Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

New Data Shows Family Is No Longer Americans To Value; Trump, Mamdani Have First Face-To-Face Meeting. Musk Suggests A.I. Will Make Work Optional And Money Irrelevant. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired November 22, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: -- for more info, visit cnn.com/watch Thank you for joining me today. Tune in for our First of All Thanksgiving weekend special next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:32]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: With thoughts for Thanksgiving, I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Everybody, it seems, has advice for how in these politically polarized times, we can coexist at the holiday table. This genre has practically become a cottage industry, sprouting up every November like clockwork. And they all read as if the Thanksgiving dinner is a hostage negotiation. One said be sure to set the rules. Another advised to avoid controversial subjects.

Listen with your heart, not your head was another tip. And there was this, walk calmly out of the room whenever politics is discussed.

I reject them all. Not because the advice is necessarily bad, but because it presumes that we're on the brink of a food fight every time somebody at the table clears her throat. In fact, "Saturday Night Live" had fun with this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I heard the refugees are all ISIS in disguise.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, yes, that's true. I actually saw an ISIS in the A&P today when I was picking up the yams.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, you didn't, Aunt Kathy. That was an Asian woman.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, your grandparents are here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How was the flight?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was good. Good.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I saw two transgenders at the airport. They actually look kind of pretty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very interesting trend, this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Transgender is not a trend, Mr. Paul.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there weren't any around when I was younger.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, they were. But they couldn't say anything, so they lived sad lives and died.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No talking about --

(CROSSTALK)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: OK, it's hysterical. But what if I told you that the premise is wrong? That we're actually not as split as we've been told, and that Thanksgiving presents a unique opportunity for mingling with friends and family, with politics as a means of unification, not division. If you're willing to make the case that we have a great deal in common, you'll have plenty of data on your side. The folks at Kettering Foundation and Gallup's Democracy for All Projects, they recently surveyed 20,338 adults.

It's part of a five-year project to measure Americans views of democracy. This isn't a flash poll taken over the weekend. It's a longitudinal look at who we are and what we believe. And to be sure, there's evidence of division. It includes the way that we view how much power the majority should hold and tolerance of radical voices in politics plus the pace of cultural change.

For example, on the question of whether cultural change has happened too quickly in the last 25 years were deadlocked at 49, 49, which is a coin flip, not a culture war. But that's not the takeaway. The most revelatory aspect is what unites us. And not vague agreement, either. Concrete, overwhelming consensus.

Eight in 10 U.S. adults agree on a variety of issues that reflect the core aspects of our democracy. We agree that political leaders should compromise. We agree that political violence is never OK. We agree that we benefit from multiculturalism. We agree that we need a check on the influence of money in our politics.

And we agree that there's a stark line between facts and opinions. Those aren't small things. Those are pillars of civic life. Overall, we both think that democracy is the best form of government, but that it's not functioning right now. In fact, our satisfaction with U.S. Democracy is only about half of what it was four decades ago.

You could argue that many are nostalgic for a time when politics felt less performative and more productive. Which raises the question, if we have so much in common, why doesn't it feel that way? Well, I found this buried nugget in the data to be illuminating. While 67 percent believe democracy is the best form of government, less than half of Americans believe that their fellow citizens are committed to having a strong democracy.

In other words, it's not me, it's the other guy that you need to worry about. And that's a belief fueled by politicians and their media mouthpieces whose positions are sustained and supported by perpetuating the perception of a divide. Demonization of the other side, that's a magnet for mouse clicks as well as ears and eyes and it energizes those who determine the outcome of primary nominations, thereby setting the table for the election of politicians who don't share the view of 80 percent of us that compromise is a good thing.

[09:05:13]

Our politics, instead, are programmed for the angriest 20 percent, while the sane and silent majority is ignored, taken for granted. It's a vicious cycle. It's the political version of a funhouse mirror, distorted, exaggerated. And if you can't escape, the funhouse, increasingly taken as reality. And it's disheartening to the young because they've never known any political climate except the one that we have now.

So no wonder that just 53 percent of young adults believe democracy is the best form of government, far lower than any other age group, particularly oldest Americans, who are at 80 percent. If all they've ever seen is gridlock and grievance, why would they believe in the system's promise?

So, when you're a butter knife away from friends and family on Thursday, try giving thanks to what we have in common. And that's the true opportunity of the holiday table. Not to win, but to reconnect. We want compromise. We don't want violence.

We're inclusionary. We don't think that political outcomes ought to be determined by money. And we recognize the primacy of facts. You don't need to convert anyone. You just need to remind them and yourself that most Americans are more reasonable than the political market suggests.

So I say don't shy away from having the conversation this year. If anything, the dining room table may be exactly where we start to reverse this funhouse mirror of our politics by seeing each other as we actually are, not as we're told to see one another. Because the real divide is in our heads. It's not at our tables.

This brings me to today's poll question at smerconish.com. I'm asking if you agree with me. There's actually more that unites us than divides us.

This week, some 80 million are going to board trains and planes and automobiles in a rush to spend the holiday with family. And why will we do so? Because family comes first, right? Well, a new Wall Street Journal analysis by Suzy Welch says otherwise. She says that most of us may love our families, but we don't live for them. Her research lab has collected nearly 90,000 responses through a tool called The Values Bridge. And only 11 percent of Americans rank family as their top value.

NYU Stern School of Business professor Suzy Welch joins me now to explain what her new findings say about who we are and what we really prioritize. This doesn't sound like good news. Am I reading it wrong?

SUZY WELCH, AUTHOR OF "BECOMING YOU": Well, it depends which side of the divide that you're on. I mean, I think we're pretty much. It's 50. 50, pretty much about who considers family to be a top value. Eleven percent of Americans, much to our surprises, we were looking at the data, have family as a top value because the narrative is in America, family comes first. But the truth is that only 48 percent of Americans have family in their top five values.

That actually means technically the majority of Americans do not have family as a top value. And maybe the divide is not about politics, as you just pointed out in your analysis, but the divide is around how much we value family. And about half of us say family is not my organizing principle.

SMERCONISH: OK. So I've read the data and I'm looking at the ranking --

WELCH: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- and what I see is that personal well-being matters more than family. And so to your authentic individualistic self-expression, that sounds selfish.

WELCH: Well, some people think self-care is selfish and some people think self-care is what you do so you can take care of other people. But almost uniformly across the board, 62 percent of all Americans have the top value of self-care, personal pleasure, leisure and recreation. We call this eudaimonia. It's a Greek word that captures kind of personal flourishing. That's almost all Americans.

There are obviously exceptions to it, but 62 percent and 59 percent of Americans have what we call voice, which is authentic self-expression, but coming before family. But you know, it's kind of interesting, isn't it? Because if you really value self-care and authentic self- expression and you prioritize family, that kind of goes together, doesn't it? Because oftentimes family is asking us not to authentically self-express and they get in the way of us taking care of ourselves. I mean, family often can do that, not always.

SMERCONISH: Suzy, what then are the personal and work or professional implications of your findings?

WELCH: Well, the first is if almost, if more than half of Americans, in the privacy of their own home, taking the values bridge, say they may love their families or they don't. I'm going to assume they love their families, but they are not how I want to organize my life. Then you break your back to get home to debut for the holidays. You take trains, planes, automobiles, and you just kind of loathing it the whole way because your assumption is that your family wants you to be there. The family's got to be together.

[09:10:12]

And I'm not sure that's true. Most Americans by this research would show us are not sure that family's fine. It's just not how I organize my life. So I think that you can begin to raise a conversation about whether or not the family has to be together at certain times. So I think there's a little bit of permission giving to have a conversation there.

I think there's work related implications because when we talk about work and we talk about work life balance, employers generally think that that is about you wanting to bring your family into your life, that you want to balance between work and family. But what you really want, according to this data, is a balance between work and yourself. You know, your own self-expression and your own self-care. And so there's a lot of policies and companies to accommodate people who want to spend more time with their family. Whereas in fact, in most cases, what you really want is more time for your personal expression and self-care.

SMERCONISH: Quick final question, what's your answer to my poll question? Wipe the slate clean and answer based on Suzy Welch being well read and thoughtful. Is there more that unites us than divides us?

WELCH: Yes, I think underneath it all. I think all people agree about certain virtues like kindness matters. And I do believe that. I don't -- you know, look, obviously there's this echo chamber of the -- of the Internet where you're drawn into spaces where more extreme views are catching your attention. I think my data is also has to be somehow reflected in social media.

Because listen, if you are a person who doesn't feel satisfaction with your family, in the old days you would feel like you were outside the norm. Now you can go online and you can find people who feel just like you and they sort of celebrate how you feel about your family. So I think there's something going on that's very related to the conversation online.

SMERCONISH: Suzy, thank you for all that. Have a great week. Have a great Thanksgiving.

WELCH: Yes. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. Follow me on X. Subscribe to my YouTube channel. This came from YouTube.

At Thanksgiving, if politics comes up, say let's see how much we can agree on like Trump and Mamdani did.

Right. I mean, we're going to talk about this. I'm going to talk about this next, as a matter of fact. I made sure that I set my watch yesterday. You know, the meeting was called for 3:00 in the Oval Office and there was a question as to whether the cameras would be there. Of course the cameras were going to be there.

I thought it was great. And I thought that it was everybody wants to read between the lines what's really going on. I think they each got a kick out of being in the other's company. And who among us didn't love seeing that they could coexist and that they could joke? I mean, there was a part where somebody said to Mamdani, to Zohran Mamdani, pardon me, something like, well, you called Trump this.

And he started to give an explanation and the president said, like, just tell him you did. It's a lot easier. And Mamdani goes, yes, I said that.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, is there more that unites us then divides us? Speaking of which, by the way, here's today's New York Post. How could I not buy this today? Look at that.

I love you, Mami, as in Mamdani. And then further along, I love this headline, Freaky Friday. Yes, freaky Friday in the -- why can't I go in the right direction? It was really incredible yesterday. So where and how exactly did the self described democratic socialist and the capitalist president find common ground?

And what exactly is democratic socialism? We'll talk about that next. Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com for which Jack Ohman drew this for us. And I mean, look, there's Marjorie Taylor Greene in that cartoon. She's out of here.

She's going to resign from the Congress. I'm sure you saw that story as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:15]

SMERCONISH: So yesterday we got the much anticipated Oval Office meeting between President Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a meeting that many expected to be tense or at least awkward given their campaign trail language. Instead, we got smiles, we got praise, even a few defenses from the president of Mamdani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's got views a little out there, but who knows? I mean, we're going to see what works or he's going to change also. We all change. I change a lot.

I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.

ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYOT-ELECT: Appreciated the time with the president. I appreciated the conversation. I look forward to working together to deliver that affordability for New Yorkers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: This just hours after the House passed a resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism. And after months of both men using the other as a political foil, but in the Oval Office, the tone shifted. Trump said that it was OK that Mamdani had called him a fascist. He downplayed his own threats to cut New York funding. And also both men keep coming back to one shared word, affordability.

That was the centerpiece of Mamdani's campaign and increasingly of Trump's vocabulary. And their public display of common ground yesterday only raised a bigger question that's been hanging over all of this. When we say socialism or democratic socialism, what exactly are we talking about? Because Mamdani calls himself a democratic socialist, Trump has called him a communist, Trump calls himself a capitalist. These words get thrown around like they're interchangeable sometimes, but they're not.

So let's get some clarity. Robert Lieberman is the Krieger Eisenhower professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University.

Professor, nice to see you. This is going to be like speed dating. Tell me how you differentiate between capitalism and socialism and communism. What's the defining difference?

ROBERT LIEBERMAN, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, I think social -- what we call socialism and communism are really categories of the same thing, and those are ideologies or economic systems that believe that the workers should be in control of the economy and that the economy should be more or less centrally planned by the government. That's the overriding --

[09:20:19]

SMERCONISH: OK.

LIEBERMAN: -- ideology or character of socialism.

SMERCONISH: OK. And therefore what is democratic socialism or as they say in Europe and Scandinavia, social democracy.

LIEBERMAN: So democratic socialism puts the emphasis on that first word, democratic. Socialist regimes, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba tend to believe that in order to achieve workers control of the economy and the sort of planned economy that anything is fair game, any means of gaining power. Democratic socialists or social democrats tend to be committed first and foremost to democracy. But they're people who worry about whether, you know, the compatibility of capitalism and democracy or whether inequality or extreme economic inequality kind of degrades democratic regimes. So that's the -- people who call themselves democratic socialists are committed to democracy but worry a lot about inequality.

SMERCONISH: Aren't we a wee bit there? We have collective defense, we have police, we have Medicare, we have Social Security, I could go on and on and on. Aren't we already a bit socialist?

LIEBERMAN: We are. I mean, I think we have programs in which the government helps to manage the impact of capitalist economies. The impact of industrial economies tries to mitigate inequality. But what politicians like Mamdani or Bernie Sanders or AOC worry about is that inequality has grown and has gotten very extreme. This is certainly was theme of Mamdani's campaign for mayor of New York.

And the affordability agenda is a way of addressing that kind of extreme inequality and saying, look, the government is doing a lot, but that there's more that the government can do to help assuage some of the extreme inequality that's crept into our economy.

SMERCONISH: So let's talk about how this may manifest itself, democratic socialism in New York City under Mamdani's watch. I saw a headline, put on the screen, Catherine (ph), from the Free Press that caught my eye. Why New York City has 50,000 ghost apartments. And then on Instagram, the Free Press posted this video. Let's all watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm currently standing in a vacant rent stabilized apartment that's been empty since 2021. And that's while New York City is undergoing a housing shortage. And the worst part is it's estimated there are 50,000 other apartments just like this one sitting completely empty. The reason apartments like this are empty is because of a 2019 rent control law that prevented how much building owners could raise the rent on rent stabilized apartments. And it's a well-meaning law.

They thought it would protect renters. But what's really happened is it's taken away the incentive for building owners to upgrade these apartments because there's no way for them to make their money back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Professor Lieberman, OK, the subject of affordable housing, the housing stock generally, how is democratic socialism going to apply to that subject? And what else is top of mind when you think about how things could change under Zohran Mamdani?

LIEBERMAN: I mean, I think the tapping into the anxiety about affordable housing and look, I used to live in New York City. I can tell you it's a very difficult place to live unless you're extremely wealthy. Tapping into that anxiety about affordable housing is clearly a successful strategy for him. Whether or not rent control is the right way to approach that problem, it's not something that I have a strong view about. But I think the idea that New York City, like a lot of places in the United States, have become extremely unequal and that affordability, that the ability to afford not just rent, but groceries and gasoline for your car and health insurance and all of the things that we need to live a safe and affordable life are increasingly out of reach for a lot of people.

That's the kind of issue that politicians like Mamdani and as I said, Sanders and others, are really able to tap into. So I think that the thread that runs through a lot of these politics.

SMERCONISH: Professor Lieberman, thank you so much. Have a great Thanksgiving. We appreciate you being here. Here's some social media reaction. Make sure you're following me on X. Also subscribe to my YouTube channel. Democratic socialism is an economic bait and switch that promises affordability but eventually leads to widespread dependence on the government.

I think Janette, that was part of what was coming forth in that video from the free press in terms of good intentions, created this situation where ultimately now you've got 50,000 ghost apartments.

[09:25:12]

I'm most interested to see how these two continue or not to get along. It's going to be fun to watch.

I want to remind you go to my website at Smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, is there more that unites than divides us? Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. And while some worry about an AI bubble, Elon Musk suggests artificial intelligence will make work optional and money irrelevant in the near future. Make sure you're when you're voting on the poll question, you're signing up for my daily newsletter, which you'll love and it's free. Scott Stantis also draws illustrations for the newsletter.

Check that out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:20]

SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel, and then I can react to your social media during the course of the program.

Watching your show right now. Sorry, but you're dead wrong about the talking points of Thanksgiving. I see your point, but it's way Pollyanna-ish. Maybe next year, Truth Be Thy Name.

What's the premise that I'm advancing? The premise is that all the experts, all the social scientists and psychologists, and you're going to see these stories because they're going to get printed tomorrow and Monday and Tuesday, don't talk politics at the table, it's only going to inflame everybody.

The only reason that it inflames everybody is because people don't recognize that there's actually more that unites us than divides us. And when I saw the Kettering-Gallup data come out, with a sample size of more than 20,000 people, suggesting like, here are five concrete areas of agreement. More than 80 percent of Americans, they want compromise, and they don't want violence. And they think that multiculturalism is actually good for the country, and that money has too much influence in our politics, and that there's a stark line between fact and fiction. I think I just named all five of them.

So, if politics should come up, if you don't want to wade into those waters, OK. But if it comes up, don't be afraid to say, you know the line, I see things differently. Really? That's your opinion. I see things differently.

And oh, by the way, maybe even pull out of your pocket the data that I've referenced. You know, maybe everybody would enjoy hearing that Americans actually have great area of agreement. And the reason that we don't recognize and appreciate that is because there's -- I know you don't want to go this far at your table. I won't want to go this far with mine either.

But the real truth is that we've incentivized, discord and disconnect and dissension. Too many people earning their livelihoods by fomenting dissent, OK? And propping up politicians who do likewise, and it's a vicious cycle, and that's the reason why we're all screwed.

More social media reaction, or did I just eat up all my time? I got time for one more. Yes. Come on, let's do it.

Most people do value the same things but you're missing the main point. The president, he thrives on division. And when half the --

Nope. I'm not going to -- I'm not -- I'm not going to say it's all his fault, because the issue that I'm discussing preceded Donald Trump. And unless we recognize what I'm talking about it will extend long beyond Donald Trump. You can't lay -- you can lay a lot of things off on Trump, but not sole responsibility for this.

This is the -- this is the Trump I like. Look at that. Mr. President, more of this. OK? And Mayor-elect Mamdani, you too. All right?

There's -- you know, like there's the poster of everything I'm talking about. And I wrote that commentary before I had any idea how yesterday would go or "The New York Post" would put that, you know, bromance on the front page.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is there more that unites than divides us? That's the poll question of the day today. Go to Smerconish.com and cast your ballot.

Elon Musk says, thanks to artificial intelligence, you're going to love what tomorrow brings. Some are worried that the A.I. bubble is about to burst the way the housing bubble did a couple of decades ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAY DALIO, FOUNDER, BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES: I think that the picture is pretty clear in that we are in that territory of a bubble.

KEN FISHER, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE CHAIR, FISHER INVESTMENTS: If it were a bubble few people would be calling it a bubble. When it's really a bubble most people are calling it an opportunity.

JONATHAN CORPINA, SR. MANAGING PARTNER, MERIDIAN EQUITY PARTNERS: I don't think we're trading at these such inflated levels where there's a bubble that's going to burst.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:38:04]

SMERCONISH: To paraphrase John Lennon, imagine no employment. Elon Musk, speaking earlier this week at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum, shared a bold vision due to advances in artificial intelligence. And he said with regard to 10 or 20 years from now, this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELON MUSK, CEO, TESLA: My prediction is that work will be optional.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Optional?

MUSK: Optional. So --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll take that.

MUSK: Yes. I mean, it will be like playing sports or a video game or something like that. If you want to work, you know, in the same way, like you can --you can go to the store and just buy some vegetables, or you could grow vegetables in your backyard. It's much harder to grow vegetables in your backyard, but some people still do it because they like growing vegetables.

That will be what work is like. Optional.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: It's a vision many with a lot less money than Musk share. But just as many, maybe more, fear the A.I. bubble is about to crash and may bring down with it the economy. We've had bubbles before, of course, notably the housing bubble of the early to mid-2000s, which led to a financial crisis and a deep recession.

It's possible we're going through something similar right now. The market has been bidding up a handful of tech stocks for some time, and they dominate the financial world. And if you've been watching the market these past couple of weeks, you may think the bubble is starting to burst.

On October 29th, Nasdaq was at its highest ever, hitting 24,000. Just over 24,000. Friday, where did it close, 22,273. Talking to us about A.I. is Erik Hirsch and Sinead Bovell.

Hirsch is the co-CEO of Hamilton Lane, one of the leading private market investment firms in the world. They have over a trillion in assets under management and supervision. Bovell, a tech entrepreneur and futurist who advises companies and governments on the societal impact of technology and artificial intelligence.

[09:40:00]

Sinead, you first. Musk says work optional. Is that possible?

SINEAD BOVELL, TECH ENTREPRENEUR AND FUTURIST: I would say he's right about it being something that's unrecognizable in the next 10 to 20 years. I think work will be entirely transformed from the nature of work to what we call work, to how frequently we work. Maybe we're looking at something two to three days a week. That is definitely in the realm of possibility and actually likelihood.

The idea of an optional work future, nobody can predict it. Maybe 40 years out that could be something we're looking at.

SMERCONISH: Sinead, who pays for me not to work?

BOVELL: Right. And so, that is the big question. What are the economics of this future?

At this point in time, there's still a lot of question marks. Even economists are out on what that would look like. There will still be some form of scarcity and competition, and likely something new that we value. But if we head towards a more optional work world, say, in 40-50 years, the jury is still out on what that actually looks like in terms of the economy itself.

SMERCONISH: Erik, I had a -- an academic from the University of Louisville who is an A.I. expert tell me that five years from now we'll be at 99 percent unemployment. OK. He then backed off on the five years, but he said real soon that's where were headed. What's your thought?

ERIK HIRSCH, CO-CEO, HAMILTON LANE: I think, generally, what you see when you see technology that is truly globally going to change everything, people tend to accelerate the timetables. So, I don't see that kind of impact in the next time. So, I think that five-year period, as he also acknowledged, doesn't seem realistic. But if the impact is here now and the impact is going to do nothing but continue to grow.

SMERCONISH: So, Erik, the concentration of all of these A.I. stocks is the dominant force of the market. Does that worry you too much concentration of power in just six or five hands?

HIRSCH: Yes. Michael, I think that's the issue. I don't think the sort of the bubble kind of connotation sort of signals that this isn't real. This is very real. But it's so real right now that today you're seeing about 35 percent of the entire S&P market value in the hands of seven companies.

Nvidia alone is almost eight percent of the S&P 500. You have to go back to the late 60s, early 70s to see something that similar. But back then, the top 10 biggest companies weren't very correlated, IBM, Exxon, Xerox, Eastman Kodak. I'll note that a lot of those are not powerhouses today, but the concentration issue and how intertwined these companies are, I think, that's the concern.

SMERCONISH: Sinead, how worried are you about this bubble? I had Andrew Ross Sorkin on my radio program talking about his book, "1929," just this week. And in the book, he said, we need to remember how easily we forget. We always seem to lose track of what has transpired in the past and think, well, it's never going to happen again in the future. What's your level of concern?

BOVELL: I think Erik is right that the technology is real. This is a general-purpose technology. It will change everything. But the timeline of the investments may not match the reality of how long this technology will take to transform the economy and to birth a new economy.

So, is the financial story starting to get a little ahead of the technological story? It is. Could a bubble burst? It is absolutely possible.

But the long run trajectory of the technology still holds. But the market concentration is concerning, and I don't think people realize we are all invested in this A.I. story, because if you have a pension fund or an index fund, as we spoke about the market concentration, we are all part of this.

So, I think, it's not impossible that a bubble does burst in the short run. Maybe around the data centers, because that's where the longest term and the biggest bets are made. But the long-term trajectory of this technology is real.

SMERCONISH: Sinead, how concerned are you -- this is -- this is not really a market question, but more of a government question. How concerned are you about the lack of regulation of A.I. generally?

BOVELL: I think I'm concerned in many regards from the lack of regulation of A.I., but also even the workforce. Right? We know the workforce is going to transform. What is the plan to support workers through that transformation?

Tech leaders are telling us what they're building and what they're optimizing for. We don't really hear a lot of talk about what it means for workers in that economy from governments. And then in terms of the regulation, yes, it keeps -- it's -- it's on. It's off. It's with states. It's not with states.

That type of uncertainty, it's bad for societal trust. It's also bad for businesses. They don't know what the realm of boundaries they are playing within. So, I think we just need clarity across the board and we don't really see that from government.

SMERCONISH: Erik, you're a major employer. What does this mean for your workforce in the future?

HIRSCH: This is impacting and is going to impact almost every position. Today, this is not so much about replacing jobs.

[09:45:01]

It's about making your workforce much more efficient. But, Michael, in doing that, what that translates into near term is that you're just not hiring as many people as you used to, and you're seeing that right now.

This is one of the worst job markets for recent college graduates that we have seen in decades. And one of the big reasons for that is A.I., that a lot of those entry level jobs are being reduced, or one person can do the work today of two or three, and that just shrinks the number of employers -- employees that you're going to need. And we're seeing that in the data and the job specs already right now.

SMERCONISH: Sinead, if you were advising a 20 something or someone in their teens looking at this developing picture and worried about selecting a career path that's going to be around, you would say what?

BOVELL: I would say, you have to change your expectation of what a career looks like. The idea that you have a job title and you work for a company that's going to go away. We're stepping in towards more of an independent workforce where we work for a variety of different companies, applying our skills on different projects.

So, start to move towards thinking about yourself as an entrepreneur. And you're going to hold a few jobs or a few different projects for a few companies. So, start thinking of yourself in that way. More gig work, more contract-based work.

That before used to be more of the on -- the on the fringe or on the boundary. That's the dominant structure. Work is going to look different. So, think less about your job title and think more about building skills, especially A.I. skills, because that is going to be the foundation of the workforce going forward.

SMERCONISH: Eric Hirsch, button this up. Quick final comment from you.

HIRSCH: I think the technology is real. The technology is here. The technology is enormously impactful.

And that said, we all have a lot of money tied up right now in a small number of companies that are dominating the economy. That tends not to end great.

SMERCONISH: Sinead Bovell, Erik Hirsch, we appreciate both of you. Here's some social media reaction. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel. Perhaps, I'll read your comment on air. From the world of X.

Much like when we were told computers would lead to skyrocketing unemployment, people will adjust. Embrace A.I., learn --

I don't agree with this. This -- I get the point. Like, oh, they warned us about television and now they want to warn us about the impact of technology on kids. Except this -- this could put us all out of business. Maybe in a good way, if Elon Musk is right, you know, people are going to be painting and listening to music. But who's paying for that?

Unless it's the seven A.I. companies that are driving the market right now. And maybe that's the -- maybe the that's the answer. I find it unsettling. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is there more that unites than divides us? Please sign up for the newsletter while you're there. It's free and it's worthy. You'll get it seven days a week. You get the work of illustrators like Steve Breen. Check that out. And also, Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:21]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the poll results so far, 31,095 have voted. Is there more that unites us than divides us? That's encouraging, 76 percent of us say, yes, there is. Maybe that's your conversation starter on Thursday. Like, oh, I was watching Smerconish on CNN on Saturday. And they had a poll that suggested three quarters believe there's more that unites us than divides us. And it was backed up by all this data from Gallup, where there's agreement among 80 percent of Americans on like five core issues that pertain to democracy. And then the conversation begins.

All right, follow me on X and subscribe to my YouTube channel. And perhaps I'll be reading your comment on air. From the world of X.

Michael, love your -- whoa, how did this get in here? Love your commentary today. Pure fan -- oh, OK. OK. It was too -- it was too good, right?

Pure fantasy and delusion, of course. I will be contacting you shortly with a bridge that I have for sale.

Damn it. I was so excited. Like, it's normally so negative, like that. But, Jay, the data supports what I'm saying. Like, maybe it's fantasy to think that people will advance the conversation on Thursday, but you can't deny the supporting information that I'm bringing to make the case.

OK, more social media reaction. What do we have? From the world of X as well.

The flaw in your analysis is that today, people don't have a common set of facts. Your reality is shaped by your news source.

Robert Weinman, you are correct in that. And you know what my prescription is? Change the channel. Whatever channel it is, people are so locked into their media silos and you've got to mix up your media diet.

I mean, I hate to be a huckster for my newsletter, but it's free. But that's why I created it. Because every day I hand select 20 aggregated links that provide media balance.

And when you open up your iPhone, you're getting it from all sources. And that's the only way, I think, that you can understand what's really going on.

Give me some more if we have time. I love doing this. I could do this for the whole --

All I know is that the more government is involved, the worse the outcome is. The more government is involved, the worse that the outcome is.

I guess this relates to socialism and communism and capitalism and democratic socialism. The more government is involved, the worse things are. Yes, I understand, except on some of those core delivery of -- you wouldn't say that government is in involved in the police department and therefore it's -- it's anything less than it should be or the fire department or the national security or managing Social Security and so forth.

I mean, there's a need for a government function in a lot of programs that candidly, if you step back and look at them, you'd have to say they're socialist in nature or they've got shades of democratic socialism.

[09:55:06]

More social media reaction. What do we have?

I value America with love. I don't spend my time and dinner table with people who support someone who calls -- you don't support -- you won't share your table.

OK. So, Iluvpolitix says, I don't want at my Thanksgiving table people with whom I disagree politically and let's call it out. And you're also saying, especially those who are supportive of MAGA.

By definition, you're reducing your table by half. And I don't think that that's a prescription for making things better. You've already heard it from me. I think instead, for those who are a butter knife away with whom you may have political disagreement, you use that opportunity to not talk about the areas of disagreement, but the area of commonality. And we have tons of those, which is the result of today's poll question as well.

Don't pursue that strategy. Avoidance is never the answer. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. I thank you so much for watching. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving and I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)