Northern European capitalism settles the argument that you can have billionaires and universal healthcare. So what works? Capitalism that sits on a bed of empathy where we redistribute income to the middle class, which is the primary engine of capitalism. One of the arguments on the right is that the middle class is a self-occurring mechanism or organism. It's not. It will die unless we redistribute income into the middle. In today's office hours, we discuss the dangers of surveillance technology, how to reduce poverty, and whether young men are finding a way out of the manosphere.
I haven't seen these questions. I'm a bit freaked out. I don't know if I have a lot to offer here. Anyways, that won't stop me. Question number one. Hey, Scott. Nick from Western New York again. I have a question about automated surveillance technology. First of all, how do you feel about the implementation of technologies like Flock and other staring or passive systems that utilize AI to flag different markers? My local community's implemented some of these systems. A lot of people are pushing back on them. I personally feel that it's an invasion of people's privacy, but I'm curious what your thoughts are and what the successful path to implementation or pushback is other than the courts, because it doesn't seem as though the Supreme Court or higher courts are receptive to the argument that this is a violation of people's privacy. So that tells me that collective action is required. I'm curious if you can just kind of give us some thoughts on these technologies in general, their return for society as well as their cost, as well as what we can do as communities if we have strong feelings about this outside of simply going to court. Thank you.
Super thoughtful question. So just some data here. Private surveillance has reached a tipping point and is now being massively or has hit mass adoption, if you will. There are more than 90,000 Flock cameras in use around the US. A 2023 report estimated that 10 million Americans own Ring cameras. Roughly one in five American households have some form of video-enabled doorbell. Surveillance is up and no accident, crime is down. 2024 to 2025 marked the single largest decrease in violent crime and murder in the US since 1937. Think about that. For all of the shitposting of government and catastrophizing, crime is at historic lows. And there are other factors than technology or surveillance or the fact that you'll probably get caught if you commit a crime. From 2024 to 2025, violent crime decreased 9%, property crime decreased 12.4%, and motor vehicle theft decreased 23%. Deloitte reported smart technologies could help reduce crime by 30 to 40% and cut emergency response times by 20 to 35%. Data collection is expanding. Flock network scans more than 20 billion license plates a month. 20 billion a month. Meta embedded facial recognition in its new smart glasses, a feature that, if enabled, would let wearers pull up information about people in their field of view. Critics argue it would allow stalkers, abusers, and federal agents to identify strangers in public. This is a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment protects against government surveillance, but it doesn't constrain private companies or citizens. A Ring doorbell owner can voluntarily share footage with law enforcement without the consent of anyone captured on camera. Even when owners decline to share footage, Ring and other smart doorbell data are subject to subpoena. Okay, so this is safety versus surveillance. This is in some a free society involves costs, and one of those costs is crime. If we wanted to do away with search and seizure laws, crime would go down. But there's a balance, right? If you own a property, you should have the right to put a camera on it. And if it decreases crime, that's going to create incentive to have more Ring cameras, if you will. I find that in general, people talk a big game about privacy concerns, and then they will give Uber all of their data. Think about Uber. With a hack and a thin layer of AI, you could pretty easily determine if someone just terminated a pregnancy, their HIV status, if they're having affairs, their sexual orientation. You can figure out a lot about people based on when and where they are going. And yet, we still give Uber all of our data because we love seeing that our QX60 is just around the corner. Why is he turning that way anyway? So, I don't think you're going to get in the way of this mass adoption. What I think is important is that we have really strong laws and judges that err on the side of not admitting evidence unless it is a real threat, that it is a violent crime, something that has to do something with national defense. Otherwise, that data is not admissible. In London and New York, you're on candid camera. Supposedly, you can't go 8 or 12 feet in either city without being on camera. And they did that because of the terrorist bombings, I think it was from the IRA in the 80s in Britain. And since 9/11, basically, you could argue Manhattan is a surveillance city. Not a surveillance state, but a surveillance city. But there's generally speaking some laws in place where it is very difficult sometimes to submit that data as evidence. I, for the most part, believe that surveillance and tracking is something that you're not going to get in the way of and that has a lot of benefits but requires really stringent laws. I don't think data admissible in family court should be, unless there's a crime involved, should be submissible. I mean, you have red light cameras. I guess that's technically submissible as evidence. But I think we have to have judges and laws that err on the side, unless it qualifies potentially as a felony, that type of surveillance evidence is not submissible. And the judges err on the side of privacy. There's a fulcrum. There's a tension between privacy and using it as a technology to ensure we continue to see a decline in crime. So what do we need? We need thoughtful laws and we need thoughtful judges and we need to figure out what is that balance. But I would argue right now the surveillance economy, if you will, is yielding more upside than downside.
Support for the show comes from Gusto. When you're dreaming about your future business, I'm willing to bet that at no point were you ever dreaming about doing payroll taxes. But still, every quarter there they are sitting on your desk. Luckily, Gusto can handle that part quietly in the background so you can stop dreading the calendar. Gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It's all-in-one, remote friendly, and incredibly easy to use so you can pay, hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere. Automatic payroll, tax filing, simple direct deposits, health benefits, commuter benefits, workers comp, 401k, you name it. Gusto makes it simple and has options for nearly every budget. Unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price. That means no hidden fees and no surprises. You can save time with built-in automated tools, offer letters, onboarding docs, direct deposit, and more. It's quick and simple to switch with Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, you don't have to pay a cent until your first payroll. Try Gusto today at gusto.com/propg and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com/propg. One more time, gusto.com/propg.
Support for the show comes from Upwork. Here's the thing about growing a business. Eventually, you hit a point where you can't do everything yourself. Sometimes the fastest way forward is bringing in the right expert at exactly the right time. That's where Upwork comes in. Upwork is a one-stop platform where you can find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across more than 125 categories. Whether you're filling a skill gap, launching a new project, or scaling your team without adding full-time headcount, Upwork makes it easy. You can browse profiles, review past work, and even get help defining the roles so you can hire with confidence and keep projects moving. And if you're looking for top-tier talent, Upwork Business Plus gives you access to the top 1% of freelancers on the platform. AI-powered matching helps connect you with the right expert in under 6 hours so you can spend less time searching and more time getting work done. Plus, Upwork handles the operational details from contracts to payments so you can stay focused on growing your business. Visit upwork.com/propg right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com/propg to connect with the top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upwork.com/propg.
Question number two comes from a listener who texted us. Hi Scott, I've been thinking about capitalism. I recognize all of the positive aspects that you discuss. My question is, what do we do about poverty? There has to be a solution. Okay. So, some data. Mass poverty has actually been the norm for most of history. Markets and growth are the only thing that has ever reversed it at scale. The enemy, the antidote to poverty, I believe is economic growth that leverages self-interest, which is capitalism. In 1950, about 60% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, it's about 1 in 10. We don't have a poverty problem as much as we have a distribution problem. Maybe I'll come back to that. Some stats regarding poverty in our country, the US. 14% of children, one in seven, and 10% of all Americans live below the poverty line. I think you can argue that's pretty much unacceptable in a nation that has registered unprecedented prosperity and wealth. From 2021 to 2024, 6 million children fell below the poverty line. Columbia University Center on Poverty and Social Policy attributes this reversal to the expiration of the expanded child tax credit. Practices that are proven to combat poverty. How do you combat it? Tax credits for children. A certain minimum. I don't like my friend Andrew Yang talked about universal basic income. He screwed up with the word universal. There should just be basic income and basic services and a stronger social safety net. Capitalism gets a bad name because the general assumption is that capitalism involves forgetting about the losers. Capitalism is winners and losers. Lower taxes, less government involvement, and you're going to have more inequality. Americans have opted for inequality because capitalism shows that as a whole the pie grows and on the whole most people are better off. There are losers. However, it doesn't have to be the Hunger Games. People mistake socialism for more empathy and concern. The problem is socialism, the actual term, means government controls the means of production and decides what businesses should get what tax credits. When you implement true socialism, you end up with warehouses of unsold DeLoreans in Ireland or Air France or worse, North Korea or East Germany. What I think most people who use the term socialism are talking about now is the type of capitalism we have had through most of the 20th century in America, and that is free markets such that companies are owned by private individuals and shareholders and practice full-body contact violence to create profits and innovation and margin, then are taxed at a fair rate and redistributed to the middle class and for services to the poor. When I ask people to point to where socialism has ever worked, they say, "Well, Northern Europe." That's not socialism. That's capitalism. They actually in many ways have more free-market competition than we do. Their president is investing in chip companies or steel companies, but they ensure that taxes are paid. We have about a $750 billion tax gap, which means people who owe taxes aren't paying. And then it's redistributed in terms of social services. Northern European capitalism settles the argument that you can have billionaires and universal healthcare. So what works? Capitalism that sits on a bed of empathy where we redistribute income to the middle class, which is the primary engine of capitalism. One of the arguments on the right is that the middle class is a self-occurring mechanism or organism. It's not. It will die unless we redistribute income into the middle. During Reagan, we had no capital gains tax that was lower than regular income. There was just one source of income. We should restore that. We have constantly had tax cuts on the wealthiest and corporations. We need to fix that. We need to restore child tax credits and we need to implement universal pre-K and universal health care. I believe that will actually grow the economy. The amount of money we are spending on the sick right now is double what other nations that consider themselves capitalists are spending on health care because they do a better job around investing in preventive healthcare. People aren't scared to go to the doctor and they also don't let private corporations monetize the health of their nation. So there are capitalist solutions here. It's just about electing the right leadership. And I worry we're swinging too far to the left, or going to swing too far to the left right now, or way too far to the right in my view in terms of our leadership. The pendulum is never at the middle and I worry that people believe that socialism or the government getting more involved in private industry is the way. No, it's not. So, let me give you some other examples. Refundable tax credits, including the CTC and EITC, earned income tax credit, have provided the largest anti-poverty benefits to children, working people, and people under 65. These are fixable problems that we can afford. Child tax credit, universal pre-K, socialized nationalized health care that over the long term will reduce expenditures, minimum wage of $20 to $25 an hour. And how do we pay for this? You have to pay for it. Get rid of the lower tax rate for capital gains. Money that money makes is not any more noble than money that sweat makes. Everyone should pay the same tax rates above a certain amount of income. Whether you got the income from being a partner at Goldman Sachs or you made it from selling stocks, get rid of the estate tax exemption. If your kid inherits $4 million, not $7 million, he or she's going to be fine. $120 trillion is going to be passed on to future generations in the next 50 years. We are not a dynastic country. That's something that differentiates us from America. If you want to leave enough money for your kid to have a house, maybe a trust fund, fine. But there's no reason that Bezos Jr. should get $60 billion versus $40 billion, for God's sakes. That kind of solves the problem right there. Capitalism works, but it has to have responsible, empathetic governance, which has been in short supply on both sides of the aisle since the Reagan years. That was a TED talk. Thanks for the question. We'll be right back after a quick break.
Support for the show comes from Vanta. What's the one thing in business that's spreading as fast as AI? AI risk. Every new tool your team signs up for, every vendor that turns on AI features, every new integration, each one is an opportunity for something to go wrong. And most security programs weren't built for AI's pace of growth. Enter Vanta. Vanta is the number one agentic trust platform used by over 16,000 fast-moving companies including Ramp, Cursor, and Harvey to ensure they're always audit-ready. And now Vanta is helping companies like yours watch for the risks that show up between audits across your vendors, your AI tools, and your whole environment. The Vanta agent works like a 24/7 GRC engineer in the background, finding issues, drafting fixes for you, and cutting vendor assessment time by up to 50%. Because demonstrating trust to customers and prospects can also be costly, time-intensive, and complex. But it's also critical to closing deals and unlocking next-level growth. Whether you're a fast-growing startup or a global enterprise, Vanta is here to help you automate your security and compliance and earn and prove trust. Get started today at vanta.com/profG. That's vanta.com/profG.
Welcome back. Question number three comes from reading in Atoria on Reddit. Scott, weirdly, my mom convinced me to start listening to you. That is weird. She bought me your book for Christmas last year, Notes on Being a Man. She made me watch Adolescence with her. I think honestly she thought I was becoming an incel. I'm just shy. I'm wondering if you see bits of hope for young men trying to get out of the manosphere since you started talking about it and writing about it, even just to calm the mothers of America. It's a thoughtful question. So, just some data. Drug overdose deaths in America, this is good news, have actually fallen three years in a row from 110,000 to 80,000 in 2024. That's the largest single-year drop the CDC has ever recorded, to roughly 70,000 last year. That's the lowest level since 2019. That's the good news. Men die of overdoses at more than twice the rate of women. And men's rate fell even further, down 27% in a single year versus 23% for women. The steepest decline of any age group: 15 to 24-year-olds down 37%. So something is working. I think a lot of young men, for a variety of reasons, are struggling. Biologically, the prefrontal cortex is less mature than a woman's. Economically, a lot of the on-ramps to the middle class without a college degree. Dudes are just not as good in school as women. I think the education system, K through 12, is biased against men. If boys aren't tired, what do we do in school? Ask someone to raise their hand, be a pleaser, use their fine motor skills, and that you just described is a girl. Boys are twice as likely to be suspended for the exact same behavior as a girl, five times as likely if it's a black boy. I think we need more male teachers in school. I think we need national service. I think we need more male mentorship programs. I think you should start kindergarteners, boys at six, girls at five, because boys are just behind. There needs to be immediate intervention with male mentorship when a boy loses a male mentor, a father through death, divorce, or abandonment. So there are absolutely programs that can fix a lot of this. Your mom is correct to be worried. There's a lot of media influencers who are taking advantage of lonely, struggling men that the government has overlooked and the left has ignored and the right has decided the way to fill that void is by trying to take women and non-whites back to the 50s, which is really dangerous. And some of the voices that have filled this void are really unproductive voices. The manosphere starts out positive. Be fit. Take control of your life. Be action-oriented. Make money. Try and find a mate. These are all positive things. But then it comes off the tracks and becomes about dominance and misogyny. And quite frankly, grift. The most famous manosphere characters are trying to convince you to sign up for their $50-a-month crypto university or, you know, Ponzi/pyramid grift scheme. The incel movement, I hate. You're shy. That's fine. I'm actually more introverted as I get older. But you need to put yourself in the company of other people and to get at least comfortable opening and expressing friendship and desires for mentorship. And my brother, you're going to have more success economically and romantically if you force yourself to develop a practice around approaching strangers and developing a rapport and a sense of resilience. I'm not suggesting you need to be a guy with a shiny suit approaching every woman or every person at a bar or calling people randomly and trying to sell them on stocks or what have you. I'm suggesting you need a basic certain minimum level of willingness to experience discomfort to establish contact with other people. And I hate the incel movement because it's giving men a hall pass to just sit in their basement and play and blame other people for their problems. No. The majority of men have been involuntarily celibate for the majority of their life through the majority of history. Only 40% of men have reproduced. You don't have a right to reproduce. You have to earn it like the rest of us. You have to develop a kindness practice, become economically viable, have a plan, work out, get someone to dress you modestly, for God's sake, smell okay, shower, groom, all of it. It is hard. And it's worth it. It's worth it. And the incel movement is nothing but a bunch of grifters trying to give men the excuse that it isn't hard work and they should take some pride in being alone and that it's not their fault and they should blame immigrants for their economic problems and women for the romantic problems. It's always been hard and guess what? Like anything that's really hard, it's worth it. But again, it sounds like you have a nice relationship with your mother and I very much appreciate the question and the fact that you're even watching these programs and dialing in with such a thoughtful question means, my brother, you're probably going to be just fine. But get out there. Get out there. Approach someone. Express friendship. Hey, do you want to grab a game? Express romantic interest. You want to grab coffee? And this is what you're going to get most of the time. No. And guess what? You're going to be fine. And so are they. And that's the key to success. The key to success, you're listening to someone right now. The most common word I have ever experienced is no. And guess what? That's how I got to great yeses. Get to no. Thanks for the question. That's all for this episode. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehours.com. Again, that's officehours.com. Or if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit and we might feature it in an upcoming episode.
