'm telling you, because it was interesting, my staff was not a huge supporter of this legislature. I always have to fight to get the money in this. I'll look back at that as one of the most significant. Also creating these 5.5 million in accounts. I put $1.9 billion. We had a big surplus one year, creating these child savings accounts, create a brand new grade, pre-K for all. Every child gets into kindergarten, gets their own savings and career account. Those are things I'm proud of. I can go to all the policies and talk about doubling the earned income tax credit, creating a new foster care and child tax credit. We can talk about that pre-K for all talk about after school for all summer school for all we can talk about everything done on community schools we can talk about the health care expansions the work we've done on the environment the work we've done on our jobs plans this amazing um a regional plan strategy i can go on and on but service people mentorship leadership addressing this crisis of men and boys which you've been just next level on um is something i'm i'm proud of perhaps as much more than others And backing up, forgive the long-windedness, we're all geniuses in hindsight. And I think about those early days in COVID when, you know, Ron DeSantis was shutting down the beaches, not just Gavin Newsom in California. You know, we lost a lot of trust, you know, during COVID. And we haven't gotten that back. And I think we've under-indexed how so much has changed since COVID. And I was a little slow at understanding how much had changed. And so it's not a specific action per se, but it's, I think, just broader tonal appreciation that everything had changed, but I hadn't changed to the degree that I should as a leader of the fourth largest economy in the world. I have begun to address that in much more robust ways, but I think that would be something and I reflect on as a point of critique and consideration.

So a lot of young men listen to the podcast. You're a father and a husband, four kids. Is that right, Governor? Yeah, four, two boys, two girls. What advice or what learnings, what do you think you got right and wrong? And what are your learnings and advice you would give to a young man who's thinking about trying to be a good partner and a good father?

I'm so influenced, I don't want to brag all over you, man, but I'm so influenced by what you've written, what you talk about in this place. You talk about kindness. Oh, come on, superpower. Empathy, care, compassion. It's not about power, dominance, and aggression. That said, I do think the notion of, you know, be a man is important. I'm not trying to feminize the frame. But this notion of empathy, I talk to my kids all the time about it. Man, when your friends laugh because someone's accent or how they're talking, Every time my kid does something like that, I literally looked, I grabbed them and looked them in the face. You don't talk like that, man. Don't talk like that. It's not who you are. And I create an indelible thing. It's not who you are and talk in those terms. That's not who I think you are. No, it's not who you are. And you want to be a man? You have the back of that kid that's being bullied. You have the back of the kid that's being chastised. That's what masculinity looks like. That's what a leader does. And so to me, that's, that's, that's the superpower I want them to have. That's, and that's to me, the most important character test. Where I failed is I struggle with this. You ask about, you know, Iran, you talk about Israel, you talk about two years from now. I've just not been as present as I need to be. And this is, you know, I'm not making an excuse, but this is the price of these positions. And I really think about that going forward. My son, he's not all into this stuff. And he's at that critical age. And I don't want to be on that rocking chair. So I would have, could have, should have. And so I just think I need to be more present. And it's, you know, it's not what we say, it's what we do. it's how we, you know, he's watching how I treat my wife. He's watching not what I say, but what I do. And if I'm there for her and I'm around. And so I think about that as a shortcoming.

You're in a constant attack as our other political leaders and as is your wife, the first partner. Does that inject stress into your relationship? And if so, how do you deal

with it. Yeah, it's brutal. I mean, no old's barred. I mean, I'm a, you become a caricature, you become a, you know, come on. turn on Fox. I've, you know, I'm getting the full Hillary Clinton treatment or Pelosi treatment. And, um, you do, you put them dehumanized. I worry about that from a safety perspective. Um, and, uh, and, and, you know, no holds barred now. It's they going after your kids. Um, you know, I had to pull my daughter out of her school and we had a, I'll never forget, talk about regrets. Her eighth grade graduation was in our living room. I was so proud of her, Scott. And forgive me, I now, I don't know why I'm getting emotional. I was so proud of her just, you know, in terms of being, you know, a dad. I talked about my sons, about being men, but I was so proud when she gave a speech and I just said, look over my head because then it'll look like, and she looked up and she said, dad, did you see? I never looked down when I gave my graduation speech. It was in front of seven of us. That was the front of the family, her brothers, sisters. And I was just so proud of her, but I was also so upset with myself that she didn't have the experience of being there with her classmates because of some of the stuff related to her dad. And that was the middle of my recall at the time. And so, yeah, when, you know, I remember reaching out to Ted Cruz when someone went after his daughter, you know, and Ted and I, trust me, don't agree on much. But man, we agree on that. Just, that's not right. And, you know, people's wise, I guess some cases when, you know, fair game. In other cases, it's just hard. So forgive the long one. No one cares. you know, hearing me say this, but as human beings, I just, you know, I know we love to hate politicians, um, but at the end of the day, it's still parents and they still are husband's wise human beings. And, you know, that's why I don't, that's why I have Republicans on my podcast. It's why, man, I, you know, divorce is not an option in life. And, and that's why service is so important. And we're just going to have to figure all this shit out. And last thing,

Governor, in your book, you were very, quite raw and pretty authentic about your failings as a son towards the end of your mother's life. Can you talk a little bit about that and advice you would have for, for sons as with aging parents? Well, I just young, I called the book Young Man in a

Hurry. You know, I was, it was all about me and I was just dealing with my own insecurities, my own anxieties, put a mask on, and tried to be what I thought it needed to be. But my face was starting to grow into it. I was becoming someone I wasn't. And I wasn't present. I wasn't there for my mom. I wasn't there for my sister and the people that mattered most. And it took a phone call from my mom, which you're referring to in a book, where she left a voice message that says everything. Talk about a young man in hurry was never around. She had to leave a voice message saying that her last day in life was a few days later on a Thursday where she was going to do assisted suicide. She was in so much pain because of advanced cancer. And she just left the message saying, well, if you want to see me before then, it will be my last day. And it was such a wake-up call. And, you know, you don't get it over. There are no do-overs here, man. You know, don't dream of it back to dream or regret. I don't want to dream regretting. And, you know, I sat there with her last breath and it was a tough moment being there with her, holding her hands until she took her last breath. And I still didn't have the courage to say what I said to her after she passed away. And I stood there 30 minutes, sitting there with my head on her stomach, just saying all the things that I wish I could have said and had the courage and guts to say before she passed. And I don't wish that on anybody. And so you want to be a man, you want to be a son, you want to be a leader, then, you know, man up, be a partner, be a caregiver, be other people oriented. It's not just about you. And, you know, it came for me a little bit later than it should have. But I hope and pray for others. It doesn't for them.

Gavin Newsom is an American politician and businessman who serves as the 40th governor of California. Governor, very much appreciate your service. Thank you, Scott. Wonderful to be with you. This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Jenaire. Cammie Reek is our social producer. Bianca Rosario Ramirez is our video editor. And Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prop G pod from Prop G Media.